Open Access
12 April 2023 Deterministic all-optical quantum state sharing
Yingxuan Chen, Qiqi Zhu, Xutong Wang, Yanbo Lou, Shengshuai Liu, Jietai Jing
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Quantum state sharing, an important protocol in quantum information, can enable secure state distribution and reconstruction when part of the information is lost. In (k, n) threshold quantum state sharing, the secret state is encoded into n shares and then distributed to n players. The secret state can be reconstructed by any k players (k > n / 2), while the rest of the players get nothing. In the continuous variable regime, the implementation of quantum state sharing needs the feedforward technique, which involves optic-electro and electro-optic conversions. These conversions limit the bandwidth of the quantum state sharing. Here, to avoid the optic-electro and electro-optic conversions, we experimentally demonstrate (2, 3) threshold deterministic all-optical quantum state sharing. A low-noise phase-insensitive amplifier based on the four-wave mixing process is utilized to replace the feedforward technique. We experimentally demonstrate that any two of three players can cooperate to implement the reconstruction of the secret state, while the rest of the players cannot get any information. Our results provide an all-optical platform to implement arbitrary (k, n) threshold deterministic all-optical quantum state sharing and pave the way to construct the all-optical broadband quantum network.

1.

Introduction

Quantum information,1 which utilizes the laws of quantum mechanics to process and communicate information, is one of the key directions in quantum physics. Due to the introduction of the quantum effect, quantum information processing greatly improves the capacity of information processing and the security of communication. Therefore, quantum information has attracted extensive attention all over the world. In quantum information, discrete variable (DV)2 and continuous variable (CV)3 systems are two important platforms. In the DV system, the physical quantity that has a discrete spectrum is used to describe the quantum state, such as polarization and orbital angular momentum. The DV system has the advantage of being insensitive to losses.2 In contrast, in the CV system, the quantum state is described by the physical quantity that has a continuous spectrum, such as amplitude quadrature and phase quadrature. The CV system has the advantage of deterministic implementation.3 With the development of quantum technology, a series of quantum information protocols based on DV and CV systems have been developed, including quantum key distribution,4,5 quantum teleportation,614 entanglement swapping,1521 quantum dense coding,2227 quantum cloning,2832 and so on.

Among them, quantum state sharing (QSS), which enables secure state distribution and reconstruction, is an important quantum information protocol for constructing a quantum network. In this protocol, the dealer encodes a secret state into n shares and distributes them to n players. Any k players (k>n/2) can cooperate to reconstruct the secret state, while the rest of the nk players get nothing. Due to this feature, QSS can be used in quantum error correction in which up to nk nodes malfunction.33 QSS can also be utilized in the construction of scalable quantum information networks, the transmission of entanglement over faulty channels, and the implementation of multipartite quantum cryptography.33 The QSS was first proposed in the DV regime.34,35 Then, such protocol was transplanted to the CV regime.36 In the CV regime, the (2, 3) threshold deterministic QSS has been studied both in theory37 and experiment.37,38 However, the feedforward technique is needed for implementing QSS in the CV regime.38 The feedforward technique involves the optic-electro and electro-optic conversions, which limits the bandwidth of QSS. Therefore, to broaden the bandwidth of QSS, optic-electro and electro-optic conversions should be avoided.

In CV regime, all-optical QSS (AOQSS) based on a phase-insensitive amplifier (PIA), which avoids the feedforward technique in QSS, has been theoretically proposed.37 However, it is difficult to directly control the inherent noise coupled into the amplified output state of PIA.37 Therefore, such AOQSS has never been experimentally implemented. Here, we experimentally demonstrate (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS by utilizing a low-noise PIA based on a double-Λ configuration four-wave mixing (FWM) process.3944 We encode the secret state into three shares and distribute them to three players. We demonstrate that any two players can cooperate to retrieve the secret state, while the rest of the players get nothing. The average fidelity of all reconstruction structures is 0.74±0.02, which beats the corresponding classical limit of 2/3.

2.

Results

2.1.

