A New Approach for Estimating the Rate of Emission in Quantum Bit Exchange‏ ‎Systems ‎Using Binomial Distribution

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

malekashtar university

Abstract

Information ‎theoretic ‎bit ‎exchange ‎algorithms ‎are ‎usually evaluated ‎by their ‎‎efficiency, which is the number of successfully received bits with respect to the number of sent bits. Though, this is also the case in the quantum version of the information theory, another indicator can be derived based on it, to give a view of the costs of the algorithm. This indicator is simply the number of qubits that must be sent to obtain a   desired bit string. Depending on the expected length of the output of the algorithm, this indicator reveals more detailed information about the number of qubits that must be emitted, and better estimates the        implementation costs, while efficiency is an indicator that can evaluate algorithms only theoretically. We employed the idea of overselling in a transportation ticketing scheme to illustrate how to apply the binomial distribution to calculate the alternative indicator. The scheme is first reworded to fit the concepts and     notations of a quantum information encoding system based on the double-slit experiment; typical results  are represented. Finally, the scheme is applied to the QKD protocols such as BB84 and Six-State, for  calculating the number of qubits necessary to send in order to obtain a key of the desired length, in terms of the error rate.
 

Keywords

References

[1]     S. Barnett, “Quantum information,” Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2009.‎##
[2]     S. A. Oskoueian and N. Bagheri, “Differential cryptanalysis of round-reduced SIMON32 and SIMON48 and SIMON64,” Journal of Electronical & Cyber Defence, vol. 5, pp. 1-8, 2017 (In Persian).##
[3]     J. Pu and S. Chao, “Spectral anomalies in Young's double-slit interference experiment,” Optics Express, vol. 12, pp. 5131-5139, 2004.‎##
[4]     E. Diamanti, H. K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, “Practical challenges in quantum key distribution,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 2, 16025, 2016.##
[5]     L. O. Mailloux, M. R. Grimaila, D. D. Hodson, R. Engle, C. McLaughlin, and G. Baumgartner, “Modeling, simulation, and performance analysis of decoy state enabled quantum key distribution systems,” Applied Sciences, vol. 7, 212, 2017.##
[6]     Z. Zhang, Q. Zhao, M. Razavi, and X. Ma, “Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key-distribution systems,” Physical Review A, vol. 95, 012333, 2017.##
[7]     D. Bacco, M. Canale, N. Laurenti, G. Vallone, and P. Villoresi, “Experimental quantum key distribution with finite-key security analysis for noisy channels,” Nature Communications, vol. 4, 2363, 2013.##
[8]     F. L. Pedrotti, L. M. Pedrotti, and L. S. Pedrotti, “Introduction to optics,” Pearson Publishing, 3rd Edition, Harlow, 2014.##
[9]     W. Rueckner and J. Peidle, “Young's double-slit experiment with single photons and quantum ‎eraser,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 81, pp. 951-958, 2013.##
[10]  A. Gaeeni, “An introduction to the probability theory,” Imam Hossein Univ. Press, Tehran, 2006 (In Persian).##
[11]  M. Born, E. Wolf, A. B. Bhatia, P. C. Clemmow, D. Gabor, A. R. Stokes, A. M. Taylor, P. A. Wayman, and W. L. Wilcock, “Principles of optics, electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 7th Edition, 1999.##
[12]  P. J. Coles, E. M. Metodiev, and N. Lütkenhaus, “Numerical approach for unstructured ‎quantum key distribution,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, 11712, 2016.##‎

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 February 2018
  • Accept Date: 27 May 2018
  • Publish Date: 22 May 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics