September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

International Journal of Quantum Information

Vol. 7, No. 6 (2009) 1233–1240

c World Scientific Publishing Company

EXPERIMENTAL REALIZATION OF PROBABILISTIC

REMOTE STATE PREPARATION

WEI WU∗ , WEI-TAO LIU, PING-XING CHEN

and CHENG-ZU LI
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Department of Physics, National University of Defense Technology,

Changsha, 410073, People’s Republic of China
∗weiwu@nudt.edu.cn
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

∗wwnewscom@hotmail.com

Received 23 March 2009

We experimentally demonstrate a protocol of probabilistic remote state preparation by

virtue of entanglement, local operation and forward classical communications. Arbitrary
polarization qubit state can be remotely prepared with this protocol. For both pure
states and mixed states, the average efficiency is no less than 50% and the classical
information cost is 1 bit. All 18 remotely prepared states were estimated with quantum
state tomography system. The fidelities are all above 0.99, with average fidelity being
0.9956.

Keywords: Remote state preparation; polarization entangled state; probabilistic.

PACS number(s): 03.67.Hk, 03.67.Mn, 42.65.Lm

1. Introduction
Quantum information science brings us into an era in which the information can be
processed with quantum mechanical system. Teleportation is an expressive example,
which can transmit an unknown state from one place to another without sending
a physical copy of the initial state.1 Remote state preparation (RSP) is similar to
teleportation. However, in RSP Alice (the sender) helps Bob (the receiver) prepare
a quantum state at a remote location with her complete knowledge of the state.
RSP can be more economical than teleportation in information cost for certain
ensembles of quantum states, so it attracts the attention of many physicists.2 –4
After Lo2 and Pati3 introduced the concept of RSP, different experimental real-
izations of RSP have been reported. Using liquid-state NMR, remote preparation of
pseudopure states is experimentally realized firstly.5 Since then, the experimental
remote preparation of several kinds of constrained states have also been reported.6 –9
RSP can even be realized with classical correlations instead of quantum correlations
(i.e. entanglement).10 Furthermore, arbitrary remote control of polarization qubit
state has been realized recently.11 –13 However, the efficiency of the protocol in
Ref. 11 is only 50%. On the other hand, in Refs. 12, 13, it costs 2 bits classical

1233
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

1234 W. Wu et al.

information to prepare pure states with unit efficiency, which is the same as that
in teleportation. So they have not exhibited the advantage of RSP over teleporta-
tion. Here we show that there is a trade-off between these two kinds of protocols.
The protocol we proposed here is more efficient than that in Ref. 11 and more
economical than that in Refs. 12 and 13.
In this paper, we report an experimental demonstration of probabilistic remote
preparation of arbitrary photon polarization qubit state, where entanglement, local
operation and classical communications (LOCC) employ. The RSP protocol in this
paper costs only 1 bit classical information for both pure states and mixed states.
The efficiency is determined by the state to be prepared, which is no less than
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

50% for arbitrary qubit state. We experimentally demonstrate the RSP protocol
by remotely preparing 12 pure states and 6 mixed states. The fidelities of remotely
prepared states are all above 0.99 with 0.9956 being the average.
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

2. The Scheme
First let us describe the general idea of our RSP scheme. Suppose that Alice and
Bob share a maximally entangled photon pair of the form
1
|ψAB
= √ (|HA VB
+ |VA HB
), (1)
2
where the subscripts (A, B) label Alice and Bob, |H
and |V
label horizontal and
vertical polarization states of photons. Although we discuss qubits encoded in the
polarization of photons here, the method can be generalized to general situations.
We start from remote preparation of pure states. Consider that the pure state
to be remotely prepared is
|ϕB
= α|HB
+ βeiφ |VB
. (2)
Without loss of generality, we assume that α, β, φ are real numbers, α2 + β 2 = 1,
β > α ≥ 0 and φ ∈ [0, 2π). The experimental arrangement of our RSP protocol is
outlined in Fig. 1. The interferometer shown in the figure consists of two polarization
beam splitters (PBS). The attenuator and the phase shifter in the interferometer
are used to tune three parameters in Eq. (2). The proportion between the photon
number of path a and that of path b in the interferometer is adjusted to α2 /β 2 by
the attenuator. The phase shifter is used to produce a relative phase shift of φ.
At the output of the interferometer, we obtain the two-photon state as


|ψAB
= βeiφ |HA VB
+ α|VA HB
. (3)


|ψAB
can also be read as

1 1
|ψAB
= √ βeiφ (|DA
+ |AA
)|VB
+ √ α(|DA
− |AA
)|HB

2 2
1 1
= √ |DA
(α|HB
+ βeiφ |VB
) + √ |AA
(−α|HB
+ βeiφ |VB
), (4)
2 2
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

Experimental Realization of PRSP 1235

Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental setup: QP, quartz crystal plate; QWP, quarter-wave
plate; HWP, half-wave plate; P, polarizer; IF, 10-nm-bandwidth interference filter; AT, attenuator;
PS, phase shifter. For mixed states, the unitary operation Û is introduced and the projection
measurement on Alice’s side is replaced by polarization-insensitive measurement which is not
shown in the figure.