Principle of AOQSS and Experimental Setup

The experimental setup of the deterministic AOQSS protocol is shown in Fig. 1. The Ti:sapphire laser, whose frequency is about 1 GHz blue detuned from the D1 line (5S1/2,F=25P1/2, 795 nm) of Rb85, is divided into two by a polarization beam splitter (PBS1). The vertically polarized one with a power of about 100 mW serves as the pump beam for generating Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) entangled source45 based on the FWM process.3944 Its waist is about 650  μm at the center of a 12-mm long hot Rb85 vapor cell whose temperature is stabilized at around 116.5°C. The Hamiltonian of the FWM process is given as44

Eq. (1)

H^=ira^EPR1a^EPR2+H.c.,
where a^EPR1 and a^EPR2 are the creation operators associated with EPR1 and EPR2, respectively. r denotes the interaction strength of the FWM process. H.c. is the Hermitian conjugate. The output fields of the FWM process can be expressed as44

Eq. (2)

a^EPR1(τ)=G1a^01+G11a^02,a^EPR2(τ)=G11a^01+G1a^02,
where a^01, a^02 are the annihilation operators of the vacuum input states. G1=cosh2(rτ) is the intensity gain of the FWM process, and τ is the interaction time. As shown in Fig. 1(e), in this FWM process, two pump photons convert to one a^EPR1 photon, which is red-detuned by 3.04 GHz from the pump beam, and one a^EPR2 photon, which is blue-detuned by 3.04 GHz from the pump beam. The horizontally polarized one from PBS1 is further divided into two beams by PBS2. To generate the secret coherent state a^in, which is redshifted by 3.04 GHz from the pump beam, we pass the weak one from PBS2 through an acousto-optic modulator. Then, classical amplitude and phase signals are encoded on the secret beam through an amplitude modulator (AM) and a phase modulator (PM), respectively. After that, a^in and a^EPR1 are combined by a beam splitter (BS1) whose transmittance is 1/2. The two outputs a^1 and a^2 are sent to player1 and player2, respectively. a^EPR2 is sent to player3 and denoted as a^3. To further enhance the security of the AOQSS protocol, additional Gaussian noise is encoded onto the three shares, which can be expressed as38

Eq. (3)

a^1=(a^ina^EPR1δN)/2,a^2=(a^in+a^EPR1+δN)/2,a^3=a^EPR2+δN*.

Fig. 1

The detailed experimental setup of the deterministic AOQSS protocol. (a) The detailed experimental scheme. (b) {1,2} reconstruction structure. (c) {1,3} reconstruction structure. (d) {2,3} reconstruction structure. HWP, half-wave plate; GL, Glan–laser polarizer; GT, Glan–Thompson polarizer; a^in, the annihilation operator associated with the secret coherent state; a^1, a^2, and a^3, the annihilation operators associated with three shares held by player1, player2, and player3, respectively. (e) Energy level diagram of the double-Λ scheme in the D1 line of Rb85. Δ, one-photon detuning; δ, two-photon detuning.

AP_5_2_026006_f001.png

The additional Gaussian noise is denoted by δN=(X^N+iY^N)/2, which has a mean of X^N=Y^N=0 and variance of Δ2X^N=Δ2Y^N=VN. The X^ (X^=a^+a^) and Y^ (Y^=ia^ia^) are the amplitude quadrature and phase quadrature of the state, respectively. Note that the additional Gaussian noise is introduced naturally in our EPR generation process. (See Sec. 1 of the Supplemental Material for the noise power spectra of a^in, a^1, a^2, and a^3.)

For the (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS protocol, there are three different reconstruction protocols. In this sense, we send these shares into three reconstruction boxes, which are indicated by Figs. 1(b)1(d) for {1,2}, {1,3}, and {2,3} structures, respectively. For the {1,2} reconstruction structure shown in Fig. 1(b), a^1 and a^2 are combined with 50:50BS2. The piezoelectric transducer (PZT1) placed in the path of a^1 is used to change the relative phase between a^1 and a^2. After locking the relative phase between a^1 and a^2 with a microcontrol unit,46 the BS2 has one bright output and one vacuum output. The bright output is the reconstructed state of the {1,2} structure. The quadratures of the output reconstructed state a^out can be expressed as37

Eq. (4)

X^out=X^1+X^22=X^in,Y^out=Y^1+Y^22=Y^in.

It can be seen that the {1,2} structure can completely reconstruct the secret state. {3} is the corresponding adversary structure, in which a^3 carries no information on the secret state.

