Generation of two-atom Knill–Laflamme–Milburn states with cavity quantum electrodynamics

Abstract

This paper proposes two schemes to generate the two-atom Knill-Laflamme-Milburn states with a strong coupling cavity-fiber system and the cavity-assisted single-photon input-output process, respectively. The significant logical operations for the generation are constructed accurately. The resonant interactions between atoms and photons in the two schemes imply a relatively short operation time, and the probabilities of successful generation are near to unity under the current experimental conditions.

Accelerated and Noise‐Resistant Protocol of Dissipation‐Based Knill–Laflamme–Milburn State Generation with Lyapunov Control

“…Traditionally, the generation of KLM states for atoms and artificial atoms is preformed with time‐dependent unitary dynamics since the dissipation is viewed as a detrimental effect in QIP . Nevertheless, the decoherent effect induced by dissipation dynamics is inevitable at the actual situation.…”

Preparation of Knill–Lafamme–Milburn states based on superconducting qutrits

“…In 2001, Knill, Lafamme and Milburn proposed a specific class of partially entangled states [21], KLM states, and they derived that employing the KLM states as ancillary resources can improve the success probability of teleportation gradually upto unity with the increase of the particle number in these ancillary states, and thereafter, Mod lawska and Grudka showed that multiple adaptive teleportation in the KLM scheme can also increase the probability of faithful teleportation [22], which can elevate the efficiency of quantum computing significantly. In the past dozen years, the investigation of the KLM states preparation has attracted a great deal of attention [23][24][25][26][27]. The first explicit scheme to prepare the KLM states was proposed by Franson et al in 2004 by using elementary linear optics gates and solid-state approach, respectively [23].…”

“…Our schemes have following advantages: 1) With the help of the SCQ and TLR, our schemes have longer coherence time and storage time than that in Refs. [23][24][25][26][27]. 2) Compared with the Ref.…”

“…2) Compared with the Ref. [27], it is needless to take the coding qubits out of the TLR in our schemes, which…”

“…3) The controllability and feasibility of our schemes are higher than that in Refs. [23][24][25][26][27] in the current techniques, because the strong coupling in our schemes can be obtained by increasing the number of PMs in each ensemble [29,30] in the first scheme or locating the SCQs at the antinodes of the voltage [31] in the second scheme. 4) Both of the schemes are robust against photon decay due to the virtual excitations of the microwave photons of the TLRs, and the spontaneous emission can be suppressed owing to the virtual transitions of the SCQs in the second scheme.…”