New Research In
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Biological Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
 Agricultural Sciences
 Anthropology
 Applied Biological Sciences
 Biochemistry
 Biophysics and Computational Biology
 Cell Biology
 Developmental Biology
 Ecology
 Environmental Sciences
 Evolution
 Genetics
 Immunology and Inflammation
 Medical Sciences
 Microbiology
 Neuroscience
 Pharmacology
 Physiology
 Plant Biology
 Population Biology
 Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
 Sustainability Science
 Systems Biology
Optimal approach to quantum communication using dynamic programming

Edited by Hans Briegel, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, and accepted by the Editorial Board September 9, 2007 (received for review April 10, 2007)
Abstract
Reliable preparation of entanglement between distant systems is an outstanding problem in quantum information science and quantum communication. In practice, this has to be accomplished by noisy channels (such as optical fibers) that generally result in exponential attenuation of quantum signals at large distances. A special class of quantum error correction protocols, quantum repeater protocols, can be used to overcome such losses. In this work, we introduce a method for systematically optimizing existing protocols and developing more efficient protocols. Our approach makes use of a dynamic programmingbased searching algorithm, the complexity of which scales only polynomially with the communication distance, letting us efficiently determine nearoptimal solutions. We find significant improvements in both the speed and the finalstate fidelity for preparing longdistance entangled states.
Sequential decisionmaking in probabilistic systems is a widely studied subject in the field of economics, management science, and engineering. Applications range from problems in scheduling and asset management to control and estimation of dynamical systems (1). In this article we use these techniques for solving a class of decisionmaking problems that arise in quantum information science (2, 3). Specifically we consider the optimal design of a socalled quantum repeater for quantum communication. Such repeaters have potential application in quantum communication protocols for cryptography (4–6) and information processing (7), where entangled quantum systems located at distant locations are used as a fundamental resource. In principle, this entanglement can be generated by sending a pair of entangled photons through optical fibers. However, in the presence of attenuation, the probability of success in preparing a distant entangled pair decreases exponentially with distance (8).
Quantum repeaters can reduce such exponential scaling to polynomial scaling with distance and thus provide an avenue to longdistance quantum communication even with fiber attenuation. The underlying idea of quantum repeater (9, 10) is to generate a backbone of entangled pairs over much shorter distances, store them in a set of distributed nodes, and perform a sequence of quantum operations with only a finite probability of success. Purification operations (11, 12) improve the fidelity of the entanglement in the backbone, and connection operations join two shorterdistance entangled pairs of the backbone to form a single, longerdistance entangled pair. By relying on a quantum memory at each node to let different sections of the repeater reattempt failed operations independently, a highfidelity entangled state between two remote quantum systems can be produced in polynomial time. A quantum repeater protocol is a set of rules that determine the choice and ordering of operations based on previous results. An optimal protocol is one that produces entangled pairs of a desired fidelity in minimum time within the physical constraints of a chosen implementation.
