Quantum complex network

Being part of network science the study of quantum complex networks aims to explore the impact of complexity science and network architectures in quantum systems.^[1][2][3] According to quantum information theory it is possible to improve communication security and data transfer rates by taking advantage of quantum mechanics.^[4][5] In this context the study of quantum complex networks is motivated by the possibility of quantum communications being used on a massive scale in the future.^[2] In such case it is likely that quantum communication networks will acquire non trivial features as its common in the exiting communication networks today.^[3][6]

Motivation

It is theoretically possible to take an advantage of quantum mechanics to create secure and faster communications, namely, quantum key distribution is an application of quantum cryptography that allows for theoretical completely secure communications,^[4] and quantum teleportation that can be used to transfer data at higher rate than using only classic channels.^[5]

The successful quantum teleportation experiments in 1998^[7] followed by the development of first quantum communication networks in 2004,^[8] opened the possibility of quantum communication being used in a large scale in the future. According to findings in network science the topology of the networks is, in most cases, extremely important, and the exiting large scale communication networks today tend to have non-trivial topologies and traits, like small world effect, community structure and scale free properties.^[6] The Study the of networks with quantum properties and complex network topologies, can help us not only to better understand such networks but also how to use the network topology to improve the efficience of communication networks in the future.

Important concepts

Qubits

In quantum information Qubits are the equivalent to bits in classical systems. A qubit is quantum objects with only two states that is used to transmit information.^[4] The polarization of a photon or the nuclear spin are examples of two state systems that can be used as qubits.^[4]

Entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon characterized by a correlation between the quantum states of two or more particles.^[4] While entangled particle do not interact in the classical sense, the quantum state of those particle can not be described independently. Particles can be entangle in different degrees, and the maximally entangled state are the ones the maximize the entropy of entanglement.^[9][10] In the context of quantum communication, quantum entanglement qubits are used as a quantum channel capable of transmitting information when combined with a classical chanel.^[4]

Bell measurement

Bell measurement is joint quantum-mechanical measurement of two qubits, so that after the measurement the two qubits will be maixmailly entangle.^[4][10]

Entanglement swapping

2 different examples of entanglement swapping. Dots represent qubits and dashed and solid lines represent entangled states.^[11](Edited and simplified)

Entanglement swapping is a frequent strategy used in quantum networks that allows the connections in the network to change.^[1][11] Lets us suppose that we have 4 qubits, A B C and D, C and D belong to the same station, while A and C belong to two different stations. Qubit A is entangled with qubit C and qubit B is entangled with qubit D. By performing a bell measurement in qubits A and B, not only the qubits A and B will be entangled but it is also possible to create an entanglement state between qubit C and qubit D, despite the fact that there was never an interactions between them. Following this process the entanglement between qubits A and C, and qubits B and D will be lost. This strategy can be use to shape the connection on the network.^[1][11][12]

Network structure

While not all models for quantum complex network follow exactly the same structure, usually nodes represent a set of qubits in the same station were operation like bell measurements and entanglement swapping can be applied. In the other hand, a link between a node $i$ and $j$ means that a qubit in node $i$ is entangled to a quibit in node $j$, but those two qubits are in different places, thus physical interactions between them are not possible.^[1][11]

Notation

Each node in the network is composed by a set of qubits that can be in different states. The most convenient representation for the quantum state of the qubits is the dirac notation and represent the two state of the qubits as $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$.^[1][11] Two particle are entangled if the joint wave function, $|\psi_{ij}\rangle$, can not be decomposed as,^[4][10]

$|\psi_{ij}\rangle=|\phi\rangle_i\otimes |\phi\rangle_j,$

where $|\phi\rangle_i$ represents the quantum state of the qubit at node i and $|\phi\rangle_j$ represents the quantum state of the qubit at node j. Another important concept is maximally entangled states. For the four states that maximize the entropy of entanglement can be written as^[4][10]

$|\Phi_{ij}^+\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j + |1\rangle_i \otimes |1\rangle_j),$

$|\Phi_{ij}^-\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j - |1\rangle_i \otimes |1\rangle_j),$

$|\Psi_{ij}^+\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_i \otimes |1\rangle_j + |1\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j),$

$|\Psi_{ij}^-\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle_i \otimes |1\rangle_j - |1\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j).$

Models

Quantum random networks

^[1]

The quantum random network model proposed by Perseguers et al.^[1] can be thought as a quantum version of the Erdős–Rényi model. Instead of the typical links used in to represent other complex networks, in the quantum random network model each pair of nodes is connected trough an pair of entangled qubits. In this case each node contains$N-1$ quibits, one for each other node. In quantum random network the degree of entanglement between two pairs of nodes represented by $p$, plays a similar role to the parameter $p$ in the Erdős–Rényi model. While in the Erdős–Rényi model two nodes form a connection with probability $p$, in the context of quantum random networks $p$ means the probability of an entangled pair of qubits being successful converted to a maximally entangled state using only local operations and classical communications, called LOCC operations.^[13] We can think of maximally entangled qubits as the true links between nodes.

Using the notation introduced previously, we can represent a pair of entangle qubits connecting the nodes $i$ and $j$, as

$|\psi_{ij}\rangle=\sqrt{1-p/2}|0\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j + \sqrt{p/2} |1\rangle_i\otimes|1\rangle_j,$

For $p=0$ the two qubits are not entangled,

$|\psi_{ij}\rangle=|0\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j,$

and for $p=1$ we obtain the maximally entangled state, given by

$|\psi_{ij}\rangle=\sqrt{1/2}(|0\rangle_i \otimes |0\rangle_j + |1\rangle_i\otimes|1\rangle_j)$.

