bhwangustc的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/bhwangustc

博文

Scientific Reports 1222 (2013) 正式发表文本

已有 4737 次阅读 2013-2-15 01:26 |个人分类:理论物理|系统分类:论文交流| 重整化, 分形网络, 小世界模型, 量子中继网络

 

Scientific Reports 1222 (2013)

doi:10.1038/srep01222

 

Zong-Wen Wei, Bing-Hong Wang , & Xiao-Pu Han

 

Renormalization and small-world model of fractal quantum repeater networks

 

 

Received: 20 September 2012

Accepted: 15 January 2013

Published: 05 February 2013

 

 

论文发表PDF文件:

srep01222.pdf

 

 

论文发表网页:

 http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130205/srep01222/full/srep01222.html

 

Quantum networks provide access to exchange of quantum information. The primary task of quantum networks is to distribute entanglement between remote nodes. Although quantum repeater protocol enables long distance entanglement distribution, it has been restricted to one-dimensional linear network. Here we develop a general framework that allows application of quantum repeater protocol to arbitrary quantum repeater networks with fractal structure. Entanglement distribution across such networks is mapped to renormalization. Furthermore, we demonstrate that logarithmical times of recursive such renormalization transformations can trigger fractal to small-world transition, where a scalable quantum small-world network is achieved. Our result provides new insight into quantum repeater theory towards realistic construction of large-scale quantum networks.

Subject terms:

·       Applied physics

·       Quantum information

·       Theoretical physics

·       Statistical physics, thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics

 

At a glance

·       Figures

left

1.   

2.   

3.   

right

Introduction

·       Introduction

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

By exploiting the probabilistic prediction nature of quantum mechanics and the nonlocal correlation of entanglement12, new technology of quantum communication has been developed3. For example, quantum teleportation allows faithful teleportation of unknown quantum states, and quantum cryptography (Ekert91 protocol) enables truly secure communication3. Quantum nodes can store and manipulate photons locally, and their interconnection via quantum channel, e.g., optical fiber, gives birth to quantum networks. Quantum networks are backbone of quantum communication and distributed quantum computing4. A prototype of quantum network has been reported recently5. Quantum networks can be seen as large and complex system of quantum states. How to characterize and understand such quantum system remains a challenge. It is no longer effectively described by a global density operator ρ4. However, complex networks which describe a wide range of natural and social system678, provide conceptual basis for in-depth investigation of topological properties of quantum networks. It involves exciting phenomena. For instance, entanglement percolation91011 and the peculiar behavior of quantum random networks12have received much attention. What's more, it has opened new perspective for study of entanglements: map complex networks into entangled states, and vice versa1314.

As essential ingredients for quantum information, however, entanglement is such fragile resource that suffer fatal photon loss, decoherence caused by noise, and imperfection of quantum local operations3151617. In consequence, the state fidelity or degree of entanglement decreases exponentially with channel length. Quantum repeater protocols (QRP) are one of most promising solutions designed to tackle such challenging problem3151617,181920. The general principle of QRP is illustrated in Fig. 1(a)–(c). In principle, QRP allow one to establish long-distance entanglement with fidelity close to unity, while the required time increases, e.g., polynomially with channel length (it depends on specific QRP). Thereby quantum repeaters hold promise for building large-scale quantum networks. Then a fundamental problem comes to us: what's the possible topology of quantum repeater network (QRN), and how to perform QRP on such network?

Figure 1: Renormalization and its relationship with quantum repeaters.

Top three panels (also see Ref. 16): principle of quantum repeaters. (a) The entire channel is divided into N auxiliary segments, avoiding exponential attenuation of fidelity. Entanglements are repeatedly created for each segments. (b) and (c) Nested purification that combines entanglement swapping and purification are successively performed in a hierarchical way. Adjacent segments are connected and extended to longer distance, eventually two remote nodes are connected via perfect entanglements. Bottom panel: schematic illustration of coupled renormalization. (d) Quantum node (circle) is a composite system composed of ensembles of qubits (dots). A pair of quantum nodes is connected by multiple copies of bipartite entangled states (solid lines). For simplicity, they are represented by single dashed lines in Fig. 1(e) and (f). (e) Nodes are assigned to different boxes according to the MEMB algorithm. (f) Single level CR is performed.