√ √
where |D
≡ (|H
+ |V
)/ 2 and |A
≡ (|H
− |V
)/ 2. Now we perform projec-
tion measurement on Alice’s photon in the basis {|DA
, |AA
}. Thus when Alice’s
photon is projected into D|(A|), Bob’s photon is remotely prepared in the state
|ϕB
(−σ̂z |ϕB
). According to the outcome of Alice’s measurement, Bob performs
local unitary operation {Î} or {−σ̂z } to achieve the desired state. The classical
information cost is only 1 bit. We can see that the efficiency of remote prepara-


tion is only determined by the state transformation efficiency from |ψAB
to |ψAB
.
As the photon number proportion is α /β and α < β, the efficiency F = 1/2β 2 .
2 2

Because α2 + β 2 = 1 and α, β ≥ 0, we obtain that F ≥ 50%. For the states in

which α > β, we just need to place the attenuator in path b instead of path a. The
efficiency is changed to F = 1/2α2 which is also no less than 50%.
The way to remotely prepare the mixed states is similar to that in Ref. 11.
To prepare a mixed state, we perform polarization-insensitive measurement instead
of projection measurement on Alice’s photon, thus Bob’s photon is prepared in a


mixed state. With the state |ψAB
, we obtain





ρ̂B = HA |ψAB
ψAB |HA
+ VA |ψAB
ψAB |VA

= α2 |HB
HB | + β 2 |VB
VB |. (5)

With different α2 /β 2 , we can prepare all the states lying on the special diameter
of the Poincaré sphere (whose extreme points are |H
and |V
). For other mixed
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

1236 W. Wu et al.

states, Alice has to perform certain unitary operation on state |ψAB
before it enters
the interferometer to change the extreme points of the diameter. Suppose that the
mixed state to be remotely prepared is
ρ̂B = α2 |ξB
ξB | + β 2 |ξB
⊥ ⊥

ξB |, (6)
⊥
where {|ξ
, |ξ
} is a set of complete orthonormal basis. Alice can always choose
proper local unitary operation Û to transform the state |ψAB
to
1 ⊥
|φAB
= √ (|HA ξB
+ |VA ξB
), (7)
2
therefore at the output of the interferometer we obtain the two-photon state
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

|φ
AB
= βeiφ |HA ξB

⊥

+ α|VA ξB
. (8)
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

Performing the same polarization-insensitive measurement as before, we obtain the

desired mixed state Eq. (6). The classical information cost is 1 bit too. The efficiency
is also determined by the two-photon state transformation efficiency F with F ≥
50%.

3. Experiment and Results

As shown in Fig. 1, the laser pulses, which are produced by a mode-locked
Ti:Sapphire laser plus a second-harmonic generator (SHG), are used to pump
a type-II phasematched BBO crystal (5.0 × 5.0 × 1.0 mm3 ). The pump laser
has 425 nm center wavelength, ∼ 200 fs pulse duration, 76 MHz repetition rate,
∼ 600 mW average power. The photons produced from the SPDC process in BBO
are prepared in the state of Eq. (1) after the quartz crystals compensate the bire-
fringence effects.14 The photons are detected by a single photon counting avalanche
photodiode (SAPD) (Perkin-Elmer, SPCM-AQR-16) after an interference filter
(10 nm FWHM). The density matrix of the actual entangled state is found with
quantum state tomography process and maximum likelihood technique.15 And we
perform Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality test on the state and find
that S = 2.6439 ± 0.012 (|S| ≤ 2 for any local realism theory).
For pure states, the polarization analyzer (composed by a QWP, a HWP and a
PBS) at the output of the interferometer is used to preform projection measurement
on Alice’s photon in the basis {|DA
, |AA
}. For mixed states, the unitary operation
Û is introduced and the projection measurement on Alice’s side is replaced by the
polarization-insensitive measurement (not shown in Fig. 1). Coincidence (within a
1 ns time window) between Bob’s photon and corresponding trigger photon serves
as classical communication. The coincidence circuit consists of a time-to-amplitude
converter, a single-channel analyzer (TAC/SCA, ORTEC 567) and a universal time
interval counter (Stanford Research Systems, SR620).
The states remotely prepared with our protocol are summarized in Fig. 2. To
test the feasibility to remotely prepare arbitrary polarization state on the Poincaré
sphere, we remotely prepared four pure states along each of three random longitude
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