For intermediate values of $p$, $0<p<1$, any entangle state can be, with probability $p$, successfully converted to the maximally entangled entangled state using LOCC operations.^[13]

One of the main features that distinguish this model from its classic version is the fact the in quantum random networks links are only truly established after measurements in the networks being made, and It is possible to take advantage of this fact to shape final shape of the network. Considering an initial quantum complex network with an infinity number of nodes, Perseguers et al.^[1] showed that, by doing the right measurements and entanglement swapping, it is possible to collapsed the initial network to a network containing any finite subgraph, provided that $p$ scales with $N$ as,

$p\sim N^Z,$

were $Z\geq-2$. This results is contrary to what we find in classic graph theory were the type of subgraphs contained in a network is bounded by the value of $z$.^[14]

Entanglement Percolation

The goal of entanglement percolation models is to determine if a quantum network is capable of establishing a connection between two arbitrary nodes trough entanglement, and to find best the strategies to create those same connections.^[11][15] In a model proposed by Cirac et al.^[15] and applied to complex networks by Cuquet et al.,^[11] nodes ares distributed in a lattice,^[15] or in a complex network,^[11] and each pair of neighbors share two pairs of entangled qubits that can be converted to a maximally entangle qubit pair with probability $p$. We can think of maximally entangled qubits as the true links between nodes. According to classic percolation theory, considering a probability $p$ of two neighbors being connected, there is a critical $p$ designed by $p_c$, so that if $p>p_c$ there is a finite probability of existing a path between two random selected node, and for $p<p_c$ the probability of existing a path between two random selected nodes goes to zero.^[16] $p_c$ depends only on the topology of the network.^[16] A similar phenomena was found in the model proposed by Cirac et al.,^[15] where the probability of a forming a maximally entangled state between two random selected nodes is zero if $p<p_c$ and finite if $p>p_c$. The main difference between classic and entangled percolation is that in quantum networks it is possible to change the links in the network, in a way changing the effective topology of the network, as a consequence $p_c$ will depend on the strategy used to convert partial entangle qubits to maximally connected qubits.^[11][15] A naive approach yields that $p_c$ for a quantum network is equal to $p_c$ for a classic network with the same topology.^[15] Nevertheless, it was shown that is possible to take advantage of quantum swamping to lower that value, both in regular lattices^[15] and complex networks.^[11]

See also

• Quantum key distribution
• Quantum teleportation
• Erdős–Rényi model

References

1. Perseguers, S.; Lewenstein, M.; Acín, A.; Cirac, J. I. (16 May 2010) [19 July 2009]. "Quantum random networks" [Quantum complex networks]. Nature Physics 6 (7): 539–543. arXiv:0907.3283. doi:10.1038/nphys1665.
2. Huang, Liang; Lai, Ying C. (2011). "Cascading dynamics in complex quantum networks". Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 21 (2). doi:10.1063/1.3598453.
3. Cuquet, Martí; Calsamiglia, John (2009). "Entanglement Percolation in Quantum Complex Networks". Physical Review Letters 103 (24). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.240503.
4. Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (1 January 2004). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-00217-3.
5. Takeda, Shuntaro; Mizuta, Takahiro; Fuwa, Maria; Loock, Peter van; Furusawa, Akira (14 August 2013). "Deterministic quantum teleportation of photonic quantum bits by a hybrid technique". Nature 500 (7462): 315. doi:10.1038/nature12366.
6. Dorogovtsev, S.N.; Mendes, J.F.F. (2003). Evolution of Networks: From biological networks to the Internet and WWW. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851590-1.
7. Boschi, D.; Branca, S.; De Martini, F.; Hardy, L.; Popescu, S. "Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels". Physical Review Letters 80: 1121–1125. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.1121.
8. Elliott, Chip; Colvin, Alexander; Pearson, David; Pikalo, Oleksiy; Schlafer, John; Yeh, Henry (17 March 2005). "Current status of the DARPA Quantum Network". arXiv:quant-ph/0503058.
9. Eisert, J.; Cramer, M.; Plenio, M. B. (February 2010). "Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy". Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (1): 277–306. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277.
10. Chandra, Naresh; Ghosh, Rama (2013). Quantum Entanglement in Electron Optics: Generation, Characterization, and Applications. Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics 67. Springer. p. 43. ISBN 3642240704.
11. Cuquet, M.; Calsamiglia, J. (10 December 2009) [6 June 2009]. "Entanglement percolation in quantum complex networks". Physical Review Letters 103 (24). arXiv:0906.2977. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.240503.
12. Coecke, Bob (2003). "The logic of entanglement". Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford. arXiv:quant-ph/0402014.
13. Werner, Reinhard F. (15 Oct 1989). "Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model". Physical Review A 40 (8): 4277. doi:10.1103/physreva.40.4277.
14. Albert, Réka; Barabási, Albert L. (Jan 2002). "Statistical mechanics of complex networks". Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (1): 47–97. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.47.
15. Acin, Antonio; Cirac, J. Ignacio; Lewenstein, Maciej (25 February 2007). "Entanglement percolation in quantum networks". Nature Physics 3 (4): 256–259.
16. Stauffer, Dietrich; Aharony, Anthony (1994). Introduction to Percolation Theory (2nd ed.). CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-7484-0253-3.