arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 3 Feb 2009

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 3 Feb 2009"

Myles Tobias Dawson
6 years ago
Views:

1 arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 3 Feb 2009 Simplified and robust conditions for optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory Jon Tyson Harvard University Feb 2, 2009 Abstract Strengthening a result of Yuen-Kennedy-Lax and Holevo YKLH, we relax the redundant standard conditions for optimality of minimum-error quantum measurements while retaining sufficiency. This result is made robust by giving quantitative bounds on non-optimality when the simplified conditions fail to hold. These conditions serendipitously appeared as an intermediate step in Barnett and Croe s recent operator-theoretic proof of the necessity of the YKLH conditions, although sufficiency of these new conditions was apparently not previously realized. As an application, we use our estimates to show that a modification of Barnett and Croe s perturbative proof yields a conceptually-simple iterative scheme for computing optimal measurements. jonetyson@x.y.z, where X=post Y=harvard, and Z=edu 1

2 1 Introduction The minimum-error quantum detection problem arose in the 1960 s in the design of optical detectors [1] and has been of recent importance in the subjects of quantum information [2, 3, 4, 5] and quantum computation [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]: If an unnown state ρ is randomly chosen from a nown ensemble of quantum states, what is the chance that the value of will be discovered by an optimal measurement? Barnett and Croe [12] have recently provided a simple operator-theoretic proof of the necessity of the standard Yuen-Kennedy-Lax & Holevo YKLH optimality conditions [13, 14] for this problem. This note points out that intermediate step in Barnett and Croe s proof of the necessity of the YKLH conditions also provides a relaxed sufficient condition for optimality of a measurement. In particular, we strengthen the result of Yuen-Kennedy-Lax and Holevo by reducing redundant hypotheses. Section 4 gives a robust version of the simplified optimality condition, by estimating non-optimality in terms of quantitative violation of the optimality conditions. Conversely, a measurement approximately satisfying these conditions is shown to be approximately-optimal. In section 5 these bounds are applied to show that the perturbative method of Barnett and Croe may be converted into an iterative numerical algorithm for computing optimal measurements, adding to the list [15, 16, 17, 18]of algorithms for this purpose. This iteration succeeds even for countably-infinite ensembles in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. 2 Bacground and a formal description of minimumerror discrimination A precise description of the minimum-error quantum measurement problem is given by: Definition 1 Let E = {ρ } K be an ensemble of mixed quantum states ρ, which are represented as positive semidefinite operators on a Hilbert space H normalized by a-priori probability: Trρ = p with p = 1. The support supp E is the closure of the span of the ranges of the ρ. A positive operatorvalued measurement POVM is a collection of positive semidefinite operators {M } satisfying M = 11. The corresponding Lagrange operator is given by L = M ρ. 1 The minimum-error quantum discrimination problem [1] consists of finding a POVM maximizing the success probability P succ {M } = Tr M ρ = Tr L 2 2

3 of correctly distinguishing an element blindly drawn from the ensemble E. We will often abuse notation by writing P succ M instead of P succ {M }. The standard optimality conditions are given by 1 Theorem 2 Yuen-Kennedy-Lax [13], Holevo[14] Let {M } =1,...,m be a POVM for distinguishing the ensemble E. Then the following are equivalent: I. {M } maximizes P succ. II. L = L and L ρ for all. II. L = L and ReL ρ for all. III. There exists an operator G satisfying G ρ and G ρ M = 0 for all. IV. M j ρ j ρ M = 0 for all j,, and L ρ for all. Furthermore, under these equivalent conditions L = G, and L is the unique self-adjoint operator of minimal trace satisfying L ρ for all. 2 The conditions II-IV above use the standard order on self-adjoint matrices: A B iff A B is positive semidefinite. The real part of an operator A is given by Re A = A + A /2. 3 In particular, conditions II and II are trivially equivalent. The implication IV II may be seen by summing over j and. 2.1 Mathematical bacground Definition 3 Let A be a self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space H with spectral decomposition A = λ Π. The positive part of A is given by The positive projection is given by [A] + = λ Π. 4 λ >0 χ + A = Π. 5 λ >0 The trace norm of an operator B : H H is given by B 1 = Tr B B. The operator norm is given by B = sup ψ =1 Bψ. 1 Another interesting condition may be found in section 2.2 of [19]. 2 The operator L is interesting from the point of view of operator theory as a noncommutative generalization of the maximum of a collection of real numbers. Note that there is no mathematical reason not to relax the positivity of the ρ in this setting. 3

