Distinguishing quantum states using Clifford orbits

It is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics that information is lost as a result of performing measurements. Indeed, with every quantum measurement one can associate a number -- its POVM norm constant -- that quantifies how much the distinguishability of quantum states degrades in the worst case as a result of the measurement. This raises the obvious question which measurements preserve the most information in these sense of having the largest norm constant. While a number of near-optimal schemes have been found (e.g. the uniform POVM, or complex projective 4-designs), they all seem to be difficult to implement in practice. Here, we analyze the distinguishability of quantum states under measurements that are orbits of the Clifford group. The Clifford group plays an important role e.g. in quantum error correction, and its elements are considered simple to implement. We find that the POVM norm constants of Clifford orbits depend on the effective rank of the states that should be distinguished, as well as on a quantitative measure of the "degree of localization in phase space" of the vectors in the orbit. The most important Clifford orbit is formed by the set of stabilizer states. Our main result implies that stabilizer measurements are essentially optimal for distinguishing pure quantum states. As an auxiliary result, we use the methods developed here to prove new entropic uncertainty relations for stabilizer measurements. This paper is based on a very recent analysis of the representation theory of tensor powers of the Clifford group.

[1]  Markus Grassl,et al.  The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design , 2016, 1609.08172.

[2]  Patrick J. Coles,et al.  Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications , 2015, 1511.04857.

[3]  Shelby Kimmel,et al.  Quantum Compressed Sensing Using 2-Designs , 2015 .

[4]  Huangjun Zhu Multiqubit Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs , 2015, 1510.02619.

[5]  Zak Webb,et al.  The Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design , 2015, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[6]  Richard Kueng,et al.  Qubit stabilizer states are complex projective 3-designs , 2015, ArXiv.

[7]  Holger Rauhut,et al.  Low rank matrix recovery from rank one measurements , 2014, ArXiv.

[8]  Steven T. Flammia,et al.  Randomized benchmarking with confidence , 2014, 1404.6025.

[9]  Felix Krahmer,et al.  A Partial Derandomization of PhaseLift Using Spherical Designs , 2013, Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications.

[10]  Guillaume Aubrun,et al.  Zonoids and sparsification of quantum measurements , 2013, 1309.6003.

[11]  Cécilia Lancien,et al.  Distinguishing Multi-Partite States by Local Measurements , 2012, 1206.2884.

[12]  M. Kleinmann,et al.  Entropic uncertainty relations and the stabilizer formalism , 2011, 1103.2316.

[13]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary edition) , 2011 .

[14]  Joseph Emerson,et al.  Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[15]  David Gross,et al.  Recovering Low-Rank Matrices From Few Coefficients in Any Basis , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[16]  Stephen Becker,et al.  Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[17]  A. Winter,et al.  Entropic uncertainty relations—a survey , 2009, 0907.3704.

[18]  Christoph Dankert,et al.  Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation , 2009 .

[19]  A. Winter,et al.  Distinguishability of Quantum States Under Restricted Families of Measurements with an Application to Quantum Data Hiding , 2008, 0810.2327.

[20]  Thierry Paul,et al.  Quantum computation and quantum information , 2007, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[21]  Jens Eisert,et al.  Quantum margulis expanders , 2007, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[22]  E. Knill,et al.  Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Gates , 2007, 0707.0963.

[23]  J. Emerson,et al.  Quantum t-designs: t-wise Independence in the Quantum World , 2007, Twenty-Second Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'07).

[24]  D. Gross,et al.  Canonical and micro-canonical typical entanglement of continuous variable systems , 2007, quant-ph/0701051.

[25]  D. Gross,et al.  Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs , 2006, quant-ph/0611002.

[26]  A. J. Scott Tight informationally complete quantum measurements , 2006, quant-ph/0604049.

[27]  D. Gross Hudson's theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems , 2006, quant-ph/0602001.

[28]  M. Rötteler,et al.  Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs , 2005, Proceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005..

[29]  B. Moor,et al.  Stabilizer states and Clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimensions and modular arithmetic , 2004, quant-ph/0408190.

[30]  A. Kitaev,et al.  Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas (14 pages) , 2004, quant-ph/0403025.

[31]  Joseph M. Renes,et al.  Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements , 2003, quant-ph/0310075.

[32]  S. Chaturvedi Mutually unbiased bases , 2002 .

[33]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations , 1999, Nature.

[34]  Daniel Gottesman,et al.  Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction , 1997, quant-ph/9705052.

[35]  Jorge Sánchez-Ruiz Improved bounds in the entropic uncertainty and certainty relations for complementary observables , 1995 .

[36]  Bonnie Berger,et al.  The fourth moment method , 1991, SODA '91.

[37]  W. Wootters,et al.  Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements , 1989 .

[38]  S. G. Hoggar,et al.  t-Designs in Projective Spaces , 1982, Eur. J. Comb..

[39]  I. D. Ivonovic Geometrical description of quantal state determination , 1981 .

[40]  H. Yuen Quantum detection and estimation theory , 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[41]  J. Seidel,et al.  Spherical codes and designs , 1977 .