text:
# A Concentration/Purification Scheme for Two Partially Entangled Photon Pairs

## I INTRODUCTION

In many applications in quantum information processing, such as quantum teleportation  and entanglement based quantum key distribution , it is essential that two separated parties, Alice and Bob, share the maximally entangled particles in advance. Practically, a quantum channel, to be used to distribute the pairs, is usually noisy. It is thus important that Alice and Bob share maximally entangled pairs even through such channels. For that purpose, entanglement concentration  and purification (or distillation)  have been originally proposed. In these schemes, previously shared less entangled pairs can be transformed into a smaller number of maximally entangled pairs by local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Until today, many schemes to obtain maximally entangled particles by LOCC have been proposed .

In this paper we propose an experimentally feasible concentration/purification scheme, in which a maximally entangled photon pair is obtained from two photon pairs in identical partially entangled states. The basic idea of this paper is based on the concentration scheme proposed by Bennett, et al. . In their proposal, Alice or Bob performs a collective measurement for the joint state of $`n`$ pairs of particles (called as the Schmidt projection method), then they convert the projected state into a smaller number of maximally entangled pairs. For polarization entangled photons, however, the Schmidt projection method is difficult to perform because collective and non-destructive measurements for photons are not feasible today. In our scheme, Alice and Bob use only linear optical elements and photon detectors, in which destructive detection of two photons realizes the required projection and the conversion at the same time. In a similar scheme , which uses entanglement swapping for two pairs of entangled photons, it is assumed that initially Alice has both photons of one pair and Alice and Bob share photons of the other pair. In our scheme, in contrast, we assume that the two pairs are distributed in the same way, namely, Alice obtains one member of each photon pair, and Bob obtains the other member of each photon pair, as shown in Fig. 1. This feature makes the proposed scheme applicable to quantum channels with unknown fluctuations, namely the proposed scheme also works for purifying a class of mixed states. In the following, therefore, we use “purification” instead of “concentration/purification” for simplicity.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we explain our purification scheme in an ideal situation. In Sec. III, we discuss two types of imperfect detectors and analyze the state after the purification. In Sec. IV, we consider the use of spontaneous parametric down-conversion (PDC) as a photon pair source and the effect of dark counts of the detectors. Finally, we discuss in Sec. V the required property of fluctuating quantum channels for our scheme to be applicable.

## II Basic Idea

In this section, we show how the two separated parties, Alice and Bob, can purify a maximally entangled photon pair from two identical partially entangled photon pairs by LOCC. Let us assume that Alice and Bob are given two pairs of photons in the following polarization entangled states (we will describe a method creating this state in Sec. IV)

$`|\alpha ,\beta _{12}|\alpha ,\beta _{34}`$ $``$ $`(\alpha |1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}+\beta |1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}})`$ (2)
$`(\alpha |1_{3\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}+\beta |1_{3\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}),`$
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are complex numbers satisfying $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$ and $`|n`$ is the normalized $`n`$-photon number state. The subscript numbers represent the spatial modes, and $`\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}`$ represent horizontal and vertical polarization modes, respectively. As shown in Fig. 1, Alice receives photons in modes $`1`$ and $`3`$, and Bob receives photons in modes $`2`$ and $`4`$. For simplicity, we omit the modes in the vacuum, using abbreviations such as $`|1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|0_{1\mathrm{V}}|0_{2\mathrm{V}}|1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}`$. Alice and Bob can transform these photons into a maximally entangled photon pair in modes 6 and 2, in the following way.

Eq. (2) is expanded as

$`\alpha ^2|1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{3\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}+\beta ^2|1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{3\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}`$ (3)
$`+\alpha \beta (|1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{3\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}+|1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{3\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}).`$ (4)
Note that the third and forth terms in Eq. (4) have the same coefficients, $`\alpha \beta `$. Alice rotates the polarization of the photon in mode 3 by $`90^{}`$ using a $`\lambda /2`$ wave plate $`(\mathrm{R}_{90})`$ and sends it to one port of a polarization beam splitter (PBS). The photon in mode 1 is sent to another port of the PBS. After the PBS, the state of Eq. (4) is transformed into

$`\alpha ^2|1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{6\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}+\beta ^2|1_{5\mathrm{V}}|1_{5\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}`$ (5)
$`+\alpha \beta (|1_{5\mathrm{H}}|1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}+|1_{5\mathrm{V}}|1_{6\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}).`$ (6)
Note that there are two photons in the same spatial modes for the first two terms. Alice and Bob rotate the polarization of their photons in modes 5 and 4 by $`45^{}`$ using $`\lambda /2`$ wave plates $`(\mathrm{R}_{45})`$. These transformations are expressed by

$`|1_{k\mathrm{H}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{k^{}\mathrm{H}}+|1_{k^{}\mathrm{V}}),`$ (7)
$`|1_{k\mathrm{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{k^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{k^{}\mathrm{V}}),`$ (8)
and

$`|1_{k\mathrm{H}}|1_{k\mathrm{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|2_{k^{}\mathrm{H}}|2_{k^{}\mathrm{V}}),`$ (9)
where $`k=4,5`$. The state of Eq. (6) is then transformed into

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\sqrt{2}}}|0_5^{}(|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}+|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})|1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{6\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2}}(|2_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|2_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$
$`|2_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}+|2_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}_{62}`$
$`+|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}_{62}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}),`$
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm )}_{62}1/\sqrt{2}(|1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}\pm |1_{6\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}})`$ is the state of the maximally entangled photon pair. If Alice and Bob detect a single photon at $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$ (or $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$) and the state is projected to $`|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ (or $`|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$), they can share a maximally entangled photon pair in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$. If they detect a single photon at $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ (or $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$), they receive a maximally entangled photon pair in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}_{62}`$. In this case, they can easily transform it into the form of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$. Therefore the probability to share a maximally entangled photon pair in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ is $`2|\alpha \beta |^2`$.

In this scheme, Alice and Bob need not know the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Suppose that they receive the photons in a mixed state written as

$`\rho ={\displaystyle P(\alpha ,\beta )|\alpha ,\beta _{12}\alpha ,\beta ||\alpha ,\beta _{34}\alpha ,\beta |d^2\alpha d^2\beta },`$ (15)
where $`P(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is the probability distribution of their receiving the photon pairs in the state $`|\alpha ,\beta _{12}|\alpha ,\beta _{34}`$. In this case, the state of the photons just before the detection becomes a mixture of Eq. (14) with various values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. They can, nevertheless, obtain a maximally entangled photon pair with the probability $`2|\alpha \beta |^2P(\alpha ,\beta )d^2\alpha d^2\beta `$ after they detect a single photon in modes $`5^{}`$ and $`4^{}`$. Since they can share a maximally entangled photon pair from pairs in a mixed state, this scheme can be called as entanglement purification.

## III purification using imperfect detection

In this section, we study the property of output states in modes 6 and 2 when detectors with a quantum efficiency $`\eta `$ are used. We consider two kinds of detectors; conventional photon detectors and single photon detectors. Conventional photon detectors (e. g., EG&G SPCM) cannot distinguish a single photon from two or more photons. Single photon detectors, which were recently demonstrated experimentally, can distinguish a single photon from two or more photons . In the following, we investigate the influence of the quantum efficiency on the output states in modes 6 and 2, and show that Alice and Bob receive a mixture of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ and $`|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ unless they use single photon detectors with a unit quantum efficiency.