The complexity of finding the optimal repeater protocols can be understood by the following analogous example problem (1): given a sequence of rectangular matrices M _{1} M _{2}… M _{n}, such that M _{k} is d _{k} × d _{k+1} dimensional, find the optimal order of multiplying the matrices such that the number of scalar multiplications is minimized. This is a typical example of a nesting problem, in which the order in which operations are carried out affects the efficiency. For example, if M _{1} = 1 × 10, M _{2} = 10 × 1, and M _{3} = 1 × 10, then (M _{1} M _{2})M _{3} takes only 20 scalar operations, and M _{1}(M _{2} M _{3}) requires 200 scalar multiplications. A bruteforce enumeration of all possible nesting strategies and evaluation of their performance is exponential in n. To solve this problem more efficiently, we observe that the optimal nesting strategy (M _{1}… (…)… M _{p})(M _{p+1}… M _{n}) should carry out the solution to its subparts optimally, that is, the nesting (M _{1}…(…)… M _{p}) should represent the best nesting strategy for multiplying M _{1} M _{2}… M _{p}. This is the well known dynamic programming strategy (1), in which one seeks to optimize a problem by comparing different, already optimized subparts of the problem. Dynamic programming enables us to find the optimal solution to the original problem in time that is polynomial in n.
Quantum repeaters also have a nested (selfsimilar) structure, in which shorterdistance entanglement is used to create longerdistance entanglement, which is then used in turn for further extending the distance between entangled pairs. This structure allows us to use the methods of dynamic programming to find optimal nesting strategies for designing quantum repeater protocols.
We now proceed to detail the specific optimization problem, then discuss our dynamic programming solution to the problem. We next examine two representative schemes that we wish to optimize [the scheme of Briegel and colleagues (BDCZ scheme) in refs. 9 and 10, and the scheme of Childress et al. (CTSL scheme) in refs. 13 and 14], and find significant improvements in both preparation time and final fidelity of longdistance entangled pairs.
Dynamic Programming Approach
General Quantum Repeater Protocol.
Quantum repeater protocols have a selfsimilar structure, where the underlying operations at each stage of the repeater have the same basic algorithms. In other words, the structure of the problem remains the same at each stage, but the parameters can be different. A generic quantum repeater consists of three kinds of operations: entanglement generation, entanglement connection, and entanglement purification. Entangled pairs are first generated and stored over a short distance, L _{0}. At the first nesting level, two entangled pairs of distance L _{0} can be extended to distance L _{1} ≈ 2L _{0} by means of an entanglement connection (6). Because of the limited fidelity of the short pairs and the imperfections from the connection operations, the fidelity of the longer pair produced by connection is generally lower than that of the shorter one. Nevertheless, the fidelity of the longer pair can be improved by entanglement purification, which is able to extract highfidelity entangled pairs from an ensemble of lowfidelity ones by using operations that are local (restricted to qubits within a given node) (11, 12). An efficient approach of entanglement purification is entanglement pumping (9, 10), which purifies one and the same pair by using lowfidelity pairs with constant fidelity. ^{‖} Thus, at the (k + 1)th nesting level, the three underlying operations (preparation at distance L _{k}, connection, and purification) lead to preparation at a distance L _{k+1} ≈ 2L _{k}.**
Inductive Optimization.
We now define the optimization problem.
Definition.
For given physical resources, desired distance, L _{final}, and final fidelity, F _{final}, an optimal protocol minimizes the expected time to have an entangled pair of fidelity, F ≥ F _{final}, at a distance L ≥ L _{final}.
To solve this optimization problem, the choice of parameters for the quantum operation cannot be viewed in isolation; one has to trade off the desirability of low present cost (in terms of time) with the undesirability of high future costs. If one tries to enumerate and test all possible adjustable parameters, the complexity to search for the optimized implementation scales at least exponentially with the number of repeater nodes. A simple example is provided if we make our only adjustable parameter the choice between zero and one purification step at each stage of the protocol. For the BDCZ scheme with 128 + 1 repeater nodes, there are already 2^{128} ≳ 10^{38} possibilities, which is beyond the capability of current computers. Thus, a systematic searching method is needed to find the optimized implementation of such a huge parameter space.
Based on the selfsimilar structure above, we may express the optimized protocol to produce long entangled pairs in terms of a set of optimized protocols for producing shorter pairs. The general searching procedure can be performed inductively, as detailed in the following list.

