What is the Procrustean method for entanglement distillation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of entanglement distillation and entanglement concentration, exploring their definitions, historical context, and specific methods, including the Procrustean method. Participants examine the differences between these techniques and their practical implementations in quantum information theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the relationship between entanglement distillation and entanglement concentration, suggesting a potential confusion between the two concepts.
  • Others clarify that the distinction is primarily historical, with entanglement concentration referring to the conversion of pure states into Bell states, while entanglement purification is associated with mixed states.
  • A participant mentions three methods for achieving entanglement distillation, including the Procrustean method, entanglement concentration, and the purification method, indicating a need for further exploration of the Procrustean method.
  • One participant describes the Procrustean method, detailing its probabilistic nature and the specific measurement operators involved, while noting its optimal success probability and the historical context of its naming.
  • The explanation includes a comparison to the mythical figure Procrustes, emphasizing the method's ability to transform states at the cost of potentially losing entanglement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and historical context of entanglement distillation and concentration, but there is ongoing exploration of the Procrustean method, with no consensus on its practical implications or effectiveness compared to other methods.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of implementing entanglement concentration and purification in practice, particularly the challenges associated with the number of copies of states required for optimal performance.

meteor
Messages
937
Reaction score
0
Please explain what's entanglement distillation and what's entanglement concentration. I'm mistaken to think that these two techniques are related somehow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The difference is mainly historical in nature. The original paper that proved that multiple copies of any pure bipartite state can be reversibly converted into Bell states called the technique "entanglement concentration". The case of converting mixed bipartite states into Bell states is often called "entanglement purification". "Entanglement distillation" refers to either of these two tasks, and it is now common to just call everything distillation, without referring to concentration or purification.
 
Thanks. I've looked a few papers, and this seems interesting
http://pi1.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/atph/teaching/seminar/Sem_SS_2004/literatur/2306/repeaterPRL.pdf

it says that there're mainly 3 ways to achieve entanglement distillation:
1)the Procrustean method
2)entanglement concentration (aka Schmidt decomposition scheme)
3)the purification method

the 2) and the 3) are the methods that you say, so I will look what's the Procrustean method
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The entanglement concentration scheme (based on Schmidt projection) becomes optimal for pure states in the limit where the number of copies of the state tends to infinity. However, even for moderately large numbers, the measurements require a great deal of interation between the copies of the state and so are hard to implement in practice.

It is much easier to use a scheme where only measurements on a single copy of the state are required. Because entanglement cannot increase on average under LOCC, such a scheme must necessarily be probabalistic, i.e. it has some probability of failing, resulting in an unentangled state.

The method is relatively easy to describe. Suppose Alice and Bob share a state
[tex]\sqrt{p} |00 \rangle + \sqrt{1-p} |11 \rangle[/tex]
where 1/2 < p < 1.

Alice performs a measurement, with outcomes corresponding to the operators
[tex]M_1 = \sqrt{\frac{1-p}{p}} | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | + |1 \rangle \langle 1 |[/tex]
[tex]M_2 = \sqrt{\frac{2p-1}{p}} |0 \rangle \langle 0 |[/tex]

It is relatively easy to check that these are valid measurement operators, i.e. [tex]M_1^\dagger M_1 + M_2^\dagger M_2 = I[/tex], where [tex]I[/tex] is the identity operator. Hence, it can be implemented by bringing in an ancillary qubit, performing a unitary interaction between Alice's qubit and the ancilla, and then finally measuring the ancilla.

It can also be checked that on obtaining outcome 1, the state is left in a maximally entangled state and on obtaining outcome 2, the state is left in a product state. The scheme is successful with probability 2(1-p) and this is actually the optimal success probability. The best procustean measurement for any finite dimensional, bipartite pure state has been found by Vidal (quant-ph/9902033).

By the way, the method is named after Procrustes, a mythical Greek giant who stretched or shortened his captives in order to make them fit into his beds. Suppose only maximally entangled or product states fit into his beds. Then, he can make any state fit into a bed using the method, but he might have to chop off all the entanglement to do it. The name is due to Charlie Bennett, who seems to be responsible for most of the more creative jargon in the field, especially when it comes to Greek mythology.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: L1227422183

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K