Consider a photon detector with a quantum efficiency $`\eta `$, which can distinguish any number of photocounts. Positive-operator-valued-measure (POVM) elements  of finding $`n`$ photocounts can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_n={\displaystyle \underset{m=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\eta ^n(1\eta )^{mn}C_n^m|mm|,`$ (16)
where $`C_n^m`$ is the binomial coefficient, and $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_n=1`$. Using this POVM, we can obtain the expression for the POVM elements for a conventional photon detector and a single photon detector. The POVM elements for a conventional photon detector can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}=\mathrm{\Pi }_0={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1\eta )^m|mm|,`$ (17)
and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}=1\mathrm{\Pi }_0={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[1(1\eta )^m]|mm|.`$ (18)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}`$ is the POVM element for no photocounts, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ is that for photocounts. The POVM elements for a single photon detector can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1\eta )^m|mm|,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}m\eta (1\eta )^{m1}|mm|,`$ (20)
and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s2}}`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[1(1\eta +m\eta )(1\eta )^{m1}]|mm|.`$ (22)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}`$ is the POVM element for no photocounts, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}`$ is that for single photocounts, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s2}}`$ is that for multiple photocounts. Using these POVM elements, we can calculate the output states after the detection at imperfect detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$.

Let us first consider the case where Alice and Bob use conventional photon detectors. Suppose that a coincidence detection is obtained at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$. In this case photons are not detected at the detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ or $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$. The output state in modes 6 and 2 after this detection is calculated as

$`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}_{5^{},4^{}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}|+(1\frac{\eta }{2})|\beta |^2|0_60||1_{2\mathrm{V}}1|}{1\frac{\eta }{2}|\beta |^2}},`$ (24)
where superscripts of POVM elements represent the modes. Note that Eq. (24) is a classical mixture of the desired state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ and an error state $`|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$. The probability of the coincidence detection $`P`$ can thus be regarded as the sum of two probabilities $`P_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}`$, where $`P_\mathrm{s}`$ is the probability of obtaining a photon pair in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ is the probability of obtaining a single photon in the state $`|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$. These probabilities are calculated as $`P=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]=\eta ^2|\beta |^2[2|\alpha |^2+(2\eta )|\beta |^2]/4`$, $`P_\mathrm{s}=\eta ^2|\alpha \beta |^2/2`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}=\eta ^2(2\eta )|\beta |^4/4`$. The minimum value of $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ is $`|\beta |^4/4`$. Alice and Bob can also obtain the output state $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}`$ when they obtain the other three combinations of coincidence, namely, ($`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$), ($`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$), and ($`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$). Therefore the probability of obtaining the output state $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}`$ is $`4P`$.

Similarly, in the case where Alice and Bob use single photon detectors, the output state in modes 6 and 2 after the detection is calculated as

$`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{Tr_{5^{},4^{}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}|+(1\eta )|\beta |^2|0_60||1_{2\mathrm{V}}1|}{1\eta |\beta |^2}}.`$ (26)
Note that Eq. (26) is also a classical mixture of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ and $`|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$. The probabilities $`P`$, $`P_\mathrm{s}`$, and $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ are calculated as $`P=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|]=\eta ^2|\beta |^2[|\alpha |^2+(1\eta )|\beta |^2]/2`$, $`P_\mathrm{s}=\eta ^2|\alpha \beta |^2/2`$, and $`P_\mathrm{e}=\eta ^2(1\eta )|\beta |^4/2`$. Note that $`P_\mathrm{s}`$ is the same as in the case using the conventional photon detectors, but $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ is different and its minimum value is $`0`$.

The error in the output state $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}`$ or $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{s}`$ stems from the state $`|0_6|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ containing only one photon. Therefore, if Alice and Bob are allowed to perform the postselection, in which they select the events of the photocounts in modes 6 and 2, they can discard the events of error. In this situation, the types of detectors are not relevant, and the success probability is solely determined by the quantum efficiency $`\eta `$.

## IV Implementation with a PDC source

In this section, we consider the use of spontaneous parametric down-conversion as a photon source of the input states for the proposed purification scheme, and discuss the property of the output state. We also discuss the effect of the dark counts of the detectors.

### A Entangled photon pairs from PDC

The partially entangled photon pair $`|\alpha ,\beta _{12}`$ can be generated by pumping combined crystals, which is shown in Fig. 2. The degree of entanglement can be continuously changed by rotating the polarization of the pump beam. The generated state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}`$ can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{H}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{V}}`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{V}}`$ are the down-converted states generated from crystals $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{V}`$, respectively, and are written as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{H}}=sech|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mathrm{H}}{|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|}}\mathrm{tanh}|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|\right)^n|n_{1\mathrm{H}}|n_{2\mathrm{H}}`$ (27)
and

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{V}}=sech|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mathrm{V}}{|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|}}\mathrm{tanh}|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|\right)^n|n_{1\mathrm{V}}|n_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ (28)
with $`\gamma _\mathrm{H}|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|e^{i(\varphi _\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}/2)}`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{V}|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|e^{i(\varphi _\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}/2)}`$. Here, $`\gamma _\mathrm{H}`$ ($`\gamma _\mathrm{V}`$) is proportional to the complex amplitude of the classical pump beam for $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{H}`$ ($`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{V}`$). The phases of the pump beams for $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{V}`$ are expressed by $`\varphi _\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}/2`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}/2`$, respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}`$ is the phase difference between the two pump beams. The ratio of $`|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|`$ and $`|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|`$ can be controlled by rotating the polarization of the pump beam by the polarization rotator, PR, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\mathrm{p}`$ can be controlled by the phase shifter, PS. Using the following expressions,

$`\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{tanh}^2|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|+\mathrm{tanh}^2|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|},`$ (29)
$`\alpha e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mathrm{H}}{|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|}{\gamma }},`$ (30)
$`\beta e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mathrm{V}}{|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|}{\gamma }},`$ (31)
and

$`gsech^2|\gamma _\mathrm{H}|sech^2|\gamma _\mathrm{V}|=(1\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2)(1\gamma ^2|\beta |^2),`$ (32)
we can write the state of the down-converted field as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\gamma \alpha e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}})^n(\gamma \beta e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}})^m`$ (34)
$`\times |n_{1\mathrm{H}}|n_{2\mathrm{H}}|m_{1\mathrm{V}}|m_{2\mathrm{V}}.`$
Collecting the terms of the same total photon number, we can rewrite the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}`$ in the following form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}`$ (36)
$`+\gamma e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}+\gamma ^2e^{2i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}+\mathrm{}),`$
where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}`$ $``$ $`|0_{1\mathrm{H}}|0_{2\mathrm{H}}|0_{1\mathrm{V}}|0_{2\mathrm{V}},`$ (37)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}`$ $``$ $`\alpha |1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|0_{1\mathrm{V}}|0_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ (39)
$`+\beta |0_{1\mathrm{H}}|0_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}=|\alpha ,\beta _{12},`$
and

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}`$ $``$ $`\alpha \beta |1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ (42)
$`+\alpha ^2|2_{1\mathrm{H}}|2_{2\mathrm{H}}|0_{1\mathrm{V}}|0_{2\mathrm{V}}`$
$`+\beta ^2|0_{1\mathrm{H}}|0_{2\mathrm{H}}|2_{1\mathrm{V}}|2_{2\mathrm{V}}.`$
Note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}`$ are normalized, but $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}`$ is not normalized.