Find and store implementations that optimize the average time (for all fidelities f _{1}, …, f _{q}) with distance = n = 1, taking 𝒪(q).

Assume known optimized implementations (for all fidelities) with distance ≤ n.

Find optimized implementations to produce unpurified pairs (for all fidelities) with distance = n + 1 by trying (connecting) all combinations of known optimized implementations with distance ≤ n, with complexity of order 𝒪(q ^{2} n).

Find optimized implementations to produce purified pairs (for all fidelities) with distance = n + 1 by trying all combinations of unpurified pairs with distance = n + 1, pumping for m = 0, 1, 2, 3, … times; complexity goes as 𝒪(m _{max} q ^{2}).

Store the optimized implementations (for all fidelities) with distance = n + 1, based on step 4.

Replace n by n + 1, and go to step 2.
We make a discrete set of target fidelities [see supporting information (SI) Methods for details], F = {f _{1}, f _{2}, …, f _{q}}, such that only a finite number of different optimal protocols with shorter distances need to be developed. The complexity for each step of our optimization procedure is shown in the list; the full procedure scales as 𝒪(q ^{2} n ^{2}), where the 𝒪(n) repetitions of step 3 take the most time. ^{‡‡} In practice, we found the full search of step 3 to be unnecessary; the search can be restricted to pairs of distance n/2 ± 𝒪(log(n)), leading to complexity 𝒪(q ^{2} n log(n)).
Repeater Schemes and Physical Parameters.
So far, we have only taken a general perspective in explaining quantum repeater protocols and describing the procedure of inductive searching by using dynamic programming. In this subsection, we specify the parameters to be optimized by examining the schemes of the quantum repeater, physical restrictions on entanglement generation for current techniques, and the error models of local quantum gates. Only with a functional relationship between physically adjustable parameters and repeater operation outputs can we find the optimized implementations for procedures 1, 3, and 4 in the list above.
There are several different schemes for building a quantum repeater that differ primarily in the amount of physical resources utilized. For example, in the BDCZ scheme (9, 10) (Fig. 1), the maximum number of qubits in the quantum memory (to store intermediate states for connection and purification) required for each repeater node increases logarithmically with the total number of repeater nodes. In the CTSL scheme (13, 14) (Fig. 2), an efficient way to use quantum memory is proposed, and only two qubits are needed for each node, regardless of the total number of repeater nodes. One of the two qubits is called the communication qubit, which is optically active and can be used to generate entanglement with other communication qubits from neighboring nodes. The other qubit is called the storage qubit, which can be used to store quantum state over very long time. As shown in Fig. 2 b, with the help of local gates (orange solid ovals) between communication and storage qubits, the entangled state between communication qubits can be used to implement teleportationbased gates (e.g., the Controlled NOT gate) between storage qubits from neighboring nodes (7, 15). Such remote gates (orange dashed ovals) are sufficient for entanglement connection and purification of the storage qubits; communication qubits are providing the necessary resource mediating the gates between remote storage qubits. For clarity, we will omit the communication qubits in the following discussion but still keep track of the mediated operation between remote storage qubits.
To model errors in the physical operations, we need to introduce a number of parameters determined by the quantum hardware. For entanglement generation, the relationship between the fidelity of the elementary pair, F _{0}, and the generation time, τ_{e}, depends on the physical parameters (such as the signal propagation speed, c, the fiber attenuation length, L _{att}, the efficiency of single photon collection and detection, ε, and the distance of elementary pair, L _{0}) and the specific approach to generate entanglement. ^{§§}
For entanglement connection and pumping, the dominant imperfections are errors from measurement and the local twoqubit gate, which we model with a depolarizing channel. In particular, the model for measurement is quantified by a reliability parameter (9, 10), η, which is the probability of faithful measurement. For example, a projective measurement of state 0〉 would be Similarly, the model for the local twoqubit gate is characterized by a reliability parameter (9, 10), p. With probability, p, the correct operation is performed; otherwise the state of these two qubits is replaced by the identity matrix (9, 10). For example, the action on a twoqubit operation, U _{ij}, would be where Tr_{ij} [ρ] is the partial trace over the subsystem i and j, and I _{ij} is the identity operator for subsystem i and j. In general, the reliability parameters (η and p) should be reasonably high [i.e., above some thresholds (9, 10)], so that the suppression of error from entanglement pumping dominates the new errors introduced by entanglement connection and entanglement pumping. ^{¶¶}
Optimization Parameters.
We now list the adjustable parameters we can optimize during procedures 1, 3, and 4 in the list above.