·       Full size image (268 KB)

·       Figures index

·       Next

In this work, we address this problem, with focus on the interplay between entanglement distribution and topology of quantum networks. A practical scenario of entanglement distribution has to consider the complex topology of quantum networks. Recent studies suggest that the topology of quantum networks strongly affects their performance91011. How well can we say about the topology of QRN? It's a problem that has not been seriously considered. Motivated by the rich and intriguing topology of complex networks, we envisage the topology of QRN as follows. The exponential decay of fidelity requires that QRN be fractal. And scale-free network is a plausible option for QRN6721. Moreover, as a generic characteristic of real-world networks, small-world effect6722 is able to reinforce the scalability of quantum networks11. We combine these elements with QRN. Next, so far, QRP have been elucidated for one-dimensional linear network. In order to apply QRP to fractal QRN, we draw on concepts and methodology from statistical physics. We find a clue to relate implementation of QRP to renormalization transformation. As a result, entanglement distribution over arbitrary fractal QRN corresponds to a process of successive renormalization transformations.

Results

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

Relationship between QRP and renormalization transformation

Here we offer a new perspective on QRP. As shown in Fig. 1(a)–(c), the operations of QRP exhibit a hierarchical characteristic and self-similarly nested structure. Using standard box-counting method, it's easy to compute fractal dimension dB = 1. Historically Kadanoff's seminal picture that spin blocks hierarchically nest in a self-similar manner basically stimulated Wilson's renormalization group theory, which is renowned as a powerful tool to the problem of phase transition2324. Here we point out that the implementation of QRP with nested structure actually corresponds to renormalization process in network setting.

As shown in Fig. 1(a)–(c), the quantum channel between nodes A and B is divided into Nsegments, and every c consecutive segments are grouped together into a unit which is extended to larger length-scale. This procedure is repeated with n nesting levels, where  31516. If we interpret c as a parameter which is none other than the transforming length-scale, then above procedure can be viewed as real space renormalization transformation. Guided by this remarkable idea, we present an universal framework which allows one to apply QRP to arbitrary QRN with fractal structure.

We find clear correspondences between one-dimensional and high dimensional quantum repeaters. Undoubtedly, the exponential decay of fidelity imposes strong constraint on the way nodes are interconnected. Basically nodes are interconnected in accordance with local attachment: a node prefers to link to neighboring nodes via intermediate repeater nodes, rather than distant nodes. This connection fashion gives rise to fractal structure25. Then fractal QRN can be substituted for the 1D linear network. And the length of 1D chain is replaced by the diameter of underneath fractal QRN

namely, largest distance between nodes (in graphic sense, the distance between two nodes is defined as the number of links along the shortest path67). Compared with segmentation fashion of 1D chain, the entire network is divided into boxes, whose size is equal to c, see Fig. 1(e). It will be desirable if the nesting level takes a similar form:

We will prove that it is indeed the case. It answers an intuitive problem: how many nesting levels nc are required for quantum networks with N nodes? Also we will show that it implies a structural transition where small-world is obtained.

Renormalization was successfully introduced into complex networks by Song et al., uncovering the self-similarity of complex networks26. A network is renormalized according to the box-covering technique26 (see Fig. 1(e)–(f)). The basic idea is as follows: tile the entire network with minimum number of boxes NB, where the distance between nodes within any box is smaller than the box size, namely, the transforming length-scale B. Each box is then replaced by a supernode. These supernodes are connected if there is at least one link between nodes in their respective boxes. It defines the fractal dimension dB in terms of a power law:

Apply this transformation   to a fractal network G0, which is scale invariant, then we have  .

