Achieving the Holevo capacity of a pure state classical-quantum channel via unambiguous state discrimination

We prove that the ultimate channel capacity, the Holevo bound, for sending classical data on a quantum channel (the so-called classical-quantum, or cq channel) can be achieved for a pure-state cq channel by decoding codewords via a collective quantum measurement based on unambiguous state discrimination (USD). In cq communication theory, the channel decoder acts directly on the modulated codeword waveform in the quantum (viz., electromagnetic or optical) domain, and it is known that collective measurements on long codeword blocks are needed to attain the Holevo capacity, which is strictly larger than the Shannon capacity of the classical channel induced by any specific measurement choice on each channel use. The USD measurement based channel decoder we propose, can distinguish finite blocklength codeword quantum states unambiguously (i.e., an incorrect codeword is never chosen) provided one allows for a finite probability of obtaining an inconclusive (erasure) outcome. We show that the probability of the inconclusive outcome goes to zero for asymptotically long codewords whenever the code rate is below the Holevo bound. The USD channel decoder is an addition to a small list of other collective measurements known to achieve the Holevo capacity (such as, the square root measurement, the minimum probability of error measurement, the sequential decoding measurement, and the quantum successive cancellation decoder for the cq polar code). A structured optical receiver design is not known yet for any of these decoders. What makes the USD decoder special is that there is no classical analogue to truly unambiguous discrimination (say, of samples drawn from a set of probability distributions). Secondly, the erasures-only decoding of USD is likely to result in a better channel reliability function. Finally, the USD measurement seems more likely to lead naturally to a structured optical receiver design and implementation.

[1]  Z. Bai METHODOLOGIES IN SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF LARGE DIMENSIONAL RANDOM MATRICES , A REVIEW , 1999 .

[2]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Explicit capacity-achieving receivers for optical communication and quantum reading , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.

[3]  Yonina C. Eldar,et al.  On quantum detection and the square-root measurement , 2001, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[4]  I. D. Ivanović How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states , 1987 .

[5]  S. Barnett,et al.  Quantum state discrimination , 2008, 0810.1970.

[6]  Mark M. Wilde,et al.  From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory , 2011, ArXiv.

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

[8]  Alexander S. Holevo,et al.  The Capacity of the Quantum Channel with General Signal States , 1996, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[9]  Schumacher,et al.  Quantum coding. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[10]  Anthony Chefles,et al.  Unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent quantum states , 1998, quant-ph/9807022.

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

[12]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Sequential projective measurements for channel decoding. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[13]  J. Fiurášek,et al.  Optimal discrimination of mixed quantum states involving inconclusive results , 2002, quant-ph/0208126.

[14]  S. V. Enk Unambiguous State Discrimination of Coherent States with Linear Optics: Application to Quantum Cryptography , 2002, quant-ph/0207138.

[15]  S. Barnett,et al.  Strategies for discriminating between non-orthogonal quantum states , 1998 .

[17]  Howard E. Brandt Unambiguous State Discrimination in Quantum Key Distribution , 2005, Quantum Inf. Process..

[18]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Achieving the Holevo bound via sequential measurements , 2010, 1012.0386.

[19]  S. Lloyd,et al.  Classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel: the exact solution. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[20]  Tetsunao Matsuta,et al.  国際会議開催報告:2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory , 2013 .

[21]  Miloslav Dusek,et al.  Unambiguous state discrimination in quantum cryptography with weak coherent states , 2000 .

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

[23]  A. Shimony,et al.  Optimal distinction between two non-orthogonal quantum states , 1995 .

[24]  Michael D. Westmoreland,et al.  Sending classical information via noisy quantum channels , 1997 .

[25]  Yonina C. Eldar A semidefinite programming approach to optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantumstates , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[26]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[27]  Charles R. Johnson,et al.  Matrix analysis , 1985, Statistical Inference for Engineers and Data Scientists.

[28]  Yonina C. Eldar,et al.  Optimal quantum detectors for unambiguous detection of mixed states (9 pages) , 2003, quant-ph/0312061.

[29]  Saikat Guha,et al.  Polar Codes for Classical-Quantum Channels , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[30]  D. Dieks Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states , 1988 .

[31]  S. Barnett,et al.  Optimum unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent symmetric states , 1998, quant-ph/9807023.