During the entanglement generation, there is freedom to choose the generation time τ_{e}, which is determined by the success probability and the communication time. In general, the higher the success probability, the shorter the generation time and the lower the fidelity of the entangled state, so the generation time and the fidelity should be balanced (13, 14).

During the entanglement connection, the distances of two shorter pairs can be adjusted, and the total distance is kept unchanged.

During entanglement purification, the number of steps is also adjustable, which should balance the gain in fidelity and the overhead in time.
Additional Operations.
Besides the operations from the original quantum repeater schemes, some additional operations might be useful. For example, we may skip several intermediate repeater nodes (node skipping) to generate entanglement between distant nodes directly with a substantially lower success probability. Also, during entanglement pumping, we might consider multilevel pumping (16), in which several levels of entanglement pumping are nested together before the next level of entanglement connection (Fig. 2 f″). Multilevel pumping can produce entangled pairs with higher fidelity than singlelevel pumping. Such additional operations can be easily incorporated into search procedures 1, 3, and 4. We will show that the dynamic programming approach can use these additional operations appropriately to reduce the average time, extend the upper bounds for achievable final fidelity, and even improve the threshold for the reliability parameters of p and η.
Results and Discussion
Improvement of BDCZ and CTSL Schemes.
With procedures as listed above, we implemented a computer program to examine the mean time to prepare entangled pairs and to search according to our dynamic programming prescription through the parameter space outlined earlier. We looked for optimal protocols for a quantum repeater for all distances ≤1,280 km and target fidelities ≥0.8. Unless otherwise specified, we use L _{att} = 20 km, ε = 0.2, and η = P = 0.995 for the rest of the discussion. We first fix L _{0} = 10 km, and we will consider the optimization of L _{0} to justify such a choice later. To visualize the results, the profile of the optimized time (smooth surface) is plotted in Fig. 3 a and b with respect to the final distance (from 10 to 1,280 km) and the fidelity (from 0.90 to 0.99) for both the BDCZ and the CTSL schemes. The calculation optimizes over the elementary pair generation (both distance and generation time), the connecting positions, and the number of pumping steps, with spacing between neighboring repeater nodes of 10 km; both additional operations (node skipping and multilevel pumping) are also included for the optimization. For comparison, the unoptimized time profiles (meshes) for the BDCZ and the CTSL schemes are also plotted. The unoptimized protocol assumes fixed elementary pair fidelity (F _{0} = 0.96 and 0.99 for BDCZ and CTSL, respectively), simple connection patterns (detailed in refs. 9, 10, 13, and 14), and a constant number of pumping steps.
As expected, the unoptimized protocol always takes a longer time than the optimized protocol for the same final distance and target fidelity. Time profiles for the unoptimized protocols have stairlike jumps in Fig. 3 a and b. For the BDCZ scheme (Fig. 3 a), the jumps occurring with increasing distance (occurring at distances L/L _{0} = 2^{p} + 1 = 1, 3, 5, 9, 17, 33, … ) are the results of time overhead from the additional level of connection; the jump occurring at F _{final} = 0.98 is due to the sudden change in the number of pumping steps from 1 to 2. Similarly, for the CTSL scheme (Fig. 3 b), the two jumps are due to the change of the number of pumping steps from 1 to 2 and finally to 3. For the optimized protocols, the time increases smoothly with increasing final distance and fidelity.
The improvement factor (i.e., the ratio between the times for unoptimized and optimized protocols) is plotted for both the BDCZ and the CTSL schemes in Fig. 3 c and d. As we might expect, the previously mentioned jumps lead to sharp stripes where the improvement factor changes discontinuously. There are several regions where the optimization gives significant improvement. For example, for the BDCZ scheme, the vertical bright stripes indicate that the optimization provides a timeefficient way to generate entangled pairs for distance (2^{p} + δ_{+}) L _{0} (with δ_{+} > 0), gaining a factor of ≈10; the horizontal bright stripes indicate that efficiently arranging the number of pumping steps can also speed up the scheme by a factor of ≈30 or even more. For most of the optimized protocols, a distant pair is divided into two shorter pairs with similar distance and fidelity (symmetric partition), but occasional asymmetric partitioning can further reduce the time by ≈10%.
For the BDCZ scheme, the correspondence between jumps and stripes essentially accounts for all of the features of the improvement plot (Fig. 3 c). For the CTSL scheme, however, besides the stripes, there is also a region (with distance L > 100 km and fidelity F > 97.5%) where the improvement factor is infinity: optimization not only boosts the speed, but also extends the upper bound of achievable fidelity for distant pairs.