We will be able to obtain two photon pairs by pumping a nonlinear crystal twice by a short pulse as in Fig. 3, as was used in several experiments . The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1234}`$ generated from this source can be expressed as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1234}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{34}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`g[|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}`$ (47)
$`+\gamma e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34})`$
$`+\gamma ^2e^{2i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34}`$
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{34})+\mathrm{}]`$
$`=`$ $`g(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{1234}+\gamma e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{1234}`$ (49)
$`+\gamma ^2e^{2i\varphi _\mathrm{p}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{1234}+\mathrm{}),`$
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{1234}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{1234}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{1234}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34}+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{34}`$. In our scheme, Alice and Bob do not know the phase $`\varphi _\mathrm{p}`$, so that the state received by them is the mixed state $`\rho _{1234}^{\mathrm{PDC}}`$ that is obtained by averaging Eq. (49) over $`\varphi _\mathrm{p}`$ as

$`\rho _{1234}^{\mathrm{PDC}}`$ $`=`$ $`g^2(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{1234}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}|+\gamma ^2|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{1234}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}|`$ (51)
$`+\gamma ^4|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{1234}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}|+\mathrm{}).`$
In the following, we assume that $`\gamma `$ is small, so that we restrict the analysis up to $`O(\gamma ^4)`$.

### B Purification using imperfect detection

As shown in Fig. 3, the state $`\rho _{1234}^{\mathrm{PDC}}`$ is transformed by the same operations described in Sec. II. The term $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34}`$ becomes Eq. (14) and the other terms are calculated as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}`$ (52)
$`\alpha |1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})|1_{2\mathrm{V}},`$ (54)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}_{34}`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}|1_{6\mathrm{V}}(|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}+|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}(|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}+|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})(|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}),`$ (57)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{34}`$ (58)
$`\alpha ^2|2_{6\mathrm{H}}|2_{2\mathrm{H}}`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2}}(|2_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\sqrt{2}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}+|2_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})|2_{2\mathrm{V}}`$ (60)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})|1_{6\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}},`$ (61)
and

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}_{34}`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}(|2_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}+\sqrt{2}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}+|2_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})|2_{6\mathrm{V}}`$ (63)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}(|2_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}+\sqrt{2}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}+|2_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})`$ (64)
$`(|2_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}\sqrt{2}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|1_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}+|2_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}}(|1_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}+|1_{5^{}\mathrm{V}})(|2_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}|2_{4^{}\mathrm{V}})|1_{6\mathrm{V}}.`$ (66)
Using these expressions, we can obtain the state $`\rho _{24^{}5^{}6}^{\mathrm{PDC}}`$ after transforming $`\rho _{1234}^{\mathrm{PDC}}`$.

We calculate the output state in modes 6 and 2 by using a similar way as in Sec. III. Let us consider the case where Alice and Bob use conventional photon detectors. Suppose that a coincidence detection is obtained at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$. In contrast to the case in Sec. III, the modes $`5^{}\mathrm{V}`$ and $`4^{}\mathrm{V}`$ are not always in the vacuum. If photocounts are recorded at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ or $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, they obtain the vacuum in modes 6 and 2. It is thus better to discard such events in order to reduce errors. When the detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ record no photocounts, the output state in modes 6 and 2 after the detection is calculated as

$`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}_{5^{},4^{}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}^{5^{}\mathrm{V}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}^{4^{}\mathrm{V}}\rho _{24^{}5^{}6}^{\mathrm{PDC}}]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}^{5^{}\mathrm{V}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{c0}}^{4^{}\mathrm{V}}\rho _{24^{}5^{}6}^{\mathrm{PDC}}]}}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C^\mathrm{c}}}\{8\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}|`$ (71)
$`+[4+(43\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]|0_60||0_20|`$
$`+4(2\eta )\gamma ^2|\beta |^2|0_60||1_{2\mathrm{V}}1|`$
$`+4(2\eta )\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2|1_{6\mathrm{V}}1||0_20|\},`$
where $`C^\mathrm{c}=4+4(4\eta )\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2+(2428\eta +9\eta ^2)\gamma ^2|\beta |^2`$. Note that Eq. (71) is also a classical mixture of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}`$ and error states containing smaller number of photons. As in Sec. III, we use the probabilities $`P`$, $`P_\mathrm{s}`$, and $`P_\mathrm{e}`$, but here we further decompose $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ as $`P_\mathrm{e}=P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}+P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$, where $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ is the probability of having the vacuum in modes 6 and 2, and $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ is that of having a photon either in mode 6 or 2. Each probability is expressed as

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2C^\mathrm{c}/16,`$ (72)
$`P_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^4|\alpha \beta |^2/2,`$ (73)
$`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[4+(43\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/16,`$ (74)
and

$`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2(2\eta )g^2\gamma ^4|\beta |^2/4.`$ (75)
In this case the minimum value of $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ are $`g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[4+\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/16`$ and $`g^2\gamma ^4|\beta |^2/4`$, respectively. If Alice and Bob do not discard the events when photocounts are recorded at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ or $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ increases to $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[4+(4\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/16`$ and the minimum value of $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ increases to $`g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[4+9\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/16`$.

Similarly, in the case where Alice and Bob use single photon detectors, the output state in modes 6 and 2 after the detection is calculated as

$`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}_{5^{},4^{}}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}^{5^{}\mathrm{V}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}^{4^{}\mathrm{V}}\rho _{24^{}5^{}6}^{\mathrm{PDC}}]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{5^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s1}}^{4^{}\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}^{5^{}\mathrm{V}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{s0}}^{4^{}\mathrm{V}}\rho _{24^{}5^{}6}^{\mathrm{PDC}}]}}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C^\mathrm{s}}}\{2\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{62}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}|`$ (80)
$`+[1+4(1\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]|0_60||0_20|`$
$`+2(1\eta )\gamma ^2|\beta |^2|0_60||1_{2\mathrm{V}}1|`$
$`+2(1\eta )\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2|1_{6\mathrm{V}}1||0_20|\},`$
where $`C^\mathrm{s}=1+2(2\eta )\gamma ^2|\alpha |^2+2(32\eta )(1\eta )\gamma ^2|\beta |^2`$. Each probability is expressed as

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2C^\mathrm{s}/4,`$ (81)
$`P_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^4|\alpha \beta |^2/2,`$ (82)
$`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[1+4(1\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/4,`$ (83)
and

$`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^2(1\eta )g^2\gamma ^4|\beta |^2/2.`$ (84)
In this case the minimum values of $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ are $`g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2/4`$ and $`0`$, respectively. Note that in comparison with the case using the conventional photon detectors, $`P_\mathrm{s}`$ is the same, but $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(1)}`$ are different. If Alice and Bob do not discard the events when photocounts are recorded at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ or $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$, $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ increases to $`\eta ^2g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[1+(2\eta )^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/4`$ and the minimum value of $`P_\mathrm{e}^{(0)}`$ increases to $`g^2\gamma ^2|\beta |^2[1+\gamma ^2|\beta |^2]/4`$.