Several algorithms2829 have been proposed to coarse-grain complex networks, nevertheless, not all of them are useful here. We choose the MEMB algorithm to divide the entire network into boxes29. It's a geometric algorithm which has the advantages of guaranteeing connectivity within boxes, isolating hubs of different boxes and avoiding overlap between boxes.

We then introduce some modifications. For clarity, this is rephrased in network language. We select the hub of a box (most connected node) as representative node, playing the role of supernode. If there is one link between two boxes, then add one link connecting their hubs. Otherwise, no links are attached. Above presentation instructs us to create shortcuts (long-distance entangled state with high fidelity) between which pair of representative nodes. As shown in Fig. 1(f), the corresponding shortcuts denoted by pink links form a coarse-grained network (CGN). As a result, the CGN is reconstructed and coupled to the initial network. Because of the self-similarity of underling network, the resulting CGN is topologically equivalent to the original one, and above renormalization processing can be iteratively applied to previous CGN with fixed c, and so on until the critical nesting level (see Eq. (8)). Notice that the requirement of local attachment is fulfilled throughout entire process. Eventually, the superposition of each level CGN forms a new network, namely, the coupled network (CN). For the sake of distinction between the standard and this modified renormalization, we name the later coupled renormalization (CR).

We have generalize quantum repeaters to arbitrary high but finite fractal dimension, in the sense that when dB = 1, CR is automatically reduced to 1D quantum repeaters. One possible application of CR for 1D linear network is shown in Fig. 1(c). In 1D case, each representative node is merely connected to two representative nodes (nodes below arrows). In regard to fractal QRN, however, a representative node (red circles) has probability P(k′) to link k′representative nodes (it depends on the degree distribution) via the short path composed of entangled links between two boxes (green links). For instance, in Fig. 1(f), hubs A and B are connected through a path B-C1-C2-A, whose length is c = 3. Each of such a path corresponds to one unit of 1D case (segments between two arrows in Fig. 1(c)). Then shortcuts are established between representative nodes, with quantum operations identical to 1D case. In other words, its definite physical realization relies on which QRP is utilized. Entanglement swapping30 and purification313233 are two most important quantum operations. By entanglement swapping, adjacent entangled links are connected and extended to two representative nodes. To obtain high fidelity entangled states, entanglement purification is required, which extracts nearly perfect entangled states from states with lower degree of entanglement. Alternatively, some QRP use quantum error correction181920. This class of QRP could circumvent the probabilistic fashion of purification-based protocols, and relax the strong requirement of long-lived quantum memory343536. Thus they have potential to extend entanglement to longer distance and speed up communication rate.

Why small-world and scale-free properties are relevant for quantum networks

Despite the great diversity of real-world networks, they share some common features. Most of real-world networks are scale-free networks with small-world property67. A network is scale-free if the probability to find a node with k links P(k), follows a power law P(k) ~ kγ (for real-world networks, 2 < γ < 3). This is quite different from Poisson distribution for Erdős-Rényi random graphs6721. Small-world is an influential concept describing such a phenomenon: despite the large size of networks, on average, any two nodes are separated by relatively short distance, which typically scales as:   6722. These features play a dominant role on dynamic functions of complex networks. One naturally wonders whether the two fundamental characteristics make a difference to quantum networks.

The realistic significance of small-world can be illustrated from the perspective of limited-path-length entanglement percolation11. Without quantum processing such as entanglement purification, the fidelity of communication along a long noisy path of imperfect entangled states decreases exponentially1116. Thus it yields a very short distance  of faithful communication, which severely limits effective size of quantum networks Ne. Things seem to be bad. However, if   , it turns out that most of nodes are reachable within the distance of reliable communication. For d-dimensional regular lattice,   , and we have Ne ~ d. In contrast,Ne ~ e for small-world networks. We therefore need a quantum small-world network, so that without further quantum processing, this desirable topological effect alone suffices to effectively mitigate the limitation of noise, and enhance the scalability of quantum networks.

