Abstract In quantum mechanics performing a measurement is an invasive process which generally disturbs the system. Due to this phenomenon, there exist incompatible quantum measurements, i.e. measurements that cannot be simultaneously performed on a single copy of the system. It is then natural to ask what the most incompatible quantum measurements are. To answer this question, several measures have been proposed to quantify how incompatible a set of measurements is, however their properties are not well-understood. In this work, we develop a general framework that encompasses all the commonly used measures of incompatibility based on robustness to noise. Moreover, we propose several conditions that a measure of incompatibility should satisfy, and investigate whether the existing measures comply with them. We find that some of the widely used measures do not fulfil these basic requirements. We also show that when looking for the most incompatible pairs of measurements, we obtain different answers depending on the exact measure. For one of the measures, we analytically prove that projective measurements onto two mutually unbiased bases are among the most incompatible pairs in every dimension. However, for some of the remaining measures we find that some peculiar measurements turn out to be even more incompatible.
Abstract In quantum mechanics performing a measurement is an invasive process which generally disturbs the system. Due to this phenomenon, there exist incompatible quantum measurements, i.e. measurements that cannot be simultaneously performed on a single copy of the system. It is then natural to ask what the most incompatible quantum measurements are. To answer this question, several measures have been proposed to quantify how incompatible a set of measurements is, however their properties are not well-understood. In this work, we develop a general framework that encompasses all the commonly used measures of incompatibility based on robustness to noise. Moreover, we propose several conditions that a measure of incompatibility should satisfy, and investigate whether the existing measures comply with them. We find that some of the widely used measures do not fulfil these basic requirements. We also show that when looking for the most incompatible pairs of measurements, we obtain different answers depending on the exact measure. For one of the measures, we analytically prove that projective measurements onto two mutually unbiased bases are among the most incompatible pairs in every dimension. However, for some of the remaining measures we find that some peculiar measurements turn out to be even more incompatible.
Abstract The existence of incompatible measurements, i.e. measurements which cannot be performed simultaneously on a single copy of a quantum state, constitutes an important distinction between quantum mechanics and classical theories. While incompatibility might at first glance seem like an obstacle, it turns to be a necessary ingredient to achieve the so-called quantum advantage in various operational tasks like random access codes or key distribution. To improve our understanding of how to quantify incompatibility of quantum measurements, we define and explore a family of incompatibility measures based on non-commutativity. We investigate some basic properties of these measures, we show that they satisfy some natural information-processing requirements and we fully characterize the pairs which achieve the highest incompatibility (in a fixed dimension). We also consider the behavior of our measures under different types of compositions. Finally, to link our new measures to existing results, we relate them to a robustness-based incompatibility measure and two operational scenarios: random access codes and entropic uncertainty relations.
Quantum measurements based on mutually unbiased bases are commonly used in quantum information processing, as they are generally viewed as being maximally incompatible and complementary. Here we quantify precisely the degree of incompatibility of mutually unbiased bases (MUB) using the notion of noise robustness. Specifically, for sets of k MUB in dimension d, we provide upper and lower bounds on this quantity. Notably, we get a tight bound in several cases, in particular for complete sets of k=d+1 MUB (using the standard construction for d being a prime power). On the way, we also derive a general upper bound on the noise robustness for an arbitrary set of quantum measurements. Moreover, we prove the existence of sets of k MUB that are operationally inequivalent, as they feature different noise robustness, and we provide a lower bound on the number of such inequivalent sets up to dimension 32. Finally, we discuss applications of our results for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering.
The existence of incompatible measurements is a fundamental phenomenon having no explanation in classical physics. Intuitively, one considers given measurements to be incompatible within a framework of a physical theory, if their simultaneous implementation on a single physical device is prohibited by the theory itself. In the mathematical language of quantum theory, measurements are described by POVMs (positive operator valued measures), and given POVMs are by definition incompatible if they cannot be obtained via coarse-graining from a single common POVM; this notion generalizes noncommutativity of projective measurements. In quantum theory, incompatibility can be regarded as a resource necessary for manifesting phenomena such as Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) Bell inequality violations or Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering which do not have classical explanation. We define operational ways of quantifying this resource via the amount of added classical noise needed to render the measurements compatible, i.e., useless as a resource. In analogy to entanglement measures, we generalize this idea by introducing the concept of incompatibility measure, which is monotone in local operations. In this paper, we restrict our consideration to binary measurements, which are already sufficient to explicitly demonstrate nontrivial features of the theory. In particular, we construct a family of incompatibility monotones operationally quantifying violations of certain scaled versions of the CHSH Bell inequality, prove that they can be computed via a semidefinite program, and show how the noise-based quantities arise as special cases. We also determine maximal violations of the new inequalities, demonstrating how Tsirelson's bound appears as a special case. The resource aspect is further motivated by simple quantum protocols where our incompatibility monotones appear as relevant figures of merit.
We propose a class of incompatibility measures for quantum observables based on quantifying the effect of a measurement of one observable on the statistics of the outcomes of another. Specifically, for a pair of observables A and B with purely discrete spectra, we compare the following two probability distributions: one resulting from a measurement of A followed by a measurement of B on a given state and the other obtained from a measurement of B alone on the same state. We show that maximizing the distance between these two distributions over all states yields a valid measure of the incompatibility of observables A and B, which is zero if and only if they commute and is strictly greater than zero (and less than or equal to one) otherwise. For finite-dimensional systems, we obtain a tight upper bound on the incompatibility of any pair of observables and show that the bound is attained when the observables are totally nondegenerate and associated with mutually unbiased bases. In the process, we also establish an important relation between the incompatibility of a pair of observables and the maximal disturbances due to their measurements. Finally, we indicate how these measures of incompatibility and disturbance can be extended to the more general class of nonprojective measurements. In particular, we obtain a nontrivial upper bound on the incompatibility of one L\"uders instrument with another.
Incompatible measurements are of fundamental importance to revealing the peculiar features of quantum theory, and are also useful resources in various quantum information tasks. In this work, we investigate the quantum incompatibility of mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) within the operational framework of quantum resource theory, and report an experimental validation via the task of state discrimination. In particular, we construct an experimentally friendly witness to detect incompatible MUBs, based on the probability of correctly discriminating quantum states. Furthermore, we prove that the noise robustness of MUBs can be retrieved from violating the above witness. Finally, we experimentally test the incompatibility of MUBs of dimensionality ranging from 2 to 4, and demonstrate that it is more robust to noise, as either the dimensionality of measurements or the number of MUBs increases. Our results may aid the exploration of the essential roles of incompatible measurements in both theoretical and practical applications in quantum information.
Several quantum channels may fail to admit an exact joint realization, a property known as incompatibility. Channel incompatibility unifies various quantum limitations, such as measurement uncertainty, the no-information-without-disturbance principle, and the no-cloning and no-broadcasting theorems. We address how accurately incompatible channels can be approximated by the marginals of a single joint channel, quantified by the minimum total diamond-norm error over all joint realizations. We establish two-sided bounds relating it to the generalized robustness of incompatibility (RoI), a noise-based resource quantifier of incompatibility. For identity channels, we determine both the RoI and the minimum total error exactly. The upper bound is attained by the optimal symmetric universal cloner, while the prefactor in the lower bound is asymptotically optimal as the dimension tends to infinity. Applying this result to measurement channels provides a unified, model-independent framework encompassing error-error and information-error-disturbance tradeoffs. Furthermore, our robustness-based evaluation of disturbance outperforms an algebraic bound for every non-trivial POVM in dimensions up to six.