The error in the output state $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{c}`$ or $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^\mathrm{s}`$ stems from the states with smaller number of photons. Therefore, if Alice and Bob are allowed to perform the postselection, they can discard the events of error similarly to the case of the ideal photon pair source. In this situation, again, the types of detectors are not relevant and the success probability is solely determined by the quantum efficiency $`\eta `$. Moreover, they need not refer to the detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{V}}`$ because the vacuum is removed by the postselection.

### C The effect of dark counts

When photon detectors have dark counts, the probability of error $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ increases, and the error cannot always be discarded even by the postselection. In the following, we derive the conditions that we can neglect the effect of dark counts.

We assume that the dark counts are random detection events, namely, each event is uncorrelated to other dark or real counts. Let the mean number of dark counts during each run of the purification scheme be $`\nu `$ for each detector. We assume $`\nu 1`$. Consider the case Alice and Bob obtain a fourfold coincidence detection at detectors $`\mathrm{D}_{5^{}\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_{4^{}\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mathrm{D}_6`$, and $`\mathrm{D}_2`$. The probability that all the four counts are caused by real photons is $`P_0=O(\gamma ^4)`$. $`\gamma ^2`$ is the generation probability of a photon pair. The probabilities $`P_i`$ that the fourfold coincidence detection includes $`i`$ dark counts are of the order $`P_1=O(\gamma ^4\nu )`$, $`P_2=O(\gamma ^2\nu ^2)`$, $`P_3=O(\gamma ^2\nu ^3)`$ and $`P_4=O(\nu ^4)`$. To satisfy $`P_0P_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$, $`\nu `$ must satisfy $`\nu ^2/\gamma ^21`$. Therefore, the condition for the effect of dark counts to be negligible is $`\nu 1`$ and $`\nu ^2/\gamma ^21`$.

In a teleportation experiment , where a nonlinear crystal is pumped twice by a short pulse, $`\gamma ^2`$ is of order $`10^4`$. The conventional photon detectors (e. g., EG&G SPCM) typically have the dark count rates of order $`100\mathrm{s}^1`$, which gives the value of $`\nu 10^6`$ for the coincidence time $`10\mathrm{ns}`$. The single photon detectors  have the dark count rates of order $`10^4\mathrm{s}^1`$, which gives the value of $`\nu 10^4`$ for the coincidence time $`10\mathrm{ns}`$. In both cases the effect of dark counts is negligible.

## V Discussion and conclusion

In the following we consider the required property of quantum channels for the proposed purification scheme to be applicable. Assume that two photon pairs are initially prepared in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{34}`$ and sent to Alice and Bob through noisy quantum channels. The quantum channels are assumed to have polarization-dependent transmissivities and are modeled by the state transformation

$`|1_{kL}(\mu _{kL}|1_{kL}+\sqrt{1|\mu _{kL}|^2}|1_{\overline{k}L}),`$ (85)
where $`k=1,2,3,4`$, $`L=\mathrm{H},\mathrm{V}`$, and $`\mu _{kL}`$ is complex transmission coefficient. We introduce modes $`\overline{k}L`$ to model lossy channels. The coefficients $`\mu _{kL}`$ are fluctuating and we denote the average over the fluctuations as $`\mathrm{}_\mu `$. The state of photon pairs received by Alice and Bob is

$`(1P)\rho _{1234}^{n3}+P\rho _{1234}_\mu ,`$ (86)
where $`\rho _{1234}^{n3}`$ is the state containing less than four photons in total and

$`P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(|\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}|^2)`$ (88)
$`\times (|\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}|^2),`$
$`\rho _{1234}`$ $``$ $`|\alpha _{12},\beta _{12}_{12}\alpha _{12},\beta _{12}|`$ (90)
$`|\alpha _{34},\beta _{34}_{34}\alpha _{34},\beta _{34}|,`$
$`\alpha _{12}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}}{\sqrt{|\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}|^2}}},`$ (91)
$`\beta _{12}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}}{\sqrt{|\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}|^2}}},`$ (92)
$`\alpha _{34}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}}{\sqrt{|\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}|^2}}},`$ (93)
and

$`\beta _{34}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}}{\sqrt{|\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}|^2+|\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}|^2}}}.`$ (94)
If the postselection is allowed, Alice and Bob can select two photon pairs in the state $`P\rho _{1234}_\mu /P_\mu `$. To purify the mixed state $`P\rho _{1234}_\mu /P_\mu `$, this mixed state must be written in the form of Eq. (15). By comparing the matrix elements of these expressions, we obtain the condition for the purification as $`P|\alpha _{12}\beta _{34}\beta _{12}\alpha _{34}|^2_\mu =0`$. Using the following complex variable

$`F`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{12}\beta _{34}}{\beta _{12}\alpha _{34}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}}{\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}}},`$ (95)
the condition for the purification becomes $`F=1`$. Even if $`F1`$, Alice and Bob can transform $`F`$ into 1 by introducing an additional attenuation and a phase shift as long as the value $`F`$ is constant. The fluctuations in the transmissivities of the quantum channels may be assumed to be independent for Alice’s side and Bob’s side. In this case we can introduce complex variables

$`F_\mathrm{A}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}}{\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}}},`$ (96)
and

$`F_\mathrm{B}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}}{\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}}},`$ (97)
where $`F=F_\mathrm{A}F_\mathrm{B}`$. Since $`F_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ are independent, the condition for the purification is that $`F_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ are constant.

In the special cases where each pair is received as a known pure state $`|\alpha _{12},\beta _{12}|\alpha _{34},\beta _{34}`$, the Procrustean method  can be applied to each pair. In this method, Alice and Bob perform an additional polarization-dependent transformation to discard the extra probability of the larger term in the state $`|\alpha _{12},\beta _{12}_{12}`$. Since they manipulate one photon pair, this method is simpler than the proposed scheme to share maximally entangled state. To simplify our explanation, we consider the situations where Bob prepares the photon pairs and sends one member of each photon pair to Alice through quantum channels $`1`$ and $`3`$, namely $`\mu _{2\mathrm{H}}=\mu _{2\mathrm{V}}=\mu _{4\mathrm{H}}=\mu _{4\mathrm{V}}=1`$. The Procrustean method is then applicable when the fluctuations $`\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}`$, $`\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}`$, and $`\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}`$ are correlated in pairwise — if the values $`F_{\mathrm{A1}}\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}/\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{A3}}\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}/\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}`$ are constant, they receive the two pairs in a pure state $`|\alpha _{12},\beta _{12}|\alpha _{34},\beta _{34}`$ with $`\alpha _{12}/\beta _{12}=F_{\mathrm{A1}}`$ and $`\alpha _{34}/\beta _{34}=F_{\mathrm{A3}}`$. If the values $`\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}/\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}`$ and $`\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}/\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}`$ are constant, Bob exchanges modes $`1\mathrm{V}`$ and $`3\mathrm{H}`$ before the transmission, and Alice exchanges modes back to obtain each pair in a pure state. The situation is similar for the case where the values $`\mu _{1\mathrm{H}}/\mu _{3\mathrm{V}}`$ and $`\mu _{3\mathrm{H}}/\mu _{1\mathrm{V}}`$ are constant.