The striking effect of small-world originates from the existence of shortcuts between remote nodes. A quantum network without shortcuts is not small-world network. Consequently, it's rather difficult to extend the influential concept of small-world to large-scale quantum networks, where shortcuts are not directly available. CR can generate a set of shortcuts, which eventually leads to small-world transition at a relatively small nesting level. We will clarify it in subsequent section. While CR can be applied to fractal networks such as Erdős-Rényi random graphs at criticality26, apparently, such topology is not a realistic option. We propose that QRN are scale-free and fractal observed at arbitrary spacial scale. We justify this proposal with twofold reasons.

Entanglement percolation is a combination of entanglement swapping and classical entanglement percolation9. In their framework, the threshold actually depends on the final topology. Notably, the percolation threshold for scale-free networks can be vanishing373839. It means that, as far as scale-free networks, classical entanglement percolation is such a good strategy that the critical amount of entanglement required for the presence of giant cluster is zero in asymptotic limit. Therefore, scale-free QRN has exceptional ability to preserve connectivity in the presence of noise. In addition, it's strongly supported by three facts. Other than local operations, classical communication is indispensable between quantum nodes. And entangled photon pairs can be transmitted through commercial telecom fiber. Thus, to some extent, QRN is embedded in classical communication networks. Whereas both phone call networks and Internet are scale-free networks67. If QRN is scale-free, we can make full use of the existing network infrastructures, without significantly altering them. Above facts suggest that scale-free network is a plausible and eligible candidate for QRN.

Without loss of generality, we apply CR to a scale-free fractal network generated by the minimal model (see Methods). Let Gn be the nth level CGN. According to renormalization group theory,   . So Gn can be seen as larger-scale network enlarged from Gn−1, or equivalently it arises from single level CR with transforming length-scale   . Larger-scale CGN here collectively act as shortcuts of the underlying smaller-scale ones, which drastically change the topology in such a way that nodes are globally separated by short path of entangled links. This can be further unveiled by the squeezed distance distribution which follows Gaussian distribution (see Fig. 2(b)). Hence, in the end, a hierarchically nested quantum small-world network is produced.

Figure 2: Statistical properties of CN.

In this example, t = 5, N = 9375, c = 3. (a) and (b) Distance distribution of CN with different nesting levels. (a) is log-log plot of P() versus , the slope of the upper line is dB − 1 ≈ 0.46 (analytical estimate), and the lower line 0.24 (fitting). (c) Prediction of diameter of single level CN as a function of c. (d) Log-log plot of the minimal and average diameter of different size of single level CN.

·       Full size image (307 KB)

·       Previous

·       Figures index

·       Next

Proof of fractal to small-world transition

We proceed to make it clear whether single or iterative CR will lead to fractal to small-world transition. Two analytical proofs with numerical simulations are provided. A rigorous and reliable method is to observe the behavior of average degree under renormalization flow (see Methods)40. In regard to single level CR, the expected transition does not arise. However, it's safe to say that iterative CR can give rise to fractal to small-world transition. Evidences for the transition displayed in Fig. 3 conform above conclusion. Nonetheless, the average diameter of CN, namely, the signature of small-world is unclear.

Figure 3: Evidences for QRN with small-world property.

(a) Log-log plot of Eq. (7) with parameters c = 3, and dB ≈ 1.46. The analytical prediction (straight line) matches well with numerical simulation (square). (b) Log-log plot of fB – f0 versus ξB.

·       Full size image (115 KB)

·       Previous

·       Figures index

We begin with analyzing the impact of single level CR, and then generalize it to iterative case. Plugging Eq. (3) into Eq. (1), we immediately obtain the diameter of CGN DB(c) ~ D0/c. In order to compute DC(c), the diameter of CN, we suggest a hierarchical routing method which exploits the hierarchical structure and convert it into a routing problem. A path connecting two remote nodes is divided into two parts: one part links one of the nodes and its corresponding hub within the box, and the other part, consisting of only representative nodes, connects the two hubs. The total length of the first part is approximately c − 1, and that of the second isDB(c). We thus have

see Fig. 2(c). Take note that there is an optimal transforming length-scale,   , which yields minimal diameter   . Meanwhile, numerical simulation gives the corresponding minimal average diameter   (see Fig. 2(d)). An analytical approximation shows that   scales as a power law too (see supplemental information). The behavior of   suggests that single level CR is unable to trigger the transition, which is consistent with above conclusion.