For the {1,3} structure, the secret state reconstruction is implemented by amplifying a^1 with the help of a^3 in a PIA based on the FWM process. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the strong one from PBS2 serves as the pump for the PIA. It crosses with a^1 and a^3 symmetrically at the center of the second 12-mm long Rb85 vapor cell, whose temperature is stabilized at 118°C. The angle between a^3 and the pump beam is about 7 mrad. The PZT2 placed in the path of a^3 is used to change the relative phase between a^1 and a^3. {2} is the corresponding adversary structure. When the intensity gain of the PIA (G2) is set to 2, the quadratures of the output reconstructed state a^out can be expressed as

Eq. (5)

X^out=X^in+X^EPR2X^EPR1,Y^out=Y^inY^EPR2Y^EPR1.

The {2,3} structure is equivalent to the {1,3} structure in the (2, 3) threshold QSS.38 The {2,3} structure is shown in Fig. 1(d). {1} is the corresponding adversary structure. It can be seen that the functions of PIA are coupling the quadratures of a^3 into the output state and reaching the unity gain point when the gain of PIA is set to 2. In other words, the physical essence of this PIA is reconstructing the secret state.

To quantify the quality of the reconstructed state of deterministic AOQSS protocol, we utilize its fidelity F, which is defined as F=Ψin|ρout|Ψin.47 Assuming that all states involved are Gaussian and the secret state is a coherent state, the fidelity can be expressed as37,38

Eq. (6)

F=2e(kx+ky)/4/(1+Δ2X^out)(1+Δ2Y^out),
where kx=X^in2(1gx)2/(1+Δ2X^out), ky=Y^in2(1gy)2/(1+Δ2Y^out), gx=X^out/X^in, and gy=Y^out/Y^in. Without the help of the EPR entangled source, the maximum achievable fidelities of {1,2},{1,3}, and {2,3} reconstruction structures are F{1,2}clas=1,F{1,3}clas=1/2, and F{2,3}clas=1/2, respectively. Therefore, the classical fidelity limit of the (2, 3) threshold AOQSS protocol is Favgclas=F{1,2}clas+F{1,3}clas+F{2,3}clas3=2/3 (See Sec. 2 of the Supplemental Material for a detailed derivation). If the average fidelity is higher than the classical limit of AOQSS, the AOQSS succeeds.

To check the performance of the AOQSS, the reconstructed state a^out is measured by a balanced homodyne detection (BHD). The local oscillator (LO) is obtained by setting up a similar bright-seed setup, which is a few millimeters above the current beams. The relative phase between a^out and LO is changed by PZT3. The transimpedance gain of the balanced detector is 105  V/A, and the quantum efficiency of balanced detector is about 97%. The variances of the amplitude (locking the phase of BHD to 0) and phase (locking the phase of BHD to π/2) quadratures of a^out are analyzed by a spectrum analyzer (SA).

2.2.

Experimental Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the typical noise power results for {1,2} reconstruction structure. As shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), the blue dashed traces (orange solid traces) are the measured variances of amplitude quadrature and phase quadrature of a^in (a^out) with modulation signals at 1.5 MHz. The overlap between the modulation signal peaks of a^in and a^out shows that the input state a^in and output state a^out have the same amplitude (gx and gy are almost 1). To quantify the fidelity of {1,2} reconstruction structure, we turn off the modulation signals of the secret state and measure the amplitude and phase quadrature variances for the input secret state a^in (blue traces) and the reconstructed output state a^out (orange traces), as shown in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d), respectively. The corresponding fidelity of the {1,2} reconstruction structure is F{1,2}=0.99±0.01. This means that we almost retrieve the secret state, which is consistent with the theory.

Fig. 2

The typical noise power results for {1,2} reconstruction structure. (a) and (b) The amplitude and phase quadrature variances with classical modulations for the input secret state (blue dashed traces) and the output state (orange solid traces), respectively. (c) and (d) The amplitude and phase quadrature variances without classical modulations for the input secret state (blue traces) and the output state (orange traces) at 1.5 MHz, respectively. The vertical scale is normalized to the quadrature variances of the input secret state.