Let us consider an example in which Bob sends one member of a pair (mode $`1`$) to Alice through a polarization maintaining fiber and one member of the other pair (mode $`3`$) through the same fiber after a time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Alice compensates the time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ after receiving the photons. The state $`|1_{1\mathrm{H}}`$, $`|1_{3\mathrm{H}}`$, $`|1_{1\mathrm{V}}`$, and $`|1_{3\mathrm{V}}`$ are transformed into $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t)}|1_{1\mathrm{H}}`$, $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}|1_{3\mathrm{H}}`$, $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t)}|1_{1\mathrm{V}}`$, and $`e^{i\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}|1_{3\mathrm{V}}`$, where $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t)`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t)`$ represent phase shifts in modes $`\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}`$ induced by the fiber for photons input at time $`t`$. Since Bob initially has the photon pairs in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{12}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}_{34}`$, Alice and Bob share the photon pairs in the following states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i[\phi _+(t)+\phi _{}(t)]}}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{1\mathrm{H}}|1_{2\mathrm{H}}+e^{2i\phi _{}(t)}|1_{1\mathrm{V}}|1_{2\mathrm{V}})`$ (98)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i[\phi _+(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)]}}{\sqrt{2}}}(|1_{3\mathrm{H}}|1_{4\mathrm{H}}`$ (100)
$`+e^{2i\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)}|1_{3\mathrm{V}}|1_{4\mathrm{V}}),`$
where $`\phi _+(t)[\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t)+\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t)]/2`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)[\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t)\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t)]/2`$. Assuming $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}(t)`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{V}(t)`$ are temporally fluctuating, this state becomes a mixed state. For simplicity, we assume the channel is symmetric about $`H`$ and $`V`$. The fluctuations of $`\phi _+(t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)`$ are then independent, and we denote the correlation times of $`\phi _+(t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)`$ by $`\tau _+`$ and $`\tau _{}`$, respectively.

We classify the situation into four cases: (a) $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\tau _+,\tau _{}`$, (b) $`\tau _+\mathrm{\Delta }t\tau _{}`$, (c) $`\tau _{}\mathrm{\Delta }t\tau _+`$, and (d) $`\tau _+,\tau _{}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In case (a), since we can use the approximations $`\phi _+(t)=\phi _+(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)=\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, if Bob exchanges modes $`1\mathrm{V}`$ and $`3\mathrm{H}`$ before the transmission and Alice exchanges back the modes, then they can share the maximally entangled photon pairs. Therefore it is not necessary to use the proposed purification scheme. In case (b), where $`\phi _+(t)\phi _+(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)=\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, the above method does not work. But the proposed scheme works in this case as the mixture of Eq. (100) has the form of Eq. (15). In case (c), where $`\phi _+(t)=\phi _+(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, if Bob exchanges modes $`1\mathrm{V}`$ and $`3\mathrm{V}`$ before the transmission and Alice exchanges back the modes, the situation is the same as in case (b). In case (d), where $`\phi _+(t)\phi _+(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`\phi _{}(t)\phi _{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, Alice and Bob cannot obtain the photon pairs in the state of Eq. (15), and they cannot purify the output even if the proposed scheme are used.

In summary, we have proposed a purification scheme using linear optical elements and photon detectors. We have investigated errors in the output state when down-converted photons and imperfect detectors are used. We have shown that the errors can be discarded by the postselection because the error states contain less photons than the maximally entangled state. It became clear that the effect of dark counts is negligible. We have also discussed the required property of quantum channels for the proposed purification scheme.

Note added. After the submission of this paper, another type of purification scheme for photon pairs was proposed by Pan et al..

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Kiyoshi Tamaki and Sahin K. Özdemir for helpful discussions. This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Grant No. 12740243) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Grant No. 12440111) by Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# Virtual photon impact factors with exact gluon kinematics

## 1  Introduction

In the present knowledge on perturbative QCD resummations at leading level in logarithms of the energy (i.e. $`log1/x_{Bj}`$) the coupling of external sources, in particular a virtual gluon in deep-inelastic reactions, is based on the theorem of $`k_T`$ factorization , proven in the leading logarithmic approximation of QCD . The theorem states that the “unintegrated” gluon distribution, i.e. the distribution of energy and transverse momentum of gluons in the target, factorizes from the rest of the process. The remaining factor is the so-called “impact factor”. Consequently, this “impact factor” is an universal quantity, the same in all processes initiated by the same external source, e.g. the photon. The “unintegrated” gluon distribution will depend on the target, but again the target impact factor can also be factorized out, leaving place to an universal interaction term, given by the Balitsky, Fadin, Kuraev Lipatov BFKL Pomeron . At next-to-leading level, the modified interaction term is now known  but not yet are the impact factors determined at this order of perturbation . It is expected that the effect of the exact kinematics of the exchanged gluons, which is our subject, gives the main contribution to these higher order terms.

The $`k_T`$ factorized impact factors can be conveniently expressed in terms of two Mellin variables, $`\gamma ,`$ conjugated to transverse momentum squared and $`N,`$ conjugated to energy. Up to now, only the impact factors at $`N=0`$ were considered, since, strictly speaking, $`k_T`$ factorization has been proven only at infinite energy, implying $`N=0.`$ If, however the validity of $`k_T`$ factorization is extended to the case of exact gluon kinematics, it implies the knowledge of the combined $`\gamma ,N`$ dependence of impact factors. To our knowledge, this combined dependence has been derived only for real photoproduction of heavy flavors . It is the purpose of the present paper to give an explicit analytic expression for the $`\gamma ,N`$ dependence of virtual photon impact factors. To this end, using the $`k_T`$ factorization and exact gluon kinematics, we derive the explicit formulae for the total cross section of longitudinal and transverse photons on any target with a given distribution of gluons.

In the next section 2, the formulae for the (virtual) photon impact factors following from $`k_T`$ factorization are given. The details of the calculation, implying multidimensional integration and resummation of generalized hypergeometric functions are presented in section 3 for the longitudinal case and in section 4 for the transverse one. Applications of our results are given in section 5.1 for the QCD dipole model  which turned out to be rather successful in description of the deep inelastic total and diffractive cross-section of the virtual photons . In subsection 5.2 we suggest a model independent method of extraction from data of the unintegrated gluon structure function. Our conclusions are given in the last section.