Now let's consider multi-level CR with fixed box size. In analogy with above results, it's easy to obtain the diameter of iterative CN D(nc) for small c, using Eq. (4) with recursive derivation, we find

where n is nesting level of CR. Taking into account finite size effect, Eq. (5) holds on condition that   .

Remarkably, the first term decays exponentially, whereas the second increases linearly. Hence, D(nc) is governed by the linear term and grows slowly. We readily obtain the criterion for the transition:

implying that D(ncc) ≈ nc(c − 1) for large N. It's desirable that both nc and D(ncc) increases logarithmically with size of network, since

and

How to appreciate the implication of nc now is evident. We identify nc as critical nesting level, at which small-world is achieved. Direct evidence is shown by Eq. (7). What's more, it's exactly in agreement with simulation result, see Fig. 3(a). Here nc is inversely proportional to fractal dimension dB, indicating its topological interdependence. When dB = 1, Eq. (8) reproduces the result of 1D case. While dB → ∞, nc → 0, means that the initial network is already small-world, perfectly consistent with conclusion that when dB → ∞, these networks are small-world without fractality2527.

Discussion

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

The highlights of our scenario are as follows. Our scenario is a fairly general framework. CR is compatible with various QRP based on the aforementioned principle. In principle, CR is applicable to arbitrary quantum networks with fractal structure, not restricted to the example of scale-free networks. And the transition will arise as long as Eq. (6) or Eq. (8) is satisfied. It's not difficult to check that the unique requirement of the whole derivations is the fractality of QRN. Furthermore, the collective distribution of shortcuts across entire network is mapped to renormalization transformation, where the self-similar fashion of operations is preserved at network level, while the scale-free fractal structure is kept at all length-scales. Each level transformation enlarges underling network into larger-scale QRN. The simultaneous logarithmical scaling of critical nesting level and corresponding diameter suggests that to achieve small-world, CR is operable even for QRN of large size. Moreover, thanks to the scale-free nature, CN is particularly resilient to random failure of quantum nodes.

To summarize, we have generalized one-dimensional quantum repeaters to high fractal dimension by introducing an approach called CR, which relates entanglement distribution over arbitrary fractal QRN to recursive renormalization transformations. We assume that QRN is fractal and scale-free, which is the case for a large number of real-world networks. In spite of the large size of QRN, there exists a relatively small critical nesting level for CR, at which small-world is obtained. Small-world seems to be a necessary element for a scalable quantum network. Our study suggests that concepts and tools from statistical physics will play an important role in the joint study. It has conceived another significant direction which may open new avenue to address the outstanding issue of complexity. That is, quantum simulation of dynamic process on complex networks or design of quantum algorithms for sophisticated questions in network science414243. All of these attempts may dramatically alter the landscape of both fields.

Methods

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

Minimal model for scale-free networks

The growth of the network is actually the inverse procedure of renormalization25. we begin from a triangle at time step t = 0.

  1. At time step t + 1, m new nodes are connected to the endpoints of each link l generated at time step t.
  2. Then, with probability 1 − e, we remove link l of time step t, and add one new link connecting a new pair of nodes attached to the endpoints of link l.
  3. Repeat (i) and (ii) recursively until the wanted time step.

This model produces a scale-free network with degree distribution exponent γ = 1 + ln(2m + 1)/ln(m + e). We are particularly interested in two distinct types of networks with e = 0 or e = 1, where a pure fractal network with fractal dimension dB = ln(2m + 1)/ln 3, and a nonfractal, small-world network (SW) are achieved respectively. For simplicity and without loss of university, here let m = 2, e = 0, then dB ≈ 1.46.

