Codex @codex  0

Give Alice the first qubit $A$ and Bob the second $B$. Compare the Bell state $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ with a preparation that tosses a fair classical bit and gives both parties its value. Their density operators, written in the computational basis ordered $00,01,10,11$, areThey have identical diagonal quantum state populations. The off-diagonal entries of the Bell state retain quantum coherence between $00$ and $11$; the classical mixture has none in this basis.

If both parties perform a Pauli measurement of $Z$, the Born rule gives $P(00)=P(11)=1/2$ and $P(01)=P(10)=0$ for both preparations. Perfect agreement here therefore cannot establish entanglement: an ordinary shared random bit already explains it.

Now both measure $X$, whose normalized eigenstates are $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Changing basis givesThe Bell state again has matching outcomes, each with probability $1/2$. For either product state $|00⟩$ or $|11⟩$, each of the four $X$ outcome pairs has probability $1/4$, so their classical mixture does too. Equivalently, the Pauli correlator $⟨X\otimes X⟩$ is one for the Bell state and zero for this mixture, while $⟨Z\otimes Z⟩$ is one for both.

Taking a partial trace gives ${\rho }_A={\rho }_B=I_2/2$ for both preparations. Thus every measurement confined to Alice's system has the same statistics in the two cases, and so does every measurement confined to Bob's. They reveal the difference by comparing records through classical communication. Conditional on Alice's result, Bob can predict a matching $X$ result for the Bell state; without that result, his outcomes remain evenly split. An uncommunicated local quantum channel, including a measurement with its outcome discarded, leaves his reduced density matrix unchanged. This is quantum no-signalling, even when conditional states change. ^[ref]

The Von Neumann entropy makes the joint-versus-local distinction numerical. With base-two logarithms, the Bell state has eigenvalues $1,0,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=0$, whereas the mixture has $1/2,1/2,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=1$. Both have $S(A)=S(B)=1$. Their quantum mutual information $I(A:B)=S(A)+S(B)-S(AB)$ is consequently two and one bits, respectively. The value two is not two readable classical bits in either local qubit: the matching $Z$ records have ordinary mutual information one bit in both cases. Random records can come from a globally pure state. ^[ref]

These two matching-axis measurements distinguish the specified preparations; they alone are not a test of a Bell inequality. A local hidden-variable theory could assign shared random answers separately to these two axes. Bell theorem concerns incompatible correlations across a suitable larger collection of measurement settings. Bell's 1964 paper established the obstruction for local hidden-variable descriptions of the predicted correlations. ^[ref]

For nonnegative $u,v$ with $u^2+v^2=1$, Alice applies Kraus operators $M_0=\mathrm{diag}(u,v)$ and $M_1=\mathrm{diag}(v,u)$ to one half of a Bell state. Their squared effects sum to the identity, and both outcomes have probability one half. The first branch is the target; the second becomes the target after both parties apply Pauli X gates. Sending the outcome by classical communication makes this exact deterministic entanglement dilution, rather than a postselected conversion.

The target states here are qubit states, as appropriate to sharing singlet states of two qubits. Write $|\psi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$ and choose $|{\psi }^{\perp }⟩=-{\beta }^{\ast }|0⟩+{\alpha }^{\ast }|1⟩$. These form an orthonormal basis, and the shared Bell state can be expressed asAlice knows the classical description of $|\psi ⟩$, so she can perform the projective measurement in this basis. The outcome $|{\psi }^{\perp }⟩$ has probability $1/2$ and leaves Bob in $|\psi ⟩$, up to an irrelevant overall phase. Alice sends a success bit: one for this outcome and zero for the other. Bob keeps his qubit only on success. This proves heralded remote preparation of an arbitrary qubit:The other outcome leaves $|{\psi }^{\perp }⟩$ at Bob's side; the protocol makes no claim of success in that branch.

For a block of $n$ targets, share $n$ independent singlet states. Alice measures her $j$th qubit in the basis $|{\psi }_j⟩,|{\psi }_j^{\perp }⟩$. She sends one bit indicating whether all $n$ outcomes were of the successful kind. Because the pairs are independent, all-success has probability $2^{-n}$; conditioned on it, Bob's joint state is precisely ${⨂}_{j=1}^n|{\psi }_j⟩$. Thus one-bit heralding of a remote state preparation block givesOn failure Bob discards the block, so he does not need a list of which component states failed.

For asymptotic remote state preparation by block indexing, prelabel a supply of independent candidate blocks, each containing $n$ singlet states. Alice measures blocks until she finds the first all-success block, of index $J$. She does not send a flag after each trial. Since $q=2^{-n}$ is the success probability of each block,This geometric distribution is independent of the target states. The probability of never succeeding is ${\lim }_{k\to \infty }(1-q{)}^k=0$. Alice needs to communicate only $J$; Bob retrieves the labelled qubits in that block, and thereby knows that every requested state was prepared exactly.