## 2 An explicit formula for the total cross -sections using $`k_T`$ factorization

Our starting point is the formula for the total longitudinal and transverse photon cross-sections given in :

$`\sigma _L{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\alpha }{Q^2}}F_L=4\alpha \alpha _sQ^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}d^2p\left(\frac{1}{p^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\frac{1}{(pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\right)^2g(x_g,k^2)}.łx1`$ (1)
Using

$$g(x_g,k^2)=\frac{dN}{2\pi i}(x_g)^N\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma \stackrel{~}{g}_N(\gamma ),łx2$$
(2)
we write

$`\sigma _L={\displaystyle \frac{dN}{2\pi i}(x_{Bj})^N\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}\stackrel{~}{g}_N(\gamma )S_L(N,\gamma )(Q^2)^{\gamma 1}łax2}`$ (3)
with

$`S_L(N,\gamma )=4\alpha \alpha _s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2{\displaystyle 𝑑k^2\left(\frac{k^2}{Q^2}\right)^{\gamma 2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\left(\frac{1}{p^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\frac{1}{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\right)^2\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}łx3}`$ (4)
where we have used the relation

$$x_g=x_{Bj}\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]}{\widehat{Q}^2};\widehat{Q}^2=z(1z)Q^2łxx4$$
(5)
Similarly,

$`\sigma _T={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\alpha }{Q^2}}F_T=\alpha \alpha _s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z^2+(1z)^2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}d^2p\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{p^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k}}{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\right)^2g(x_g,k^2)ł1}`$ (6)
and using (LABEL:x2) and (LABEL:xx4) we have

$`\sigma _T{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{2\pi i}(x_{Bj})^N\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}\stackrel{~}{g}_N(\gamma )S_T(N,\gamma )(Q^2)^{\gamma 1}łd1}`$ (7)
with

$`S_T(N,\gamma )=\alpha \alpha _s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z^2+(1z)^2]{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}\left(\frac{k^2}{Q^2}\right)^{\gamma 1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{p^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k}}{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2}\right)^2\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}}.ł3`$ (8)
It turns out that the integrals (LABEL:x3) and (LABEL:3) can be explicitly performed and expressed in terms of $`\psi `$ digamma functions. The details of the calculation are given in sections 3 and 4. Here we only quote the final formulae:

$`S_L(N,\gamma )=8\alpha \alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma +\delta +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\delta ^21)(\delta ^24)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (\gamma +\delta )\psi (\gamma )}{\delta }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{3N^2(\delta ^21)}{2N}}3\right\}łyiy`$ (9)
$`S_T(N,\gamma )=2\alpha \alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma +\delta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\delta ^21)(\delta ^24)}}`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (\gamma +\delta )\psi (\gamma )}{\delta }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{N^2(3(N+1)^2+9)2N(\delta ^21)+(\delta ^21)(\delta ^29)}{4N}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3(N+1)^2+9+(\delta ^21))\},łyjy`$ (10)
where we adopted the convenient notation $`\delta N2\gamma +1,`$

Note that the poles at $`\delta =0,\pm 1,\pm 2`$ in formulae (LABEL:yiy,LABEL:yjy) are actually absent due to zeroes in the numerators, as it should from regularity of the generalized (Meijer) hypergeometric functions appearing in the derivation, see later. This provides numerous and non trivial checks of the resummations leading to (LABEL:yiy,LABEL:yjy).

## 3 Longitudinal photon impact factor

As the first step in the calculation we observe that, using the symmetry of the integrand with respect to interchange of $`z`$ and $`1z`$, the integrals in (LABEL:x3) can be written as a sum of two terms:

$$S_L(N,\gamma )=8\alpha \alpha _s\left(Q^2\right)^{2\gamma }(AB)łs1$$
(11)
where

$`A={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma }`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\frac{1}{(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)^2}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}łss3}`$ (12)
$`B={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma }`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\frac{1}{[p^2+\widehat{Q}^2][(pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2]}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}}.łsss3`$ (13)
Using several times the identity

$$\frac{1}{C^M}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{M1}e^{tC}łs41$$
(14)
we transform (LABEL:ss3) and (LABEL:sss3) into

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2(\widehat{Q}^2)^N{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma v𝑑v𝑑tt^{N1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\mathrm{exp}\{v(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)t[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]\}},ł4cłss4`$ (15)
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^2(\widehat{Q}^2)^N{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑v𝑑v^{}𝑑tt^{N1}d^2pe^{v(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)v^{}((pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2)t[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]}łs42}`$ (16)
Thus the integration over $`d^2p`$ reduces to a gaussian form and can be easily performed. After rescaling the variables $`v=ty,v^{}=ty^{}`$ and substitution $`u=tk^2`$ the integrals over $`du`$ and $`dt`$ factorize from the rest and can be explicitly evaluated. The final result of these operations reads

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma +2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}(Q^2)^{\gamma 2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^\gamma (1z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ydy}{(1+y)^{N2\gamma +4}}(y+z)^{1\gamma }},łx7`$ (17)
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma +2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}}(Q^2)^{\gamma 2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z(1z)]^\gamma `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dydy^{}[(y+z)(y^{}+1z)]^{1\gamma }}{(1+y+y^{})^{N2\gamma +4}}}.łx14`$ (18)
To evaluate integrals in (LABEL:x7) one takes $`h=1+y,y+z=h[1(1z)/h]`$. Using the formula for the Gauss series

$`(1x)^a={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{n!}}łs5`$ (19)
and picking the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)`$ in formula (LABEL:x14), the integral over $`dv`$ leads to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ydy}{(1+y)^{N2\gamma +4}}(y+z)^{1\gamma }}=`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1+n)}{(N\gamma +2+n)(N\gamma +1+n)}\frac{(1z)^n}{n!}}`$
$``$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}G_{1}^{}(\gamma 1,N\gamma +1;N\gamma +3;1z),łx8`$
where the Meijer function $`{}_{2}{}^{}G_{1}^{}(u,v;w;t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(v)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(w)_2F_1(u,v;w;t).`$

Substituting this into (LABEL:x7) we can integrate over $`z`$ to obtain

$$A=\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma +2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}(Q^2)^{\gamma 2}T_Ałxx10$$
(21)
where

$`T_A=_3G_2(2,\gamma 1,N\gamma +1;\gamma +3,N\gamma +3;1).łx10`$ (22)
To calculate the integrals over $`dy`$ and $`dy^{}`$ in (LABEL:x14) we first rescale the variables $`y,y^{}`$ $``$ $`zy,(1z)y^{}`$. Then we introduce $`h=1+y,h^{}=1+y^{}`$ and, finally $`\xi =h/h^{}`$. The last change implies $`1+y+y^{}1+zy+(1z)y^{}=h^{}[1z(1\xi )]`$. Using again (LABEL:s5) the integral over $`dydy^{}`$ can be transformed into the series

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dydy^{}[(y+z)(y^{}+1z)]^{1\gamma }}{(1+y+y^{})^{N2\gamma +4}}}=`$
$`=[z(1z)]^{2\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+2\gamma )}{N\mathrm{\Gamma }(N2\gamma +4)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N2\gamma +4+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma +3+n)}}\left(z^n+(1z)^n\right)`$
$`[z(1z)]^{2\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+2\gamma )}{N\mathrm{\Gamma }(N2\gamma +4)}}[{}_{2}{}^{}G_{1}^{}(1,N2\gamma +4;N\gamma +3;z)`$
$`+(z1z)].łx15`$ (23)
Using known relations  on $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ functions, one writes also