Experimental Realization of PRSP 1237

|L〉

|H〉

|+45°〉
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

| 45 °〉
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

|V 〉

|R〉

Fig. 2. States remotely prepared in our experiment are shown in the Poincaré sphere. States
are supposed to lie on the (semi)circle which has the same color with them. The pure states are
marked by circle and the mixed states are marked by diamond.

of the Poincaré sphere. Using the tomography system on Bob’s side, we perform
complete polarization analysis on Bob’s photon state. The results are used to cal-
culate the optimized physically density matrix to estimate the remotely prepared
states. High visibility and its long stable duration of the interferometer play a piv-
otal role in the preparation of pure states. The visibility of the interferometer in
our experiment can be maintained above 97% for several minutes, which makes it
possible to accomplish the whole tomography process and obtain a high fidelity.
We also remotely prepared six mixed states as shown in Fig. 2. For mixed states,
it is not necessary to perfectly adjust the interferometer, as the relative phase φ
between two paths has no effect on the fidelity of mixed states. We use the fidelity

√ √
F (ρo , ρB ) ≡ |T r( ρB ρo ρB )|2 to evaluate the agreement between the prepared
state (ρo ) and the desired state (ρB ).17 The average fidelity in our experiment is
0.9956, while F = 1 means perfect match. And the fidelities of 18 states are all
above 0.99. Table 1 lists the density matrices of all 18 desired states and Table 2
lists the actual density matrices of the remotely prepared output states. The fideli-
ties between the actual output state and the corresponding desired state are listed
in Table 3.
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

1238 W. Wu et al.

Table 1. The density matrices of 18 desired states. The first 12 density

matrices are supposed to be pure. And the last 6 density matrices are sup-
posed to be mixed.

No. ρ11 ρ12 ρ21 ρ22

1 0.3376 0.3247 + 0.3438i 0.3247 − 0.3438i 0.6624

2 0.2768 0.4464 + 0.03i 0.4464 − 0.03i 0.7232
3 0.3332 0.3336 − 0.333i 0.3336 + 0.333i 0.6668
4 0.448 0.1039 − 0.4863i 0.1039 + 0.4863i 0.5520
5 0.25 −0.433i 0.433i 0.75
6 0.25 0.433i −0.433i 0.75
7 0.117 −0.3214i 0.3214i 0.883
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

8 0 0 0 1
9 0.3085 −0.3317 − 0.3214i −0.3317 + 0.3214i 0.6915
10 0.25 −0.433 −0.433 0.75
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

11 0.3085 −0.3317 + 0.3214i −0.3317 − 0.3214i 0.6915

12 0.4566 −0.0752 − 0.4924i −0.0752 + 0.4924i 0.5434
13 0.3723 −0.1071 −0.1071 0.6277
14 0.3333 0 0 0.6667
15 0.3723 0.1071 0.1071 0.6277
16 0.7819 0.1026 0.1026 0.2181
17 0.7819 −0.1026 −0.1026 0.2181
18 0.65 0.2598 0.2598 0.35

Table 2. The actual density matrices of the remotely prepared output

states. The first 12 density matrices are supposed to be pure. And the last
6 density matrices are supposed to be mixed.

No. ρ11 ρ12 ρ21 ρ22

1 0.3329 0.3374 + 0.32904i 0.3374 − 0.3290i 0.6671

2 0.2674 0.4331 + 0.0912i 0.4331 − 0.0912i 0.7326
3 0.3190 0.3206 − 0.3383i 0.3206 + 0.3383i 0.6810
4 0.4087 0.0783 − 0.4853i 0.0783 + 0.4853i 0.55913
5 0.2507 0.0031 − 0.4232i 0.0031 + 0.4232i 0.7493
6 0.2495 −0.0214 + 0.4214i −0.0214 − 0.4214i 0.7505
7 0.1423 −0.0065 − 0.3493i −0.0065 + 0.3493i 0.8577
8 0.0082 −0.0293 + 0.0307i −0.0293 − 0.0307i 0.9918
9 0.2817 −0.3397 − 0.2886i −0.3397 + 0.2886i 0.7183
10 0.2435 −0.4269 − 0.0088i −0.4269 + 0.0088i 0.7565
11 0.3441 −0.3275 + 0.3441i −0.3275 − 0.3441i 0.6559
12 0.4031 −0.1441 − 0.4689i −0.1441 + 0.4689i 0.5969
13 0.3936 −0.1067 − 0.0751i −0.1067 + 0.0751i 0.6064
14 0.3338 0.0128 − 0.0291i 0.0128 + 0.0291i 0.6662
15 0.3887 0.1321 + 0.0093i 0.1321 − 0.0093i 0.6113
16 0.8447 0.1099 + 0.0186i 0.1099 + 0.0186i 0.1553
17 0.8392 −0.0943 − 0.0439i −0.0943 + 0.0439i 0.1608
18 0.7199 −0.2505 + 0.0459i −0.2505 − 0.0459i 0.2801
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

Experimental Realization of PRSP 1239

Table 3. The fidelities between the

actual density matrix of prepared state
and the density matrix of correspond-
ing desired state.