We also study the improvement for other choices of reliability parameters, p and η, especially those values close to the threshold (9, 10). Suppose the reliability parameters are p = η = 0.990. In Fig. 4 a and c, we plot the speedup in time associated with various final distances and fidelities for the BDCZ scheme. For both (optimized and unoptimized) protocols, the highest achievable fidelity is ≈97.5% (compared with 99% in Fig. 3 c), limited by errors from local operations. The improvement factor ranges between [1.5, 600] (compared with [1, 100] in Fig. 3 c). Apart from these differences, the key features (horizontal and vertical stripes) of improvement from optimization are very similar between Figs. 3 c and Fig. 4 c.
For the CTSL scheme, however, unoptimized and optimized protocols behave very differently, when p = η = 0.990. As shown in Fig. 4 b and d, the unoptimized protocol cannot effectively create entangled pairs for distances >200 km, whereas the optimized protocol is still able to efficiently create distant entangled pairs with very high fidelity. Thus our optimization lowers the threshold requirement for the CTSL scheme of quantum repeater.
To understand the reason for the improvement of the highest achievable fidelity (Fig. 3 d) and the parameter threshold (Fig. 4 d), we examine the optimized protocol of the CTSL scheme in the next two subsections.
Comparison Between Optimized and Unoptimized Protocols.
We first compare the detailed procedures between two (optimized and unoptimized) protocols by using the CTSL scheme to produce a pair with final distance L = 11L _{0} and fidelity F _{final} = 97.6%, with default reliability parameters p = η = 0.995. We choose the highest fidelity achievable by the unoptimized protocol, so that we will see almost all features that give improvements. The results for the unoptimized protocol (Fig. 5 a) follow refs. 13 and 14 exactly, whereas the optimized protocol (Fig. 5 b) is from our systematic search using dynamic programming. They differ in the following aspects: (i) during entanglement generation, the optimized implementation generates elementary pairs with fidelity lower than 0.99 to reduce the generation time and uses entanglement pumping afterward to compensate for the fidelity loss; (ii) during entanglement connection, the rule of producing a long pair from two almost identical shorter pairs is slightly modified (e.g., the pair pointed to by the black arrow in the ninth row is from the connection of two quite different pairs in the tenth row); (iii) the number of pumping steps after each connection varies from 0 to 3 for optimized implementation; (iv) finally, the optimized implementation uses multilevel pumping, which is discussed in detail in the next subsection. For clarity, the additional operation of node skipping is suppressed in the optimization here. The overall average time is reduced from 11 to 1.5 sec, improved by a factor of 8.
Note that our optimization results based on averagetime approximation (see Fig. 6 and SI Methods ) are confirmed by the Monte Carlo simulation of the optimized protocols, verifying the substantial speedup.
Multilevel Pumping.
We now consider the additional operation of multilevel pumping in more detail. We discuss multilevel pumping only for the CTSL scheme, not for the BDCZ scheme. (In the BDCZ scheme, introduction of multilevel pumping requires additional quantum memory qubits.) In the original unoptimized protocol (13, 14), the purified entangled state with distance n [between the 0th and the nth nodes (n > 5)] is produced by entanglement pumping, and the entangled states used for pumping (called pumping pairs) are unpurified entangled states with distance n − 2 (Fig. 2 f). The fidelity of these pumping pairs with distance n − 2 are limited by the connection operation, which imposes an upper bound for the fidelity of the purified pair with distance n. The underlying restriction is that the pumping pair is unpurified.
We may lift this restriction by allowing the use of a purified pumping pair. This is multilevel pumping. For example, the pumping pair with distance n − 2 may also be produced by entanglement pumping from pumping pairs with distance n − 4 (Fig. 2 f′), and so on. By doing multilevel pumping, the fidelity of the pumping pair with distance n − 2 is increased (Fig. 2 f′), and the same for the fidelity upperbound for the entangled state with distance n. Although multilevel pumping can increase the fidelity, it also slows down the repeater scheme.
When the reliability of local operations is above the threshold for the unoptimized protocol (e.g., p = η = 0.995), we find that multilevel pumping is necessary only for the last two or three levels to the highfidelity pair we want to produce. Such multilevel pumping can be identified in the optimized implementation; for example, as indicated by red arrows in Fig. 5 b, the pair of storage qubits in the third row pumps the pair in the second row, and the latter pumps the pair in the first row. On the other hand, when the reliability of local operations is below such a threshold (e.g., p = η = 0.990), multilevel pumping is needed after almost every entanglement connection.
If we exclude the possibility of multilevel pumping in dynamic programming, the infinite improvement factor for pairs with distance L > 100 km and fidelity F ≳ 97.5% in Fig. 3 d would disappear. Similarly, in Fig. 4 d, without multilevel pumping, there would be no improvement of the parameter threshold, and even the optimized protocol could not efficiently create distant (L > 200 km) entangled pairs. For the CTSL scheme, multilevel pumping not only enables us to prepare entangled pairs with very high fidelity, but also lowers the required threshold of the reliability parameters (p and η) for local operations. Therefore, the flexibility to include additional operations in our dynamic programming provides a new perspective on the optimization of quantum repeater schemes.