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dydy^{}[(y+z)(y^{}+1z)]^{1\gamma }}{(1+y+y^{})^{N2\gamma +4}}}=`$
$`=z^{2\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma 1)}}\left\{{}_{2}{}^{}G_{1}^{}(\gamma 1,N\gamma +2;N\gamma +3;z)+(z1z)\right\}.łx155`$ (24)
Introducing this into (LABEL:x14) we perform integration over $`z`$ to obtain finally

$`B{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(N\gamma +2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)N}}(Q^2)^{\gamma 2}T_Błx17`$ (25)
where

$$T_B=(Q^2)_3^{\gamma 2}G_2(3,\gamma 1,N\gamma +2;\gamma +4,N\gamma +3;1).łx175$$
(26)
It turns out that the series in (LABEL:x10) and(LABEL:x175) can be summed up and expressed in terms of the digamma functions. One uses known relations on Meijer functions at $`z=1,`$ see ref.. One writes

$`T_A_3G_2(2,a,b;a+4,b+2;1)=`$
$`{}_{3}{}^{}G_{2}^{}(2,a,b;a+4,b+1;1)_3G_2(2,a,b+1;a+4,b+2;1)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[(b1)_3G_2(1,a,b1;a+3,b+1;1)b_3G_2(1,a,b;a+3,b+2;1)\right].łx176`$ (27)
and

$`T_B_3G_2(3,a,b+1;a+5,b+2;1)={\displaystyle \frac{b(b1)}{6}}_3G_2(1,a,b1;a+3,b+2;1),łx177`$ (28)
using the abbreviations

$$a=\gamma 1;b=N+1\gamma .ł4$$
(29)
Using the generic formula for hypergeometric functions $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1,a,b;a+p+1,b+q+1;1)`$ , one writes:

$`{}_{3}{}^{}G_{2}^{}(1,a,b;a+p+1,b+q+1;1)`$
$`(1)^{p+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+q+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bap)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba+q+1)}}\left(\psi (a)\psi (b)\right)+`$
$`[(1)^p{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bap)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+q+k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ap+k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba+qp+k+1)}}`$
$`+\{a<>b,p<>q\}].łx178`$ (30)
All in all, using for convenience the notations $`\delta ba1`$ and $`Nb+a,`$ we get

$`T_A{\displaystyle \frac{2T_B}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\delta ^21)(\delta ^24)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi (a+1+\delta )\psi (a+1)}{\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{3N^2(\delta ^21)}{2N}}3\right).łfinL`$ (31)
## 4 Transverse photon impact factor

$`\sigma _T`$ can be evaluated along the similar lines as $`\sigma _L`$. Here we mark only the main differences. The key point is that $`\sigma _T`$ can be evaluated using $`\sigma _L,`$ which gives a noticeable simplification of the painful calculation.

Let us come back to the calculation of $`\sigma _L,`$ starting with formula (LABEL:s1) and define

$$(DL)Q^2A;(NDL)Q^2B.łdef$$
(32)
Using (LABEL:3) we write

$$S_T(\gamma ,N)=2\alpha \alpha _s((DT)(NDT))\left(Q^2\right)^{1\gamma }łm1$$
(33)
with

$`(DT)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z^2+(1z)^2]{\displaystyle 𝑑k^2(k^2)^{\gamma 2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\frac{(\stackrel{}{p})^2}{(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)^2}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}ła3a}`$ (34)
$`(NDT)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[z^2+(1z)^2]{\displaystyle 𝑑k^2(k^2)^{\gamma 2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^2p\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k})}{[p^2+\widehat{Q}^2][(pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2]}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}}.łm3`$ (35)
Let us rewrite the quantities of interest in the following form:

$`(DL)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zA_L(z)I(z)`$
$`(NDL)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zA_L(z)J(z)`$
$`(DT)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zA_T(z)[K(z)I(z)]`$
$`(NDT)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zA_T(z)[K(z)J(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L(z)],łdefintegrales`$ (36)
where

$$A_L(z)=z(1z);A_T(z)=z^2+(1z)^2=12A_L(z).łA$$
(37)
The integrals $`I,J,K,L`$ are defined as follows:

$`I(z)={\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}k^{2\gamma }d^2p\frac{\widehat{Q}^2}{(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)^2}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}},łI`$ (38)
$`J(z)={\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}k^{2\gamma }d^2p\frac{\widehat{Q}^2}{[p^2+\widehat{Q}^2][(pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2]}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}},łJ`$ (39)
$`K(z)={\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}k^{2\gamma }d^2p\frac{1}{(p^2+\widehat{Q}^2)}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}},łK`$ (40)
$`L(z)={\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}k^{2\gamma }d^2p\frac{k^2}{[p^2+\widehat{Q}^2][(pk)^2+\widehat{Q}^2]}\frac{(\widehat{Q}^2)^N}{[(\stackrel{}{p}(1z)\stackrel{}{k})^2+\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{k}^2]^N}}.łL`$ (41)
Consequently, one reads for $`\sigma _L:`$

$$(DL)(NDL)=_0^1A_L(z)[I(z)J(z)]łs2.$$
(42)
The corresponding expression for $`\sigma _T`$ shows a nice simplification, since the integrand $`K(z)`$ cancels from the calculation:

$$(DT)(NDT)=_0^1A_T(z)[J(z)I(z)+\frac{1}{2}L(z)]łs3.$$
(43)
Using (LABEL:A), we get

$`(DT)(NDT)=2[(DL)(NDL)]+`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z[J(z)I(z)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z(12z(1z))L(z).łs4`$ (44)
From formula (LABEL:x8), it is straightforward to obtain (in the $`a,b`$ notations):

$$I(z)=Q^{2a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+a)}z_2^aG_1(a,b;b+2;1z),łg1$$
(45)
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}G_{1}^{}(a,b;b+2;1z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+2)_2F_1(a,b;b+2;1z).`$

After some straightforward transformations from formula (LABEL:x17), one writes

$$J(z)=Q^{2a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+a+1)}z(1z)[z_2^{a1}G_1(a,b+1;b+2;1z)+(z1z)],łg2$$
(46)
$$L(z)=Q^{2a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+a+1)}[z_2^aG_1(a+1,b;b+1;1z)+(z1z)],łg3$$
(47)
where $`L(z)`$ is obtained from $`J(z)`$ by suppressing the factor $`z(1z)`$ and replacing $`aa+1,bb1,`$ due to the numerator $`k^2`$ instead of $`\widehat{Q}^2`$ for $`J(z)`$ in formula (LABEL:L).

Inserting expressions (LABEL:g1,LABEL:g2,LABEL:g3) in formula (LABEL:s4), one gets after integration over $`z`$:

$`(DT)(NDT)=2[(DL)(NDL)]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b+1)}}Q^{2a}`$
$`\times [{}_{3}{}^{}G_{2}^{}(1,a+1,b;a+2,b+1;1)ba_3G_2(1,a,b;a+2,b+2;1)`$
$`(b1)(a+1)_3G_2(1,a+1,b1;a+3,b+1;1)].łfinal`$ (48)
All in all, using for convenience the notations $`\delta ba`$ and $`Nb+a,`$ one finally obtains

$`(DT)(NDT)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)}}Q^{2a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\delta ^21)(\delta ^24)}}`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (a+1+\delta )\psi (a+1)}{\delta }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{N^2(3(N+1)^2+9)2N(\delta ^21)+(\delta ^21)(\delta ^29)}{4N}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3(N+1)^2+9+(\delta ^21))\}łfinT`$ (49)
## 5 Applications

### 5.1 Comparison with the dipole model

In a recent paper  we have shown that the dipole model is, strictly speaking, not compatible with the formulae obtained from the $`k_T`$ factorization including the exact kinematics of the corresponding Feynman diagrams. The point is that the results from $`k_T`$ factorization are non-diagonal in impact parameter space, contrary to the fundamental assumption of the dipole model. Thus, it is worthwhile to derive the explicit modifications of the model due to the gluon kinematics.