AP_5_2_026006_f002.png

The typical noise power results for the deterministic AOQSS with {1,3} reconstruction structure are shown in Fig. 3. The noise spectra with modulations for amplitude and phase quadratures are shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. The blue dashed trace in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) shows the amplitude (phase) quadrature variance of the input state. The amplitude (phase) quadrature variance of the output state without the EPR entangled source is represented by the orange solid trace in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). The overlap of the peaks on the blue dashed traces and the orange solid traces shows that the gains gx and gy of the {1,3} reconstruction structure are almost unity. To quantify the fidelity of the AOQSS with the {1,3} reconstruction structure, we also turn off the modulation signals and measure the amplitude and phase quadrature variances for the input secret state a^in and the reconstructed output state a^out, as shown in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d), respectively. In Figs. 3(c) and 3(d), the blue traces show the amplitude and phase quadrature variances of the input secret state, respectively. With the help of the entangled source, the variances of the amplitude and phase quadratures of a^out are shown as the green traces in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d), respectively. The relative phase between the two EPR entangled beams is scanned by PZT2. When the variance of the amplitude (phase) quadrature of the output state reaches the minima of the green trace in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d), the relative phase between a^EPR1 and a^EPR2 corresponds to X^EPR2X^EPR1 (Y^EPR2+Y^EPR1). Therefore, we can treat the minima of green traces in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d) as the variances of X^out and Y^out of the reconstructed output state, respectively. Consequently, the fidelity of the AOQSS with the {1,3} structure is F{1,3}=0.62±0.02, as the variances of X^out and Y^out are 3.50±0.21  dB and 3.46±0.20  dB above the corresponding variances of X^in and Y^in, respectively. The orange traces show the variances of the output state without the help of the EPR entangled source, which are referred to the corresponding classical {1,3} structure. We can see that, without the EPR entangled source, the amplitude (phase) variance of the output state is 4.86±0.12  dB (4.81±0.11  dB) above the input state a^in. It can be calculated that the fidelity of the classical {1,3} structure (corresponding classical limit) is 0.49±0.01. Figures 3(e) and 3(f) show the noise spectra for the adversary structure {2}. The peaks of orange traces (quadrature variances of a^2 with modulation) are about 3 dB below the peak of the blue traces (quadrature variances of a^in with modulation), which means that gx and gy are almost 1/2. Then, based on the red traces (quadrature variances of a^2 without modulation) and the black traces (quadrature variances of a^in without modulation) in Figs. 3(e) and 3(f), the obtained fidelity for the {2} structure is only F{2}=0.09±0.01. In other words, player2 gets almost nothing. The typical results for the AOQSS with a {2,3} reconstruction structure are shown in the Sec. 3 of the Supplemental Material, which are similar to Fig. 3. The obtained fidelity for the AOQSS with a {2,3} structure is F{2,3}=0.61±0.02. In this sense, the average fidelity for the (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS is Favg=0.74±0.02, which beats the corresponding theoretical (experimental) classical limit of 2/3 (about 0.66). In other words, we successfully experimentally implement the (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS. It is worth noting that the reconstructed state of our AOQSS is in the same form as the secret state, which is distinct from the experiments in Refs. [37] and [38], whose reconstructed state has a different form from the secret state. This results in the directly measured fidelity of the experiments in Refs. [37] and [38] being very low, and a posteriori must be applied to the reconstructed state to obtain a meaningful fidelity. Therefore, our AOQSS without a posteriori is essentially different from the experiments in Refs. [37] and [38].

Fig. 3

The typical noise power results for {1,3} reconstruction structure and the corresponding adversary structure {2}. (a) and (b) The amplitude and phase quadrature variances with classical modulations for the input secret state (blue dashed traces) and the output state (orange solid traces) of the classical {1,3} structure, respectively. (c) and (d) The amplitude and phase quadrature variances without the classical modulations for the input secret state (blue traces), the output state of {1,3} structure (green traces), and the corresponding classical {1,3} structure (orange traces), respectively. The center frequency of SA is set to 1.5 MHz. (e) and (f) The amplitude and phase quadrature variances of {2} structure, respectively. The input secret state and the output state with (without) classical modulations are shown as the blue (black) traces and the orange (red) traces, respectively. The vertical scale is normalized to the quadrature variances of the input secret state.