Renormalization group method for proof of fractal to small-world transition

Literature40 studied networks constructed by randomly adding links to a fractal network with probability p() ~ α. Let f0f′ and fB be the average degree of the initial, the new and renormalized network respectively. Then

where   . Let s = α/dB. If s > 1, λ = 2 − s, otherwise λ = 1. Notice that when s = 2, λ = 0, a stable phase corresponding to fractal network is separated from the unstable phase moving toward complete graph, where small-world is achieved.

With purpose of finding the location of CN in the phase diagram, we have to calculate the exponent λ. In our model, on one hand,

so α ≈ 2dB − 1, and s = 2 − 1/dBλ = 2 − s = 1/dB ≈ 0.68. On the other hand, numerical simulation shows that λ ≈ 0.89 (see Fig. 3(b)). The apparent deviation is mainly caused by the rough approximation that p() follows a power law (see Fig. 2(a)). In spite of the deviation, it's definite that   . Thus, CN belongs to the unstable phase and multi-level CR can give rise to fractal to small-world transition.

For single level CR, we have

When B > c, the links we added will not emerge in the renormalized network with length-scaleB40. We only need to consider one case c = o, which diverges in the large size limit. So fB –f0 → 0, and   . Thus, coinciding with prediction of equation   , single level CN stays in the stable phase, the expected transition does not occur.

References

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

1.    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

2.    Pan, J.-W. et al. Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777(2012).

o   Article

o   Show context

3.    Yuan, Z.-S. et al. Entangled photons and quantum communication. Phys. Rep. 497, 1(2010).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

4.    Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023 (2008).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

5.    Ritter, S. et al. An elementary quantum network of single atoms in optical cavities.Nature 484, 195 (2012).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

6.    Albert, R. & Barabási, A.-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 47 (2002).

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

7.    Boccaletti, S. et al. Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys. Rep. 424, 175(2006)

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

8.    Barabási, A.-L. The network takeover. Nature Phys. 8, 14 (2012).

o   Article

o   Show context

9.    Acín, A., Cirac, J. I. & Lewenstein, M. Entanglement percolation in quantum networks.Nature Phys. 3, 256 (2007).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

10. Cuquet, M. & Calsamiglia, J. Entanglement percolation in quantum complex networks.Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 240503 (2009).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

11. Cuquet, M. & Calsamiglia, J. Limited-path-length entanglement percolation in quantum complex networks. Phys. Rev. A 83, 032319 (2011).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

12. Perseguers, S., Lewenstein, M., Acín, A. & Cirac, J. I. Quantum random networks.Nature Phys. 6, 539 (2010).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

13. Garnerone, S., Giorda, P. & Zanardi, P. Bipartite quantum states and random complex networks. New J. Phys. 14, 013011 (2012).

o   Article

o   Show context

14. Ionicioiu, R. & Spiller, T. P. Encoding graphs into quantum states: an axiomatic approach. Phys. Rev. A 85, 062313 (2012).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

15. Sangouard, N., Simon, C., Riedmatten, H. de & Gisin, N. Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 33 (2011).

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

16. Briegel, H.-J., Dür, W., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

17. Duan, L.-M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. Nature414, 413 (2001).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

18. Munro, W. J. et al. From quantum multiplexing to high-performance quantum networking.Nature Photon. 4, 792 (2010).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

19. Jiang, L., Taylor, J. M., Nemoto, K., Munro, W. J., Van Meter, R. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum repeater with encoding. Phys. Rev. A 79, 032325 (2009).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

20. Nadja K. Bernardes & Peter van Loock. Hybrid quantum repeater with encoding. Phys. Rev. A 86, 052301 (2012).

o   Show context

21. Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509(1999).

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

22. Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature 393,440 (1998).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

23. Fisher, M. E. Renormalization group theory: its basis and formulation in statistical physics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 653 (1998).

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

24. Wilson, K. G. The renormalization group: critical phenomena and the Kondo problem.Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975).