The formulae of the previous section can now be compared with those obtained in the QCD dipole model, which amounts to consider  the impact factors at $`N=0.`$:

$`S_L^{dip}(\gamma )S_L(N=0,\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\alpha \alpha _s}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (1\gamma )}{1\frac{2}{3}\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma )}}łada`$ (50)
$`S_T^{dip}(\gamma )S_T(N=0,\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\alpha \alpha _s}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\gamma )(1\frac{1}{2}\gamma )}{1\frac{2}{3}\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma )}}.łbdb`$ (51)
The knowledge of $`S_{L,T}(N,\gamma )`$ allows one to take into account the modifications of the QCD dipole model due to exact gluon kinematics. Indeed, let us insert the BFKL pole in the formula for the unintegrated gluon structure function

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_N(\gamma )=\frac{\overline{v}(\gamma )w(\gamma )}{N\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma )}\left(Q_0^2\right)^\gamma ;\chi (\gamma )2\psi (1)\psi (\gamma )\psi (1\gamma ),$$
(52)
where $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is the effective value of the strong coupling constant $`\overline{\alpha }=\frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi },`$ in the BFKL kernel, $`w(\gamma )`$ is the Mellin transform of the probability to find a dipole in the target, $`Q_0`$ sets the typical model scale of the unintegrated gluon structure function $`g(x_g,k^2),`$ (see formula (LABEL:x2)) and

$$\overline{v}(\gamma )=\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{2^{2\gamma }\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\gamma )}łbfkl1$$
(53)
is the Mellin transform of the probability to find a gluon in a dipole. In its final form, the modified QCD dipole model for longitudinal (LABEL:ax2) and transverse (LABEL:d1) cross sections with full kinematics read:

$$\sigma _L=Q^2\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}(x_{Bj})^{\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma )}\overline{v}(\gamma )w(\gamma )S_L(N=\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma ),\gamma )\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\right)^\gamma ,ładaf$$
(54)
$$\sigma _T=Q^2\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}(x_{Bj})^{\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma )}\overline{v}(\gamma )w(\gamma )S_T(N=\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma ),\gamma )\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\right)^\gamma .łd1f$$
(55)
Note that in these formulae, one has $`\delta N2\gamma +1=\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma )2\gamma +1.`$

Formulae (LABEL:adaf) and (LABEL:d1f) give the explicit dependence of the cross-sections in the shift of the hard pomeron intercept.

We have compared numerical results (in the saddle-point approximation) from the Eqs (LABEL:yiy) and (LABEL:yjy) with those obtained from Eqs (LABEL:ada) and (LABEL:bdb) in the range $`.01>x>.0001`$ and $`20Gev^2<Q^2<160Gev^2`$. It turns out that they give a rather similar dependence on both $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ (the deviations do not exceed $`5\%`$). Normalization changes, however: the cross-sections including the full gluon kinematics are by about factor 2 smaller than the ones obtained from the high-energy approximation. Note the interesting fact that the ratio $`R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ is affected: it increases by about $`15\%`$.

It is not very surprizing that the dependence on kinematic variables does not substantially differ in the two approaches. Indeed, this dependence is mostly controlled by the position of the saddle point which is the same in the two formulae. The rather important change in normalization, however, could not have been easily guessed. In particular the ratio of normalizations in $`R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ is a quantity of experimental interest.

### 5.2 Method of extraction of the unintegrated gluon distribution

The knowledge of the impact factors $`S_L(N,\gamma )`$ and $`S_T(N,\gamma )`$ as explicit analytic functions of their two variables allows a model independent determination of the unintegrated gluon structure function from $`\sigma _L`$ or $`\sigma _T`$ or from the experimental observable $`F_2\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha }(\sigma _T+\sigma _L).`$

Indeed, formulae (LABEL:ax2,LABEL:d1) yield

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{T,L}(N,\gamma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{Bj}}{x_{Bj}}\left(x_{Bj}\right)^N𝑑Q^2\left(Q^2\right)^\gamma \sigma _{T,L}(x_{Bj},Q^2)}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_N(\gamma )S_{T,L}(N,\gamma ).łd12`$
Hence, from formula (LABEL:x2) defining the unintegrated gluon structure function, one gets

$$g(x_g,k^2)=\frac{dN}{2\pi i}(x_g)^N\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi i}\left(k^2\right)^\gamma \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{T,L}(N,\gamma )}{S_{T,L}(N,\gamma )}.łx^{}2$$
(57)
This relation (LABEL:x'2) has quite interesting features.

First, it allows a determination of the unintegrated gluon structure function from experiments. For instance one may consider the ratio $`(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_T+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_L)/(S_T+S_L)`$ using data on $`F_2.`$

Second, the expected universality properties of $`g(x_g,k^2)`$ from $`k_T`$ factorization gives predictions for various processes e.g. the ratio $`R=\frac{F_L}{F_T},`$ the photoproduction and leptoproduction of heavy flavors, diffractive leptoproduction of vector mesons and any other process where $`k_T`$ factorization applies.

Third, the applicability of this relation goes beyond a specific model like the QCD dipole one, provided the coupling to the virtual photon comes from the exchange of two off-mass shell gluons with exact kinematics.

These results comes from the assumption that $`k_T`$ factorization is a valid approximation, e.g. the dominance of the two considered Feynman diagrams for the impact factors, when exact gluon kinematics can be considered. It remains to know to what extent higher order QCD contributions and non perturbative corrections may spoil this approximation.

## 6 Conclusions

Our formulae (LABEL:yiy,LABEL:yjy) give the exact two-variable dependence of the longitudinal and transverse impact factors of the photon in terms of the usual Mellin variables $`N,\gamma `$. $`N`$ is the variable conjugated to $`x_{Bj},`$ while $`\gamma `$ is conjugated to $`Q^2.`$ In the particular framework of the QCD dipole model, it gives the modification taking into account the shift in $`N=\overline{\alpha }\chi (\gamma )`$ of the BFKL singularity. This results mostly in a change of the normalization of the cross-section, whereas the dependence on kinematic variables predicted by the QCD dipole model is hardly affected. Note that the relative normalization in $`R=\frac{F_L}{F_T}`$ is increased by 15%.

More generally, our result opens the way of a model-independent extraction of the universal unintegrated gluon structure function which appears in various processes, whenever $`k_T`$ factorization can be applied.

Acknowledgements

A.B. thanks the Service de Physique Theorique of Saclay for support and kind hospitality. This investigation was supported in part by the KBN Grant No 2 P03B 086 14 and by the Subsidium of Fundation for Polish Science 1/99.