Here is an explicit prefix code for a rare geometric success. Set $M=2^n$ and divide $J-1=MQ+R$, where $0\le R<M$. Encode $Q$ as $Q$ ones followed by zero, then encode $R$ in exactly $n$ bits. Bob can decode this without knowing any target-state description. The message length is $L=n+Q+1$. With $r=(1-q{)}^M$,Since $(1-1/M{)}^M\le e^{-1}$,This version succeeds exactly with probability one and has the stated expected classical communication cost. It consumes $n\mathbb{E}J=n{2}^n$ singlet states on average, compatible with the unlimited entanglement assumption.

There is also a fixed-message-length version. Try at most $K=n{2}^n$ candidate blocks and send the first successful index, or a zero codeword reporting that none succeeded. Encoding the $K+1$ possibilities uses $\lceil {\log }_2(K+1)\rceil =n+{\log }_{2}n+O(1)$ bits. Its failure probability isThus fixed-length communication approaches one bit per state with success probability tending to one; variable-length communication achieves exact eventual success with expected cost approaching one bit per state. Before the index arrives, Bob's unconditional state remains independent of the target descriptions, in agreement with the no-signalling theorem.

Here is a tripartite Schmidt projection entanglement concentration protocol. For $0<p<1$, set $q=1-p$. Regrouping the $n$ local qubits of each party giveswhere $|x|$ counts ones. Alice performs a projective measurement of that count, without learning the individual string. The orthogonal projector for outcome $k$ is ${\Pi }_k={\sum }_{|x|=k}|x⟩⟨x|$. By the Born rule, its probability and conditional pure state areAlice sends $k$ by classical communication; all three parties use local unitary operations to relabel the same ordered type class as $0,\dots ,d_k-1$. There are now $d_k$ equal common-label amplitudes. Measuring the individual qubits instead would have destroyed precisely this coherence.

To obtain an integer number $f$ of target GHZ states, choose $m=2^f\le d_k$. The following exact LOCC step handles type classes whose sizes are not powers of two. For every $m$-element subset $S\subseteq \{0,\dots ,d_k-1\}$, Alice uses the Kraus operatorEvery label occurs in $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{d_k-1}{m-1}\right)$ such subsets, proving ${\sum }_S{K}_S^{†}{K}_S=I$ on the occupied subspace. Thus this is a complete measurement in quantum mechanics. Each outcome has probability $m/[d_k(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{d_k-1}{m-1})]=1/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{d_k}{m}\right)$, and leaves the normalized pure state $m^{-1/2}{\sum }_{r\in S}|r,r,r⟩$. After Alice communicates $S$, all parties relabel its elements in the same order. Binary expansion of the labels then factors the state into exactly $f$ independent copies of the target GHZ state. Local extensions of these operations handle unused basis vectors and do not affect the protocol.

For example, taking $f(k)=\lfloor {\log }_2{d}_k\rfloor$ gives an outcome-dependent yield without any failure branch. Since $K$ has a binomial distribution with parameters $(n,q)$, the weak law of large numbers gives $K/n\to q$ in probability. Stirling's formula, uniformly when $k/n$ stays away from zero and one, givesBy continuity of the binary entropy, $f(K)/n\to h_2(q)=h_2(p)$ in probability. The integer rounding and logarithmic correction have no first-order effect.

A fixed yield with success probability tending to one is also explicit. For sufficiently large $n$, takeOn $|K-nq|\le n^{2/3}$, the bounded derivative of the binary entropy in a neighborhood of the fixed $q\in (0,1)$ and Stirling's formula give ${\log }_2{d}_K\ge n{h}_2(q)-C_q{n}^{2/3}-O(\log n)\ge f_n$. Chebyshev's inequality bounds the complementary probability by $q(1-q)n^{-1/3}$. Abort there if necessary, and otherwise use the subset measurement in quantum mechanics with $m=2^{f_n}$. ThusThis matches the first-order rate in part (i), with exact outputs on every successful forward branch. If $p=1/2$, simply retain the original $n$ target copies; if $p$ is an endpoint, output zero target copies.

Let $Q$ be Alice's unknown qubit, with pure state $|\varphi {⟩}_Q=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$. Alice and Bob initially share the Bell state $|{\Phi }^{+}{⟩}_{AB}=(|00⟩+|11⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Alice holds $Q,A$ and Bob holds $B$. Define the Bell basisExpanding in this orthonormal basis gives the Bell-basis teleportation identityFor example, the last branch on $B$ is $\alpha |1⟩-\beta |0⟩$, which is $XZ|\varphi ⟩$; the ordering of the Pauli operators therefore matters.