AP_5_2_026006_f003.png

To show the advantage of our deterministic AOQSS protocol, which avoids the optic-electro and electro-optic conversions, we scan the analysis frequency from 1.4 to 2.4 MHz and measure the fidelities for AOQSS with the {1,3} structure, as shown in Fig. 4. The fidelity of AOQSS versus analysis frequency is shown as the blue trace, while the corresponding classical limit is shown as the orange trace. It can be seen that as the analysis frequency ranges from 1.4 to 2.4 MHz, the fidelities of AOQSS with the {1,3} structure can beat the corresponding classical limit, which shows that the AOQSS can be successfully implemented within this sideband frequency range. When the analysis frequency is larger than 2 MHz, the slight decrease of fidelity is due to the decrease of the squeezing of the EPR entangled source.

Fig. 4

The experimental fidelities versus the sideband frequency. The fidelities of deterministic AOQSS with a {1,3} reconstruction structure and corresponding experimental classical limit are shown as the blue trace and the orange trace, respectively. The error bars are obtained from the standard deviations of multiple repeated measurements.

AP_5_2_026006_f004.png

To implement a scaled-up version of the (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS, there is no need to increase the number of active elements (PIAs) required by the players for retrieving the secret state, while the number of EPR entangled sources (two-mode squeezed states) required by the dealer should be increased.37,48 In other words, in a scaled-up AOQSS, the dealer uses more EPR entangled sources and more passive elements (BSs) to encode a secret state. Correspondingly, a PIA and more passive elements (BSs) are utilized to retrieve the secret state. For example, a (3, 5) threshold deterministic AOQSS can be implemented by increasing one set of EPR entanglements and some passive elements, as shown in Sec. 4 of the Supplemental Material.

3.

Conclusion

We have experimentally implemented a (2, 3) threshold deterministic AOQSS without a posteriori and the optic-electro and electro-optic conversions. We demonstrate that any two players can cooperate to retrieve the secret state, while the other player gets nothing. The average fidelity of all reconstruction structures is 0.74±0.02. More importantly, we have shown that AOQSS can be successfully implemented for the bandwidth ranging from 1.4 to 2.4 MHz. Our results provide a promising scheme to construct an all-optical broadband multipartite quantum network.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12225404, 11874155, 91436211, 11374104, and 12174110), the Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. 2021-01-07-00-08-E00100), the Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader (Grant No. 22XD1400700), the Basic Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (Grant No. 20JC1416100), the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (Grant No. 17ZR1442900), the Minhang Leading Talents (Grant No. 201971), the Shanghai Sailing Program (Grant No. 21YF1410800), the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant No. CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0893), the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (Grant No. 2019SHZDZX01), and the 111 Project (Grant No. B12024). The authors declare no competing interests.

Code, Data, and Materials Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1. 

A. Galindo and M. A. Martín-Delgado, “Information and computation: classical and quantum aspects,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 74 (2), 347 –423 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.347 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2002). Google Scholar

2. 

J.-W. Pan et al., “Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 84 (2), 777 –838 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.777 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2012). Google Scholar

3. 

S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, “Quantum information with continuous variables,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 77 (2), 513 –577 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2005). Google Scholar

4. 

V. Scarani et al., “The security of practical quantum key distribution,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 81 (3), 1301 –1350 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1301 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2009). Google Scholar

5. 

F. Xu et al., “Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 92 (2), 025002 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.025002 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2020). Google Scholar

6. 

C. H. Bennett et al., “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 70 (13), 1895 –1899 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1993). Google Scholar

7. 

D. Bouwmeester et al., “Experimental quantum teleportation,” Nature, 390 (6660), 575 –579 https://doi.org/10.1038/37539 (1997). Google Scholar

8. 

S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, “Teleportation of continuous quantum variables,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 80 (4), 869 –872 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.869 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1998). Google Scholar

9. 

A. Furusawa et al., “Unconditional quantum teleportation,” Science, 282 (5389), 706 –709 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5389.706 SCIEAS 0036-8075 (1998). Google Scholar

10. 

M. Riebe et al., “Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms,” Nature, 429 (6993), 734 –737 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02570 (2004). Google Scholar

11. 

S. Olmschenk et al., “Quantum teleportation between distant matter qubits,” Science, 323 (5913), 486 –489 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167209 SCIEAS 0036-8075 (2009). Google Scholar

12. 