4 We collect some simple mathematical facts. We will frequently use the inequalities TrA A 1 6 BC 1 B 1 C, 7 which may be found in [20]. For positive semidefinite operators P 1, P 2 0 such that P 1 P 2 is trace class, one has with equality iff P 1 P 2 = 0 [13] and for all operators C and self-adjoint A 1, A 2. TrP 1 P 2 0, 8 A 1 A 2 C A 1 C C A 2 C 9 3 Simplified optimality conditions We now state the simplified optimality condition: Theorem 4 Simplified optimality conditions The measurement {M } is optimal iff II. Re L ρ for all, where Re L is defined by 3. In particular, the condition II is explicitly redundant. Remar: Condition II first appeared as an intermediate step in Barnett and Croe s operator-theoretic proof that I IV. Our contribution is to observe conversely that II I. Proof. The proof is an easy modification of the proof [13] of sufficiency of condition II. Suppose that M satisfies II, tae L to be defined by 1, and let be an optimal POVM. Then M opt P succ M = TrRe L = Tr Re LM opt Tr ρ M opt = P succ M opt. The inequality followed from the simple observation [13] that if A B and M 0 then Tr A BM 0. 4

5 4 Estimates of near- and non-optimality Our next goal is to strengthen Theorem 4 by giving quantitative bounds in the case that condition II fails to hold. As a first step, note that in the finitedimensional case if ReL ρ α 10 for some scalar α > 0, then a simple modification of the proof of Theorem 4 shows that P succ M P succ M opt α dim H. 11 In order to control dimensional factors and to consider ensembles on infinitedimensional Hilbert spaces it is useful to introduce the following concept: Definition 5 Let E = {ρ } be the ensemble of definition 1, and let p [0, 1]. The p-dimension dim p E is the minimum dimension of a subspace Λ for which 1 Π Λ ρ 1 p, 12 where Π Λ is the orthogonal projection onto Λ. Remar: Note that the inequality 12 implies that Tr1 Π Λ ρ 1 1 Π Λ ρ 1 Π Λ ρ 1 p. Lemma 6 For fixed E, the function p dim p E is finite on 0, 1] and monotonicallydecreasing on [0, 1]. Proof. The monotonicity of p dim p E is immediate from the definition. To prove finiteness for p > 0, tae spectral decompositions ρ = λ l ψ l ψ l. For a finite subset S of the, l, let Π S be the projection onto the linear span of the ψ l with, l S. By the triangle inequality Since 1 Π S ρ 1 1 Π S λ l ψ l ψ l 1 l,l S,l/ S λ l = 1, we may tae a finite subset S of the, l such that the right-hand side may be made smaller than p. We may now state a robust version of Theorem 4: λ l 5

6 Theorem 7 Let {M } be a POVM for distinguishing E, let L = M ρ, and let {M opt } be an optimal measurement. Then 1. Assume that α > 0 is a scalar such that for all. Then for p [0, 1/4 P succ M P succ M opt 2. Suppose that Re L ρ l for some l. Then Re L ρ α 13 α dimp E 4p. 14 P succ M P succ M opt 2 Tr [ρl Re L] +, 15 where [ ] + is the positive part, defined in definition Discussion of Theorem 7 The small-α case of Part 1 addresses the case where {M } nearly-satisfies condition II. In particular, 14 implies that P succ M P succ M opt ε if α < sup p [0,ε/4] ε 4p dim p E. 16 The following example shows that the dependence of this expression on E may not be removed except in the finite-dimensional case by introducing dimensional factors: Example 8 Let m be a positive integer, and let E be the ensemble on C m defined by ρ = /m. Set M = , using addition mod m. Then one has P succ M = 0 and P succ M opt = 1, but inequality 13 holds for α = 1/m, which approaches 0 as m. 4.2 Proof of part 1 of Theorem 7 Proof. Let Π be an orthogonal projection, and set Π = 11 Π. Then P succ M = TrΠRe LΠ + Tr Π Re LΠ. 17 Using equations 6-9 to estimate the first term, TrΠRe LΠ = Tr Re L ΠM opt Π Tr ρ α ΠM opt = P succ M opt P succ M opt Π α TrΠ + Tr Πρ Π ρ M opt α TrΠ ρ Πρ Π