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

25. Song, C., Havlin, S. & Makse, H. A. Origins of fractality in the growth of complex networks. Nature Phys. 2, 275 (2006).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

26. Song, C., Havlin, S. & Makse, H. A. Self-similarity of complex networks. Nature433, 392(2005).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

27. Rozenfeld, H. D., Havlin, S. & ben-Avraham, D. Fractal and transfractal recursive scale-free nets. New J. Phys. 9, 175 (2007).

o   Article

o   Show context

28. Kim, J. S., Goh, K.-I., Kahng, B. & Kim, D. A box-covering algorithm for fractal scaling in scale-free networks. Chaos17, 026116 (2007).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

29. Song, C., Gallos, L. K., Havlin, S. & Makse, H. A. How to calculate the fractal dimension of a complex network: the box covering algorithm. J. Stat. Mech. P03006 (2007).

o   Show context

30. Żukowski, M., Zeilinger, A., Horne, M. A. & Ekert, A. K. Event-ready detectors Bell experiment via entanglement swapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993).

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

31. Dür, W. & Briegel, H. J. Entanglement purification and quantum error correction. Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 1381 (2007).

o   Article

o   Show context

32. Pan, J.-W., Simon, S., Brukner, C. & Zeilinger, A. Entanglement purification for quantum communication. Nature 410, 1067 (2001).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

33. Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Popescu, S., Schumacher, B., Smolin, J. A. & Wootters, W. K. Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

34. Zhao, B. et al. A millisecond quantum memory for scalable quantum networks. Nature Phys. 5, 95 (2009).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   Article

o   Show context

35. Clausen, C. et al. Quantum storage of photonic entanglement in a crystal. Nature 469,508 (2011).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

36. Dai, H.-N. et al. Holographic Storage of biphoton entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,210501 (2012).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

37. Albert, R., Jeong, H. & Barabási, A.-L. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks.Nature 406, 378 (2000).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

38. Callaway, D. S., Newman, M. E. J., Strogatz, S. H. & Watts, D. J. Network robustness and fragility: percolation on random graphs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5468 (2000).

o   CAS

o   ISI

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

39. Vázquez, A. & Moreno, Y. Resilience to damage of graphs with degree correlations.Phys. Rev. E 67, 015101 (2003).

o   CAS

o   Article

o   Show context

40. Rozenfeld, H. D., Song, C. & Makse, H. A. Small-world to fractal transition in complex networks: a renormalization group approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025701 (2010).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

41. Garnerone, S., Zanardi, P. & Lidar, D. A. Adiabatic quantum algorithm for search engine ranking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 230506 (2012).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

42. Paparo, G. D. & Martin-Delgado, M. A. Google in a quantum network. Sci. Rep. 2, 444(2012).

o   CAS

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

43. Sánchez-Burillo, E., Duch, J., Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Zueco, D. Quantum navigation and ranking in complex networks. Sci. Rep. 2, 605 (2012).

o   PubMed

o   Article

o   Show context

Download references

Acknowledgements

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

We thank Chaoming Song and Liang Jiang for helpful suggestions. This work is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11275186, 10975126, 91024026, 11205040), the Major Important Project Fund for Anhui University Nature Science Research (Grant No. KJ2011ZD07) and the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (Grant No. 20093402110032).

Author information

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

·       Supplementary information

Affiliations

1.    Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China

o   Zong-Wen Wei &

 

o   Bing-Hong Wang

2.    Institute of Information Economy and Alibaba Business College, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, China

o   Xiao-Pu Han

Contributions

Z.-W.W. conceived the research, performed analytical and numerical calculations, and wrote the manuscript. X.-P.H. discussed the manuscript and prepared the figures. B.-H.W. supervised the research.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to: 

·       Zong-Wen Wei

Supplementary information

·       Introduction

 

·       Results

 

·       Discussion

 

·       Methods

 

·       References

 

·       Acknowledgements

·       Author information

 

·       Supplementary information

PDF files

1.    Supplementary Information (120K)

Supplemental information

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

 



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4673-661875.html

上一篇:论文交流2013-1 Scientific Reports 量子通讯再发中继器分形网络
下一篇:中国科技大学624同学五十周年玻璃台聚会2013年台历

1 张海峰

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (1 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2021-10-21 01:34

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部