M. Huo et al., “Deterministic quantum teleportation through fiber channels,” Sci. Adv., 4 (10), eaas9401 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aas9401 STAMCV 1468-6996 (2018). Google Scholar

13. 

T. C. Ralph, “All-optical quantum teleportation,” Opt. Lett., 24 (5), 348 –350 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.24.000348 OPLEDP 0146-9592 (1999). Google Scholar

14. 

S. Liu, Y. Lou and J. Jing, “Orbital angular momentum multiplexed deterministic all-optical quantum teleportation,” Nat. Commun., 11 (1), 3875 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17616-4 NCAOBW 2041-1723 (2020). Google Scholar

15. 

M. Żukowski et al., “‘Event-ready-detectors’ Bell experiment via entanglement swapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 71 (26), 4287 –4290 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4287 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1993). Google Scholar

16. 

J.-W. Pan et al., “Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 80 (18), 3891 –3894 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3891 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1998). Google Scholar

17. 

X.-S. Ma et al., “Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping,” Nat. Phys., 8 (6), 479 –484 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2294 NPAHAX 1745-2473 (2012). Google Scholar

18. 

M. Halder et al., “Entangling independent photons by time measurement,” Nat. Phys., 3 (10), 692 –695 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys700 NPAHAX 1745-2473 (2007). Google Scholar

19. 

X. Jia et al., “Experimental demonstration of unconditional entanglement swapping for continuous variables,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 93 (25), 250503 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.250503 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2004). Google Scholar

20. 

N. Takei et al., “High-fidelity teleportation beyond the no-cloning limit and entanglement swapping for continuous variables,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 94 (22), 220502 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.220502 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2005). Google Scholar

21. 

S. Liu et al., “All-optical entanglement swapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 128 (6), 060503 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.060503 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2022). Google Scholar

22. 

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 69 (20), 2881 –2884 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1992). Google Scholar

23. 

K. Mattle et al., “Dense coding in experimental quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 76 (25), 4656 –4659 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4656 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1996). Google Scholar

24. 

S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, “Dense coding for continuous variables,” Phys. Rev. A, 61 (4), 042302 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.042302 (2000). Google Scholar

25. 

X. Li et al., “Quantum dense coding exploiting a bright Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 88 (4), 047904 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.047904 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2002). Google Scholar

26. 

X.-M. Hu et al., “Beating the channel capacity limit for superdense coding with entangled ququarts,” Sci. Adv., 4 (7), eaat9304 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat9304 STAMCV 1468-6996 (2018). Google Scholar

27. 

Y. Chen et al., “Orbital angular momentum multiplexed quantum dense coding,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 127 (9), 093601 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.093601 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2021). Google Scholar

28. 

V. Bužek and M. Hillery, “Quantum copying: beyond the no-cloning theorem,” Phys. Rev. A, 54 (3), 1844 –1852 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1844 (1996). Google Scholar

29. 

V. Scarani et al., “Quantum cloning,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 77 (4), 1225 –1256 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1225 RMPHAT 0034-6861 (2005). Google Scholar

30. 

A. Lamas-Linares et al., “Experimental quantum cloning of single photons,” Science, 296 (5568), 712 –714 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1068972 SCIEAS 0036-8075 (2002). Google Scholar

31. 

U. L. Andersen, V. Josse and G. Leuchs, “Unconditional quantum cloning of coherent states with linear optics,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 94 (24), 240503 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.240503 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2005). Google Scholar

32. 

S. Liu et al., “All-optical optimal n-to-m quantum cloning of coherent states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 126 (6), 060503 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.060503 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2021). Google Scholar

33. 

Quantum Communications and Cryptography, Taylor & Francis, London (2006). Google Scholar

34. 

R. Cleve, D. Gottesman and H.-K. Lo, “How to share a quantum secret,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 83 (3), 648 –651 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.648 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (1999). Google Scholar

35. 

F.-G. Deng et al., “Multiparty quantum-state sharing of an arbitrary two-particle state with Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen pairs,” Phys. Rev. A, 72 (4), 044301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.044301 (2005). Google Scholar

36. 

T. Tyc and B. C. Sanders, “How to share a continuous-variable quantum secret by optical interferometry,” Phys. Rev. A, 65 (4), 042310 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042310 (2002). Google Scholar

37. 

