Ultimate Limits for Multiple Quantum Channel Discrimination.

Quantum hypothesis testing is a central task in the entire field of quantum information theory. Understanding its ultimate limits will give insight into a wide range of quantum protocols and applications, from sensing to communication. Although the limits of hypothesis testing between quantum states have been completely clarified by the pioneering works of Helstrom in the 1970s, the more difficult problem of hypothesis testing with quantum channels, i.e., channel discrimination, is less understood. This is mainly due to the complications coming from the use of input entanglement and the possibility of employing adaptive strategies. In this Letter, we establish a lower limit for the ultimate error probability affecting the discrimination of an arbitrary number of quantum channels. We also show that this lower bound is achievable when the channels have certain symmetries. As an example, we apply our results to the problem of channel position finding, where the goal is to identify the location of a target channel among multiple background channels. In this general setting, we find that the use of entanglement offers a great advantage over strategies without entanglement, with nontrivial implications for data readout, target detection, and quantum spectroscopy.

[1]  Gerardo Adesso,et al.  Operational Advantage of Quantum Resources in Subchannel Discrimination. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[2]  Mingsheng Ying,et al.  Unambiguous discrimination among quantum operations , 2006 .

[3]  Stefano Pirandola,et al.  Quantum Reading of a Classical Digital Memory , 2011, Physical review letters.

[4]  Debbie W. Leung,et al.  Adaptive versus nonadaptive strategies for quantum channel discrimination , 2009, 0909.0256.

[5]  S. Lloyd,et al.  Quantum illumination with Gaussian states. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[6]  Gianfranco Cariolaro,et al.  Theory of quantum pulse position modulation and related numerical problems , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[7]  Anthony Chefles Quantum state discrimination , 2000 .

[8]  L. Banchi,et al.  Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications , 2015, Nature Communications.

[9]  J. Bergou,et al.  Optimum unambiguous discrimination between subsets of nonorthogonal quantum states , 2001, quant-ph/0112051.

[10]  E. Knill,et al.  Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity , 2000, quant-ph/0004088.

[11]  Runyao Duan,et al.  Entanglement is not necessary for perfect discrimination between unitary operations. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[12]  Daowen Qiu,et al.  Minimum-error discrimination of quantum states: Bounds and comparisons , 2010 .

[13]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. , 1992, Physical review letters.

[14]  Massimiliano F. Sacchi,et al.  Entanglement can enhance the distinguishability of entanglement-breaking channels , 2005 .

[15]  Stefano Pirandola,et al.  Fundamental limits to quantum channel discrimination , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[16]  Anthony Chefles Condition for unambiguous state discrimination using local operations and classical communication , 2004 .

[17]  Zheshen Zhang,et al.  Entanglement-enhanced sensing in a lossy and noisy environment. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[18]  Satoshi Ishizaka,et al.  Asymptotic teleportation scheme as a universal programmable quantum processor. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[19]  A. Kitaev Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction , 1997 .

[20]  A. Acín Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[21]  Jeffrey H. Shapiro,et al.  Entanglement-enhanced Neyman-Pearson target detection using quantum illumination , 2017, 1703.02463.

[22]  Yonina C. Eldar,et al.  Optimal detection of symmetric mixed quantum states , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[23]  S. Pirandola,et al.  Ultimate Precision of Adaptive Noise Estimation. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[24]  A. Acin,et al.  Optimal estimation of quantum dynamics , 2001 .

[25]  Mark Hillery,et al.  Relations between Coherence and Path Information. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[26]  S. Pirandola,et al.  Entanglement-enhanced testing of multiple quantum hypotheses , 2020, Communications Physics.

[27]  Nilanjana Datta,et al.  Complementarity and Additivity for Covariant Channels , 2006, Quantum Inf. Process..

[28]  U. Herzog,et al.  Optimum unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states , 2005, quant-ph/0502117.

[29]  Schumacher,et al.  Classical information capacity of a quantum channel. , 1996, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[30]  A. S. Kholevo On Asymptotically Optimal Hypothesis Testing in Quantum Statistics , 1979 .

[31]  Jeffrey H. Shapiro,et al.  Optimum mixed-state discrimination for noisy entanglement-enhanced sensing , 2016, 2017 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO).

[32]  Tomohiro Ogawa,et al.  Strong converse to the quantum channel coding theorem , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[33]  I. Chuang,et al.  Programmable Quantum Gate Arrays , 1997, quant-ph/9703032.

[34]  D. Bruß,et al.  Unambiguous discrimination of mixed quantum states: Optimal solution and case study , 2010 .

[35]  Quntao Zhuang,et al.  Additive Classical Capacity of Quantum Channels Assisted by Noisy Entanglement. , 2017, Physical review letters.

[36]  Jeffrey H. Shapiro,et al.  Quantum illumination for enhanced detection of Rayleigh-fading targets , 2017, 1706.05561.

[37]  Runyao Duan,et al.  Perfect distinguishability of quantum operations. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[38]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory , 1975, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[39]  János A. Bergou,et al.  Discrimination of quantum states , 2004 .

[40]  Jeroen van de Graaf,et al.  Cryptographic Distinguishability Measures for Quantum-Mechanical States , 1997, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[41]  William K. Wootters,et al.  A ‘Pretty Good’ Measurement for Distinguishing Quantum States , 1994 .

[42]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Advances in photonic quantum sensing , 2018, Nature Photonics.

[43]  S. Barnett,et al.  Quantum state separation, unambiguous discrimination and exact cloning , 1998, quant-ph/9808018.

[44]  N. Pozza,et al.  Optimality of square-root measurements in quantum state discrimination , 2015, 1504.04908.