arXiv:0902.0395

Estimates of non-optimality of quantum measurements and a simple iterative method for computing optimal measurements

Tyson, Jon

Published Feb 3, 2009• 3 citations

Abstract

We construct crude estimates for non-optimality of quantum measurements in terms of their violation of Holevo's simplified minimum-error optimality conditions. As an application, we show that a modification of Barnett and Croke's proof of the optimality conditions yields a convergent iterative scheme for computing optimal measurements.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.0902.0395

Related papers

Simplified and robust conditions for optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory

Jon E. Tyson

Feb 3, 20090 citations

Iterative methods for finding optimal quantum measurements under minimum-error and minimax criteria

Kenji Nakahira, Kentaro Kato, Tsuyoshi Sasaki Usuda

We investigate the problem of computing optimal quantum measurements in both minimal measuring and minimax strategies. A Belavkin weighted square-root measurement (BWSRM) with appropriate weights can represent the measurement that maximizes the correct probability for any given prior probabilities of quantum states. Using this fact, we propose methods for computing optimal solutions by optimizing the weights of the BWSRM. First, we explain the conditions for the BWSRM to be optimal. In particular, we argue that if a BWSRM with certain weights is a minimax measurement, then the minimax probabilities can be immediately obtained. Next, we propose an extension of the iterative algorithm developed by Je\ifmmode \check{z}\else \v{z}\fi{}ek et al. [Phys. Rev. A 65, 060301 (2002)] for maximizing the correct probability. We prove that, for a linearly independent pure state set, Je\ifmmode \check{z}\else \v{z}\fi{}ek et al.'s algorithm converges to an optimal measurement. We also propose an iterative algorithm for a minimax solution and prove that, for a pure state set, our algorithm monotonically decreases the difference between estimated and true minimax values. Finally the performance of our algorithms is evaluated through numerical experiments.

Physical Review AJan 14, 201510 citations

Optimal error intervals for properties of the quantum state

Xikun Li, Jiangwei Shang, Hui Khoon Ng +1 more

Quantum state estimation aims at determining the quantum state from observed data. Estimating the full state can require considerable efforts, but one is often only interested in a few properties of the state, such as the fidelity with a target state, or the degree of correlation for a specified bipartite structure. Rather than first estimating the state, one can, and should, estimate those quantities of interest directly from the data. We propose the use of optimal error intervals as a meaningful way of stating the accuracy of the estimated property values. Optimal error intervals are analogs of the optimal error regions for state estimation [New J. Phys. 15, 123026 (2013)]. They are optimal in two ways: They have the largest likelihood for the observed data and the prechosen size, and they are the smallest for the prechosen probability of containing the true value. As in the state situation, such optimal error intervals admit a simple description in terms of the marginal likelihood for the data for the properties of interest. Here, we present the concept and construction of optimal error intervals, report on an iterative algorithm for reliable computation of the marginal likelihood (a quantity difficult to calculate reliably), explain how plausible intervals---a notion of evidence provided by the data---are related to our optimal error intervals, and illustrate our methods with single-qubit and two-qubit examples.

arXiv:1602.05780Physical Review ADec 13, 201622 citations

Deriving optimal measurements from the no-signalling theorem

Stephen Mark Barnett, Erika Andersson, Sarah Croke

Get PDF Email Share Share with Facebook Tweet This Post on reddit Share with LinkedIn Add to CiteULike Add to Mendeley Add to BibSonomy Get Citation Copy Citation Text S. M. Barnett, E. Andersson, and S. Croke, "Deriving optimal measurements from the no-signalling theorem," in International Conference on Quantum Information, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optica Publishing Group, 2007), paper IThH1. Export Citation BibTex Endnote (RIS) HTML Plain Text Citation alert Save article

International Conference on Quantum InformationJan 1, 20070 citations

Optimal Minimum-cost Quantum Measurements for Imperfect Detection

Erika Andersson

Optimal quantum measurements, important for quantum information and metrology, are usually derived for ideal experimental realisations. Real devices are, however, imperfect. We derive optimal minimum-cost and minimum-error measurements for a general model of imperfect detection.

Research in Optical SciencesJan 1, 20121 citation

Two-sided estimates of minimum-error distinguishability of mixed quantum states via generalized Holevo-Curlander bounds

Jon Tyson

We prove a concise factor-of-2 estimate for the failure rate of optimally distinguishing an arbitrary ensemble of mixed quantum states, generalizing work of Holevo [Theor. Probab. Appl. 23, 411 (1978)] and Curlander [Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, 1979]. A modification to the minimal principle of Cocha and Poor [Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Quantum Communication, Measurement, and Computing (Rinton, Princeton, NJ, 2003)] is used to derive a suboptimal measurement which has an error rate within a factor of 2 of the optimal by construction. This measurement is quadratically weighted and has appeared as the first iterate of a sequence of measurements proposed by Ježek et al. [Phys. Rev. A 65, 060301 (2002)]. Unlike the so-called pretty good measurement, it coincides with Holevo’s asymptotically optimal measurement in the case of nonequiprobable pure states. A quadratically weighted version of the measurement bound by Barnum and Knill [J. Math. Phys. 43, 2097 (2002)] is proven. Bounds on the distinguishability of syndromes in the sense of Schumacher and Westmoreland [Phys. Rev. A 56, 131 (1997)] appear as a corollary. An appendix relates our bounds to the trace-Jensen inequality.

Jan 1, 200936 citations