A. M. Lance et al., “Continuous-variable quantum-state sharing via quantum disentanglement,” Phys. Rev. A, 71 (3), 033814 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.033814 (2005). Google Scholar

38. 

A. M. Lance et al., “Tripartite quantum state sharing,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 92 (17), 177903 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.177903 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2004). Google Scholar

39. 

C. F. McCormick et al., “Strong relative intensity squeezing by four-wave mixing in rubidium vapor,” Opt. Lett., 32 (2), 178 –180 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.32.000178 OPLEDP 0146-9592 (2007). Google Scholar

40. 

V. Boyer et al., “Entangled images from four-wave mixing,” Science, 321 (5888), 544 –547 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158275 SCIEAS 0036-8075 (2008). Google Scholar

41. 

A. M. Marino et al., “Tunable delay of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen entanglement,” Nature, 457 (7231), 859 –862 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07751 (2009). Google Scholar

42. 

R. C. Pooser et al., “Low-noise amplification of a continuous-variable quantum state,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 103 (1), 010501 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.010501 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2009). Google Scholar

43. 

S. Liu, Y. Lou and J. Jing, “Interference-induced quantum squeezing enhancement in a two-beam phase-sensitive amplifier,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 123 (11), 113602 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.113602 PRLTAO 0031-9007 (2019). Google Scholar

44. 

M. Jasperse, L. D. Turner and R. E. Scholten, “Relative intensity squeezing by four-wave mixing with loss: an analytic model and experimental diagnostic,” Opt. Express, 19 (4), 3765 –3774 https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.003765 OPEXFF 1094-4087 (2011). Google Scholar

45. 

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev., 47 (10), 777 –780 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 PHRVAO 0031-899X (1935). Google Scholar

46. 

K. Huang et al., “Microcontroller-based locking in optics experiments,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., 85 (12), 123112 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4903869 RSINAK 0034-6748 (2014). Google Scholar

47. 

B. Schumacher, “Quantum coding,” Phys. Rev. A, 51 (4), 2738 –2747 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738 (1995). Google Scholar

48. 

T. Tyc, D. J. Rowe and B. C. Sanders, “Efficient sharing of a continuous-variable quantum secret,” J. Phys. A, 36 (27), 7625 –7637 https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/36/27/314 (2003). Google Scholar

Biography

Yingxuan Chen is a PhD candidate in optics at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy, East China Normal University under the supervision of Professor Jietai Jing. Her current research interests include quantum optics and quantum information, especially quantum communication protocols.

Qiqi Zhu is a PhD candidate in optics at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy, East China Normal University under the supervision of Professor Jietai Jing. His current research interests include quantum optics and quantum communication.

Xutong Wang is a PhD candidate in optics at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy, East China Normal University under the supervision of Professor Jietai Jing. His current research interests include quantum optics and quantum information, especially the generation and distribution of high-capacity and multi-beam quantum light sources.

Yanbo Lou is an associate professor at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy of East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. He received his PhD in optics from the East China Normal University in 2021. His current research interests include high-capacity quantum information protocols, high-precision quantum metrology, and high-resolution quantum imaging.

Shengshuai Liu is a young professor at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy of East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. He received his PhD in optics from the East China Normal University in 2020. His current research interests include the generation of high-quality quantum squeezing and their applications in quantum information.

Jietai Jing is a professor at the State Key Laboratory of Precision Spectroscopy of East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. He received his PhD in optics from the Shanxi University in 2004. He did his postdoctoral work at the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland, College Park. His main research field is quantum optics and quantum information, especially the generation of high-capacity, multi-beam, low-noise quantum light sources, and their applications in quantum information.

CC BY: © The Authors. Published by SPIE and CLP under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.
Yingxuan Chen, Qiqi Zhu, Xutong Wang, Yanbo Lou, Shengshuai Liu, and Jietai Jing "Deterministic all-optical quantum state sharing," Advanced Photonics 5(2), 026006 (12 April 2023). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.AP.5.2.026006
Received: 21 March 2023; Accepted: 27 March 2023; Published: 12 April 2023
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 2 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
KEYWORDS
Quantum states

Quantum amplitude

Quantum information

Modulation

Quantum entanglement

Phase shift keying

Quantum experiments

Back to Top