Perspective on: Duality in Quantum Quenches and Classical Approximation Algorithms: Pretty Good or Very Bad

We consider classical and quantum algorithms which have a duality property: roughly, either the algorithm provides some nontrivial improvement over random or there exist many solutions which are significantly worse than random. This enables one to give guarantees that the algorithm will find such a nontrivial improvement: if few solutions exist which are much worse than random, then a nontrivial improvement is guaranteed. The quantum algorithm is based on a sudden quench of a Hamiltonian; while the algorithm is general, we analyze it in the specific context of MAX- K -LIN 2 , for both even and odd K . The classical algorithm is a ``dequantization of this algorithm", obtaining the same guarantee (indeed, some results which are only conjectured in the quantum case can be proven here); however, the quantum point of view helps in analyzing the performance of the classical algorithm and might in some cases perform better.We consider classical and quantum algorithms which have a duality property: roughly, either the algorithm provides some nontrivial improvement over random or there exist many solutions which are significantly worse than random. This enables one to give guarantees that the algorithm will find such a nontrivial improvement: if few solutions exist which are much worse than random, then a nontrivial improvement is guaranteed. The quantum algorithm is based on a sudden quench of a Hamiltonian; while the algorithm is general, we analyze it in the specific context of MAX- K -LIN 2 , for both even and odd K . The classical algorithm is a ``dequantization of this algorithm", obtaining the same guarantee (indeed, some results which are only conjectured in the quantum case can be proven here); however, the quantum point of view helps in analyzing the performance of the classical algorithm and might in some cases perform better.

arXiv:1904.13339QuantumNov 11, 201912 citations

Quantum state exclusion through offset measurement

Caleb McIrvin, Ankith Mohan, Jamie Sikora

The quantum state discrimination problem has Alice sending a quantum state to Bob who wins if he correctly identifies the state. The pretty good measurement, also known as the square root measurement, performs pretty well at this task. We study the version of this problem where Bob tries to lose with the greatest probability possible (which is harder than it sounds). We define the pretty bad measurement, which performs pretty well at this task, or in other words, pretty poorly for the original task. We show that both the pretty good measurement and the pretty bad measurement are always no worse than blind guessing at their respective tasks. As an application, we apply the pretty bad measurement to the quantum state anomaly detection problem and show how to avoid pretty bad qubits.The quantum state discrimination problem has Alice sending a quantum state to Bob who wins if he correctly identifies the state. The pretty good measurement, also known as the square root measurement, performs pretty well at this task. We study the version of this problem where Bob tries to lose with the greatest probability possible (which is harder than it sounds). We define the pretty bad measurement, which performs pretty well at this task, or in other words, pretty poorly for the original task. We show that both the pretty good measurement and the pretty bad measurement are always no worse than blind guessing at their respective tasks. As an application, we apply the pretty bad measurement to the quantum state anomaly detection problem and show how to avoid pretty bad qubits.

arXiv:2403.17252Physical Review AOct 10, 20242 citations

Taking a quantum control perspective on quantum algorithms

Alicia B Magann

Apr 1, 20240 citations

Taking a quantum control perspective on quantum algorithms

Alicia B Magann

Apr 1, 20240 citations

Pretty Good Bounds on the worst-case Pretty Good Measurement

Sergio Escobar, Austin Pechan

We derive a new lower bound on the success probability of the Pretty Good Measurement (PGM) for worst-case quantum state discrimination among $m$ pure states. Our bound is strictly tighter than the previously known Gram-matrix-based bound for $m\geq 4$ . The proof adapts techniques from Barnum and Knill's analysis of the average-case PGM, applied here to the worst-case scenario. By comparing the PGM to the sequential measurement algorithm, we obtain a guarantee showing that, in the low-fidelity regime, the PGM's success probability decreases quadratically with respect to the maximum pairwise overlap, rather than linearly as in earlier bounds.We derive a new lower bound on the success probability of the Pretty Good Measurement (PGM) for worst-case quantum state discrimination among $m$ pure states. Our bound is strictly tighter than the previously known Gram-matrix-based bound for $m\geq 4$. The proof adapts techniques from Barnum and Knill's analysis of the average-case PGM, applied here to the worst-case scenario. By comparing the PGM to the sequential measurement algorithm, we obtain a guarantee showing that, in the low-fidelity regime, the PGM's success probability decreases quadratically with respect to the maximum pairwise overlap, rather than linearly as in earlier bounds.

arXiv:2508.19085Aug 26, 20250 citations

We derive a new lower bound on the success probability of the Pretty Good Measurement (PGM) for worst-case quantum state discrimination among

m

pure states. Our bound is strictly tighter than the previously known Gram-matrix-based bound for

m\geq 4

. The proof adapts techniques from Barnum and Knill's analysis of the average-case PGM, applied here to the worst-case scenario. By comparing the PGM to the sequential measurement algorithm, we obtain a guarantee showing that, in the low-fidelity regime, the PGM's success probability decreases quadratically with respect to the maximum pairwise overlap, rather than linearly as in earlier bounds.