Other Improvements.
In addition to the previously discussed features in the plots of improvement factor, there is an overall improvement for all final distances and fidelities. Such overall improvement comes from the optimized choice of the distance (by node skipping) and the generation time for each elementary pair used. Such overall improvement is ≈1.5 (or 2 ≈ 3) for the BDCZ (or CTSL) scheme, which indicates that the original choice of uniform distance L _{0} = 10 km and initial fidelities F _{0} = 96% (or 99%) are quite close to the optimal.
Finally, we consider whether it is possible to gain some additional speedup if we are allowed to choose the location of the nodes of the quantum repeater. To answer this question, we discretize the distance into smaller units, for example, 1 km ≪ L _{att}. Because the distance of each elementary pair is determined by the dynamic programming, the optimized location of the nodes can be inferred from the distances of the elementary pairs. We find that the speedup due to optimization over the location of the nodes is fairly small, no more than 15% in time (for cases with final distances >200 km). In general, we find that as long as the node spacing is less than the attenuation length (L _{0} < L _{att}), a quantum repeater can be implemented almost optimally.
Experimental Implications.
Throughout our analysis we have assumed relatively high fidelity of local measurements and operations (η = P = 0.995 or 0.99) and memory times exceeding total communication times. Recent experiments with tapped ions (17, 18), neutral atoms (19), and solidstate qubits (20) are already approaching these values of fidelity and memory times. At the same time, high initial entanglement fidelity (F _{0} ≈ 96% or 99%) is also needed for the optimized protocols. Entanglement fidelity of ≈90% can be inferred from recent experiments with two ions in independent traps (21). Although optimization procedure can yield protocols compatible with fairly low initial fidelity and high local error rates, in practice, these errors introduce a large overhead in communication time.
Besides the schemes considered here, there are other quantum repeater schemes, in particular, the Duan et al. (22) scheme (DLCZ scheme) that requires a smaller set of quantum operations and relatively modest physical resources. The original DLCZ scheme does not use active entanglement purification and hence cannot correct arbitrary errors. In such a case, optimization is straightforward and has been discussed in ref. 22. Recently, the DLCZ scheme has been extended to include active entanglement purification to suppress, for example, phase noises (23, 24). The extended DLCZ scheme becomes very similar to the BDCZ scheme in terms of the selfsimilar structure. The technique of dynamic programming can be applied to optimize the extended DLCZ scheme as well.
Conclusion and Outlook
We have demonstrated how dynamic programming can be a powerful tool for systematically studying the optimization of quantum repeater protocols. We find substantial improvements to two specific repeater schemes (9, 10, 13, 14). Beyond searching for optimal choices in previously known elements of the schemes (entanglement generation, connection, and pumping), our systematic study can also incorporate more sophisticated additional operations, such as node skipping, multilevel pumping, and the flexible location of repeater stations. In particular, our multilevel pumping procedure extends the maximum achievable fidelity for distant pairs. It should be possible to include additional possibilities to the optimization problem of quantum repeater, such as different choices of entanglement generation and possibly more efficient usage of local qubits (25, 26). It would also be interesting to study the optimization problem of quantum repeater with finite storage time of the quantum memory (27, 28). Even the optimized protocols have a rather limited speed (corresponding to generation of one highfidelity pair over 1,280 km in 1 to ≈100 sec (see Fig. 6). Therefore, improvement of experimental techniques (to obtain higher localoperation fidelities and more efficient atom–photon coupling) as well as development of new theoretical approaches to speed up quantum repeaters still remain an outstanding goal. Furthermore, the dynamic programming techniques may find application in other outstanding problems in quantum information science, such as the optimization of quantum error correction for faulttolerant quantum computation. In particular, the optimization of the networkbased quantum computation scheme with minimal resources (15) might be possible.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lily Childress and Wolfgang Dur for many stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, Army Research Office Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, Office of Naval Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, the Packard Foundations, and the Pappalardo Fellowship. N.K. was supported by Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant FA95500510443, National Science Foundation Grant 0133673, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Footnotes
 ^{‡}To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jiang{at}physics.harvard.edu