No. Fidelity

1 0.9996
2 0.9960
3 0.9996
4 0.9978
5 0.9918
6 0.9908
7 0.9985
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

8 0.9918
9 0.9948
10 0.9983
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

11 0.9982
12 0.9918
13 0.9939
14 0.9990
15 0.9990
16 0.9926
17 0.9924
18 0.9920

4. Conclusion and Discussion

We obtain high fidelities in our experiment. However, there are still some imper-
fections in our experiment. Firstly, the actual entangled state is not as perfect
as we want. Secondly, the PBS used in our interferometer are not ideal. For a
ideal PBS, both the transmission efficiency of the p-polarization light (Tp ) and the
reflection efficiency of the s-polarization (Rs ) are unit. However, for the PBS in our
experiment (Newport, 05FC16PB.5), Tp > 80% (> 90% average) and Rs > 99.5%
average.18 It makes the photons interfere imperfectly on the PBS at the terminal
of the interferometer.
As mentioned above, the remote preparation efficiencies for both pure states
and mixed states are solely determined by the transformation efficiency from the
maximally entangled state (1) to the non-maximally entangled state (3), which
is 1/2β 2 here. The decrease of efficiency is only due to the fact that we need to
unbalance the number of photons in the arms by attenuation. It does not impair
the quality of state preparation. As β < 1, the efficiency is no less than 50%.
The classical information cost is 1 bit. In the first RSP experiment for arbitrary
qubit states,11 the efficiency for pure states is 50%, and the efficiency for mixed
states is the same as that in our experiment. In Ref. 12, the efficiency for pure
states is increased to 100 % at the cost of 2 bits classical information and precisely
controlling two interferometers. In Ref. 13, due to the lack of variable beam splitter,
the efficiency for pure states is the same as that in our experiment too, while the
September 3, 2009 12:6 WSPC/187-IJQI 00540

1240 W. Wu et al.

classical information cost is 2 bits. The efficiency for mixed states in Ref. 13 is 50%,
which is lower than that in our experiment on average.
As we have shown, the remote preparation efficiency is limited by the efficiency
of entanglement transformation. So if the efficiency of entanglement transforma-
tion could be improved, the remote preparation efficiency would also be improved.
Actually, the efficiency of entanglement transformation from maximally entangled
state to non-maximally entangled state can be 100% by virtue of positive operator-
valued measure (POVM) and LOCC.19 It means if we can propose a deterministic
entanglement transformation protocol and experimentally demonstrate it, we can
remotely prepare both pure states and mixed states with 100% efficiency. We are
Int. J. Quantum Inform. 2009.07:1233-1240. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

just working on it for the moment.

In conclusion, we experimentally demonstrate a protocol of probabilistic remote
preparation of arbitrary photon polarization state, which employs entanglement
by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 04/12/15. For personal use only.

and LOCC. For arbitrary qubit state, the classical information cost is 1 bit in our
experiment and the efficiency is no less than 50%. We remotely prepared 12 pure
states and 6 mixed states. All states are estimated by quantum state tomography
process, and the fidelities are all above 0.99 with 0.9956 being the average.

Acknowledgments
The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
10774192 and 10504042) and A Foundation for the Author of National Excellent
Doctoral Dissertation of PR China No. 200524.

References
1. C. H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1895.
2. H. K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A 62 (2000) 012313.
3. A. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 63 (2001) 014302.
4. C. H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 077902.
5. X.-H. Peng et al., Phys. Lett. A 306 (2003) 271.
6. S. A. Babichev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 047903.
7. E. Jeffrey et al., New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 100.
8. M. Ericsson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 050401.
9. G.-Y. Xiang et al., Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 012315.
10. W. Wu et al., Opt. Comm. 281 (2008) 1751.
11. N. A. Peters et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 150502.
12. W. Rosenfeld et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 050504.
13. W.-T. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. A 76 (2007) 022308.
14. P. G. Kwiat et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4337.
15. D. F. V. James et al., Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 052312.
16. J. F. Clauser et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 880.
17. R. Jozsa, J. Mod. Opt. 41 (1994) 2315.
18. Datasheet of Newport PBS 05FC16PB.5.
19. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000).