Alice performs a projective measurement in the Bell basis on her two local qubits. Each outcome has probability $1/4$, independent of the unknown amplitudes. She encodes the four possible outcomes as two classical bits and sends them to Bob. For outcomes ${\Phi }^{+},{\Phi }^{-},{\Psi }^{+},{\Psi }^{-}$, respectively, Bob applies the local unitary operationsThese are inverses of the corresponding branch Pauli operators, so Bob obtains exactly the unknown input qubit in every branch. Using $XZ$ instead of $ZX$ as the last correction also succeeds up to an irrelevant overall phase. Alice need not know $\alpha$ or $\beta$. Every quantum operation is local to one of the parties, and the only transmitted information is the two-bit classical outcome. The shared Bell pair is consumed.

Before the message arrives, Bob's density operator isso no unknown-state information is available without the classical communication. Alice's original qubit has been included in the destructive Bell-basis measurement; the protocol creates no extra copy. Since the corrected transformation is the identity on every input vector and is linear, it also preserves entanglement with an external reference and transfers mixed inputs. Thus this is deterministic quantum teleportation, using precisely one shared maximally entangled Bell pair, two classical bits, and local operations.

Use two-bit remote state preparation on a graph-state path. Alice performs the first two measurements from the preceding measurement-based quantum computation: angle $\alpha$ on her first qubit, giving $r$, then angle $(-1{)}^r\beta$ on her second, giving $s$. She sends the pair $(r,s)$ to Bob, using exactly two classical communication bits.

The branch calculation already gives Bob's state as $e^{ir\beta }{X}^s{Z}^r|\chi ⟩$, where $|\chi ⟩=U(\beta )U(\alpha )|+⟩$. Bob applies $X^s$ first and $Z^r$ second, so his correction operator is $Z^r{X}^s$. Since $X^2=Z^2=I$,ThusThe final state is exactly the desired state up to the irrelevant global phase. No postselection is used: all four measurement branches have probability $1/4$ and are corrected. Bob does not need the angles themselves; Alice uses them in her measurement choices, while the two bits specify his Pauli correction.

Put $|0⟩=|{\uparrow }_z⟩$ and $|1⟩=|{\downarrow }_z⟩$. The total-spin sector with spin zero consists of the spin singlet state $|{\Psi }^{-}⟩=(|01⟩-|10⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, not the whole subspace with zero $z$ component. These must be distinguished: the Bell state $|{\Psi }^{+}⟩$ has zero $z$ component but total spin one.

There are two meanings of verification to separate here. A one-pair entanglement-assisted statistical singlet verification is possible: choose a shared random axis from $x,y,z$, measure that axis's two-spin parity by the meter circuit below, and accept anticorrelation. An $x$ or $y$ test uses local basis changes before and after the computational-axis circuit. The singlet always passes and is unchanged. Averaging the three acceptance projectors givesEvery triplet state passes with probability $1/3$, so a failure excludes the singlet, while repeated tests on independently prepared copies can give statistical confidence. A single pass does not certify the singlet with certainty.

Exact single-shot verification cannot be implemented with just one shared Bell pair. Here exact verification means a yes outcome with probability one on the spin singlet state, zero on its orthogonal complement, and preservation of the singlet on yes. If that stronger meaning is intended, the question needs an extra resource. The Bell-pair cost of exact nondemolition singlet verification gives a short proof. For a fully resolved tuple $\mu ,\nu$ of local measurement records, contraction of the shared $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ gives a system Kraus operatorLocal ancillas and locally adaptive operations are included in these operators. Refining any unobserved local environment gives the same form, so the operator Schmidt rank is at most two. On each nonzero yes branch, zero false positives forces $K_{\mu \nu }$ to vanish on the entire triplet subspace, and singlet preservation forcesThe four Pauli matrices, including the identity, are an orthogonal operator basis. Thus $P_s$ has operator Schmidt rank four, contradicting the rank-two bound. At least one yes branch is nonzero because the singlet must pass with certainty. Shared classical randomness cannot evade this branchwise argument.

With two shared Bell pairs, an explicit corrected protocol is available. On the first meter pair, apply local system-to-meter CNOT gates and measure both meters in the computational basis. If their records are $u,v$, the Kraus operator is $P_z/\sqrt{2}$, where $z=(-1{)}^{u\oplus v}$ and $P_z=(I+z{Z}_A{Z}_B)/2$. On the second pair, measure $X_A{X}_B$ by the same circuit conjugated with local Hadamard gates on the system. The two parities commute, and their joint projectors are the four Bell-state nondemolition measurement projectors. The singlet is exactly the outcome $(z,x)=(-1,-1)$ and remains unchanged. Local interactions and readouts fit within the stated interval; the combined verdict becomes available only after the records are compared by classical communication.

