Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 24, Issue 1
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Quantum State Tomography of Photonic Qubits with Realistic Coherent Light Sources

Artur Czerwinski

Author affiliations
  1. Institute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, ul. Grudziadzka 5, Torun, Poland

pp. 31-39 · 10.2478/qic-2024-0002

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

Quantum state tomography (QST) is an essential technique for characterizing quantum states. However, practical implementations of QST are significantly challenged by factors such as shot noise, attenuation, and Raman scattering, especially when photonic qubits are transmitted through optical fibers alongside classical signals. In this paper, we present a numerical framework to simulate and evaluate the efficiency of QST under these realistic conditions. The results reveal how the efficiency of QST is influenced by the power of the classical signal. By analyzing the fidelity of reconstructed states, we provide insights into the limitations and potential improvements for QST in noisy environments.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • quantum state tomography
  • shot noise
  • coherent states
  • Raman scattering
  • channel crosstalk

Suggested citation

Artur Czerwinski (2024). Quantum State Tomography of Photonic Qubits with Realistic Coherent Light Sources. Quantum Information & Computation, 24(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2024-0002

Download BibTeX

References (38)

  1. M. Paris and J. Řeháček (eds.) (2004). Quantum State Estimation, Heidelberg: Springer.DOI: 10.1007/b98673Google Scholar
  2. E. Toninelli, B. Ndagano, A. Valles, B. Sephton, I. Nape, A. Ambrosio, F. Capasso, M.J. Padgett, and A. Forbes (2019). “Concepts in quantum state tomography and classical implementation with intense light: A tutorial”. Advances in Optics and Photonics, 11, 67–134.DOI: 10.1364/AOP.11.000067Google Scholar
  3. A. Czerwinski (2022). “Selected concepts of quantum state tomography”. Optics, 3, 268–286.DOI: 10.3390/opt3030026Google Scholar
  4. V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A.A. Gentile, E.M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezzè, and C. Bonato (2023). “Learning quantum systems”. Nature Reviews Physics, 5, 141–156.DOI: 10.1038/s42254-022-00552-1Google Scholar
  5. P. Walther, K.J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. Weinfurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger (2005). “Experimental one-way quantum computing”. Nature, 434, 169–176.DOI: 10.1038/nature03347Google Scholar
  6. P. Kok, W.J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T.C. Ralph, J.P. Dowling, and G.J. Milburn (2007). “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 79, 135–174.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.79.135Google Scholar
  7. M. Wei, C.-H. Zhang, J. Li, J.-L. Zhu, and Q. Wang (2022). “Experimental demonstration of tomography-based quantum key distribution”. Optics Letters, 47, 6285–6288.DOI: 10.1364/OL.478199Google Scholar
  8. A. Slaoui, N. Ikken, L. Btissam Drissi, and R. Ahl Laamara (2023). “Quantum communication protocols: from theory to implementation in the quantum computer,” in B. Carpentieri (ed.), Quantum Computing - Innovations and Applications in Modern Research, London: IntechOpen.DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1002792Google Scholar
  9. A. Slaoui, M. El Kirdi, R. Ahl Laamara, M. Alabdulhafith, S.A. Chelloug, and A.A. Abd El-Latif (2024). “Cyclic quantum teleportation of two-qubit entangled states by using six-qubit cluster state and six-qubit entangled state”. Scientific Reports, 14, 15856.DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63395-zGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, and S. Haddadi (2024). “Trade-off relations of quantum resource theory in Heisenberg models”. Physica Scripta, 99, 055111.DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/ad3a45Google Scholar
  11. D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White (2001). “Measurement of qubits”. Physical Review A, 64, 052312.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.052312Google Scholar
  12. J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, and P. G. Kwiat (2005). “Photonic state tomography”. Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 52, 105–159.DOI: 10.1016/S1049-250X(05)52003-2Google Scholar
  13. R. T. Horn, P. Kolenderski, D. Kang, P. Abolghasem, C. Scarcella, A. D. Frera, A. Tosi, L. G. Helt, S. V. Zhukovsky, J. E. Sipe, G. Weihs, A. S. Helmy, and T. Jennewein (2013). “Inherent polarization entanglement generated from a monolithic semiconductor chip”. Scientific Reports, 3, 2314.DOI: 10.1038/srep02314Google Scholar
  14. G.P. Temporão, P. Ripper, T.B. Guerreiro, and G.C. do Amaral (2024). “Two-photon quantum state tomography of photonic qubits”. Physical Review A, 109, 022402.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.022402Google Scholar