Author contributions: L.J., J.M.T., N.K., and M.D.L. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. H.B. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0703284104/DC1.

↵ ‖ In principle, repeater schemes exist (see ref. 10 and references therein) that work much faster. For those schemes, however, the number of memory qubits per repeater station scales at least linearly with the final distance, which make them impractical.

↵ ** Because we must wait for entanglement generation and purification to succeed before proceeding to the next nesting level, the overall time for successful pair generation, in general, is much longer than that of classical communication over the given distance.

↵ ‡‡ For the CTSL scheme, there will be another 𝒪(q) overhead, associated with 𝒪(q) possible fidelity choices of the entangled state for the Controlled NOT gate (see Fig. 2 b).

↵ §§ For example, the entanglement generation approach using scattering as proposed in refs. 13 and 14 would be

↵ ¶¶ We neglect the time associated with local operations, which is usually much shorter than the communication time between neighboring repeater stations. Nonnegligible gate operation time can easily be included in our optimization.
 Abbreviations:
 BDCZ,
 Briegel–Dur–Cirac–Zoller;
 CTSL,
 Childress–Taylor–Sorensen–Lukin;
 DLCZ,
 Duan–Lukin–Cirac–Zoller.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
 © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
References

↵
 Bertsekas DP

↵
 Nielsen MA ,
 Chuang I

↵
 Bouwmeester D ,
 Ekert AK ,
 Zeilinger A
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵

↵
 Jiang L ,
 Taylor JM ,
 Sorensen A ,
 Lukin MD
 ↵
 ↵

↵
 ↵

↵
 Dutt MVG ,
 Childress L ,
 Jiang L ,
 Togan E ,
 Maze J ,
 Jelezko F ,
 Zibrov AS ,
 Hemmer PR ,
 Lukin MD
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
 ↵
Citation Manager Formats
Sign up for Article Alerts
Jump to section
You May Also be Interested in
More Articles of This Classification
Physical Sciences
Related Content
Cited by...
 No citing articles found.