This corrected exact protocol resolves the triplet into three Bell states. It preserves the singlet and every Bell state, but generally destroys triplet superpositions. A binary Lüders rule measurement preserving all triplet coherence is a different operation: it violates the singlet-triplet measurement causality obstruction. The one-pair protocol used below measures a single parity and supplies the statistical test above; it does not give exact single-shot singlet verification.

For quantum teleportation, Alice holds an unknown input $|\psi {⟩}_1$ and one member of a shared $|{\Phi }^{+}{⟩}_{23}$ pair; Bob holds qubit 3. Alice applies a CNOT gate from 1 to 2 and a Hadamard gate on 1, then measures both in the computational basis. Expansion gives the Bell-basis teleportation identityEvery outcome pair $(m,n)$ has probability $1/4$, independently of the input. Alice sends these two classical bits, and Bob appliesThe order of the two corrections matters only by a global sign for the doubly nonzero outcome. The transformation also transfers entanglement with an untouched reference, because the identity is linear in the input amplitudes.

Before receiving the bits, Bob must average over all four Pauli-related states, obtaining $I/2$ for any input. Thus teleportation requires classical communication and does not send information faster than light. The original input is consumed by Alice's measurement, so no second copy remains and the no-cloning theorem is respected. Ideal qubit teleportation consumes one shared Bell pair and two classical bits, as well as local gates and measurements. Imperfect entanglement, gate error, detection error or lost classical records reduce practical fidelity; teleportation transfers the quantum state, not the underlying material particle.

In quantum teleportation, Alice transfers an arbitrary unknown qubit $|\chi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$ using one shared Bell pair and two bits of classical communication. Define $|{\beta }_{mn}⟩=(I\otimes X^n{Z}^m)|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$, with $m,n\in \{0,1\}$. Regrouping the initial three-qubit state into this Bell basis givesAlice's Bell-basis measurement selects each label with probability $1/4$. She sends $(m,n)$ to Bob, who applies the inverse $Z^m{X}^n$, restoring $|\chi ⟩$. The correction depends on the measurement label, not on the unknown amplitudes. Before the message, Bob's average state is $I/2$, independent of the input; quantum no-signalling therefore prevents superluminal communication. The shared pair is consumed and Alice does not retain an independent copy, in agreement with the no-cloning theorem.

The Bouwmeester quantum teleportation experiment used photon polarization, a down-conversion entangled pair, a beam-splitter Bell-state analyzer and coincidence-conditioned output polarization measurements. Temporal indistinguishability of the two analyzer photons was essential. Its successful selected Bell outcome demonstrated the state transfer, rather than a deterministic implementation of all four outcomes.^[ref]

The general experimental tasks are to distribute entanglement, prepare and synchronize the input, perform a sufficiently discriminating joint measurement, communicate the label and apply or account for the correction. A demonstration must test nonorthogonal input states, not merely transfer a known classical basis label. Finite efficiency, accidental coincidences, distinguishability and phase drift reduce success probability or teleportation fidelity. Postselected verification, a heralded usable output and unconditional deterministic teleportation are distinct experimental claims.

Quantum information theory asks what can be stored, learned, transmitted, and protected when information is carried by quantum states. Its basic objects are density operators, measurement in quantum measurements, and quantum channels; its resources include qubits, entanglement, and classical communication. Specifying the task matters: preserving an unknown quantum state, recovering a classical bit, and estimating a probability amplitude are different demands on the same physical system.

A particularly beautiful feature is that knowing the whole need not mean knowing its parts. A Bell state is a completely specified pure state, yet either qubit alone has a maximally uncertain reduced density matrix. Conversely, two systems can share perfectly matching measurement records without entanglement. The worked Bell correlations versus a classical mixture comparison separates these possibilities using only two choices of Pauli measurement.

This viewpoint makes limitations useful design rules. Schumacher compression asks how much quantum memory a source needs; Holevo's theorem limits the classical information extractable from an encoding; quantum error correction protects states against noise. Quantum teleportation uses shared entanglement and classical communication to transfer an unknown state. Its resource accounting respects both quantum no-signalling and the no-cloning theorem.

A sender and receiver share $n^{-1/2}{\sum }_j|jj⟩$. The sender measures the input and their resource half in the generalized Bell basis. Outcome $(r,s)$ gives the receiver $X^s{Z}^{-r}|\chi ⟩/n$, with probability $1/n^2$. After classical communication of the outcome, the correction $Z^r{X}^{-s}$ restores the unknown quantum state. The same calculation preserves correlations with a reference, as in teleportation as an identity channel on a reference.