  15. S. W. Hasinoff (2014). “Photon, poisson noise”, in K. Ikeuchi (ed.), Computer Vision, Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 608–610.DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-31439-6_482Google Scholar
  16. P. Eraerds, N. Walenta, M. Legré, N. Gisin, and H. Zbinden (2010). “Quantum key distribution and 1 Gbps data encryption over a single fibre”. New Journal of Physics, 12, 063027.DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/063027Google Scholar
  17. B. Fröhlich, J.F. Dynes, M. Lucamarini, A.W. Sharpe, S.W.B. Tam, Z. Yuan, and A.J. Shields (2015). “Quantum secured gigabit optical access networks”. Scientific Reports, 5, 18121.DOI: 10.1038/srep18121Google Scholar
  18. A. Czerwinski (2022). “Entanglement characterization by single-photon counting with random noise”. Quantum Information & Computation, 22, 1–16.DOI: 10.26421/QIC22.1-2-1Google Scholar
  19. H. Wang, K. He, Y. Hao, and S. Yang (2022). “Quantum tomography with Gaussian noise”. Quantum Information & Computation, 22, 1144–1157.DOI: 10.26421/QIC22.13-14-4Google Scholar
  20. A. Czerwinski and J. Szlachetka (2022). “Efficiency of photonic state tomography affected by fiber attenuation”. Physical Review A, 105, 062437.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.062437Google Scholar
  21. A. Pedram, V.R. Besaga, F. Setzpfandt, and Ö.E. Müstecaplıoğlu (2024). “Nonlocality enhanced precision in quantum polarimetry via entangled photons”. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2400059.DOI: 10.1002/qute.202400059Google Scholar
  22. B. Mukherjee (2006). Optical WDM Networks, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  23. C. Gobby, Z.L. Yuan, and A.J. Shields (2004). “Quantum key distribution over 122 km of standard telecom fiber”. Applied Physics Letters, 84, 3762–3764.DOI: 10.1063/1.1738173Google Scholar
  24. A. Tomita, K.-I. Yoshino, Y. Nambu, A. Tajima, A. Tanaka, S. Takahashi, W. Maeda, S. Miki, Z. Wang, M. Fujiwara, and M. Sasaki (2010). “High speed quantum key distribution system”. Optical Fiber Technology, 16, 55–62.DOI: 10.1016/j.yofte.2009.10.003Google Scholar
  25. Y. Cao, Y. Zhao, J. Wang, X. Yu, Z. Ma, and J. Zhang (2019). “Cost-efficient quantum key distribution (QKD) over WDM networks”. Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, 11, 285–298DOI: 10.1364/JOCN.11.000285Google Scholar
  26. J. Zhou, R. Cadeddu, E. Casaccia, C. Cavazzoni, and M.J. O’Mahony (1996). “Crosstalk in multiwavelength optical cross-connect networks”. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 14, 1423–1435.DOI: 10.1109/50.511672Google Scholar
  27. I.T. Monroy, and E. Tangdiongga (2013). Crosstalk in WDM Communication Networks, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  28. J.M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A.J. Scott, and C.M. Caves (2004). “Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements”. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 45, 2171–2180.DOI: 10.1063/1.1737053Google Scholar
  29. C.A. Fuchs, M.C. Hoang, and B.C. Stacey (2017). “The SIC question: History and state of play”. Axioms, 6, 21.DOI: 10.3390/axioms6030021Google Scholar
  30. C. Paiva-Sánchez, E. Burgos-Inostroza, O. Jiménez, and A. Delgado (2010). “Quantum tomography via equidistant states”. Physical Review A, 82, 032115.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032115Google Scholar
  31. A. Acharya, T. Kypraios, and M. Guta (2019). “A comparative study of estimation methods in quantum tomography”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 52, 234001.DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ab1958Google Scholar
  32. A. Czerwinski, K. Sedziak-Kacprowicz, and P. Kolenderski (2021). “Phase estimation of time-bin qudits by time-resolved single-photon counting”. Physical Review A, 103, 042402.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042402Google Scholar
  33. M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. R. Jozsa (1994). “Fidelity for mixed quantum states”. Journal of Modern Optics, 41, 2315–2323.DOI: 10.1080/09500349414552171Google Scholar
  35. A. Uhlmann, (1976). “The ‘transition probability’ in the state space of a ⋆-algebra”. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 9, 273–279.DOI: 10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4Google Scholar
  36. P. Mironowicz, M. Grünfeld, and M. Bourennane (2024). “Generalized measurements on qubits in quantum randomness certification and expansion”. Physical Review Applied, 22, 044041.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.044041Google Scholar
  37. P. Rübeling, J. Heine, R. Johanning, and M. Kues (2024). “Quantum and coherent signal transmission on a single-frequency channel via the electro-optic serrodyne technique”. Science Advances, 10, eadn8907.DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adn8907Google Scholar
  38. A.K. Khan, Y.H. Dar, E.C. Vagenas, S.S. Wani, S. Al-Kuwari, and M. Faizal (2024). “Effects of underlying topology on quantum state discrimination”. European Physical Journal C, 84, 240.DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12598-9Google Scholar