7 But ρ Πρ Π 1 = 3 Π ρ + ρ Π + Π ρ Π 1 Π ρ Using 7 to estimate the second term of 17, Tr Π Re LΠ 1 Π ρ M Π + Π M ρ Π 1 2 Putting together gives Π ρ 1 20 P succ M P succ M opt α TrΠ 4 Π ρ The bound 14 follows by picing Π to minimize TrΠ when the last term of 21 is constrained to be less than p. By Lemma 6 such Π of finite ran always exist. 4.3 Proof of part 2 of Theorem 7 Definition 9 Let {M } be a POVM for distinguishing the ensemble E of definition 1, let X 11 be a positive semidefinite operator on H, and let l K. Then the Barnett -Croe modification of {M } is defined by M X, l = 1 XM 1 X + δ l 2X X 2. Remar: Note that since 0 2X X 2 for 0 X 11, the operators M X, l form a POVM. Barnett and Croe [12] considered the case X = ε ψ ψ, where ψ is a unit vector satisfying the eigenvalue equation ρ l Re L ψ = λ ψ, with λ > 0. They showed that d dε P succ M X, l = 2λ > 0. ε=0 In order to complete the proof of part 2 of Theorem 7, it suffices to turn this perturbative argument into an estimate. 7

8 Proof of part 2 of Theorem 7. Let Π + be the positive projection 5 Then for α [0, 1], Π + = χ + ρ l ReL. 22 P succ M απ +, l = P succ M + 2α Tr[ρ l ReL Π + ] 23 α 2 Tr Π + ρ l + α 2 Tr Π + M Π + ρ 24 P succ M + 2α Tr [ρ l Re L] + α 2, 25 where we have used cyclicity of the trace and8 9. Note that if Tr [ρ l Re L] + > 1 then P succ M Π +, l = P succ M + 2 Tr [ρ l Re L] + 1 > 1, giving a contradiction. In particular, we may set α = Tr [ρ l ReL] + [0, 1], 26 maximizing the RHS of 25 over α [0, 1]. This gives P succ M απ +, l P succ M + Tr [ρ l Re L] Barnett-Croe iteration In this section we show how to convert Barnett and Croe s perturbative proof into an algorithm for computing optimal measurements. Although the success rate of poorly-chosen iterations might fail to actually converge to that of an optimal measurement, 3 the following sequence does not exhibit this malady: Definition 10 Let {M } be a POVM for distinguishing the ensemble E of definition 1, and chose l to maximize Then the iterate of {M } is the POVM α = Tr [ρ l Re L] M + = M αχ + ρ l Re L,l, 29 where [ ] + and χ + are defined in 4 5. For a given measurement {M 0 }, recursively define the iterative series {M n } n 1 by + M n+1 = M n In is asserted in [16] that the algorithm of [15] suffers this fate. 8

9 Remar: An index l maximizing 28 exists using minimax principle Theorem XIII.1 of [21] and the fact that Tr ρ l = 1. The proof of part II of Theorem 7 actually proved the stronger result Theorem 11 The above iteration monotonically increases success rate. In particular, for an arbitrary POVM {M } the set { M + } is a well-defined POVM, and P succ M + 2 Psucc M + max Tr [ρl Re L] We now show that the iterative scheme of definition 10 approaches optimality: Theorem 12 Let M 0 be an arbitrary starting POVM for the iterative series 30. Then lim = P succ M opt, 32 where M opt n P succm n is an optimal measurement. Proof. Let ε > 0 be arbitrary. We see an N > 0 such that n > N P succ M n P succ M opt ε. 33 Set L n = M n ρ. By equation 16 and the monotonicity of n P succ a n N such that for all l, where is any real number satisfying 4 l M n, it suffices to find Re L n ρ l 34 ε 4p 0 < sup p [0,ε/4] dim p E. 35 We claim that N = 2 suffices. Assume that [ maxtr ρ l Re L n] l + for all n N. By Theorem 11, P succ yielding a contraction. p = 0. M N +1 > > N 2 1, 4 In finite dimensions, one may tae = ε/dim H ε/dimsupp E, corresponding to 9

10 It follows that [ maxtr ρ l Re L n] l + for some n N. The inequality 34 follows from the observation that for A = ρ l Re L n. A Tr [A] + 11, 6 Conclusion and open problems We have simplified current understanding of optimal quantum measurements by showing that Yuen-Kennedy-Lax-Holevo optimality conditions are redundant, since the intermediate necessary inequalities of Barnett and Croe are also sufficient for optimality. Furthermore, we have proven a robust version of these conditions, by providing two-sided estimates in the case that they do not hold. It followed from these estimates that one may convert Barnett and Croe s proof into a convergent iterative method for computing optimal measurements. This iterative scheme was considered for its conceptual simplicity, rather than as an attempt to compete with the computation efficiency of existing algorithms [15, 16, 17, 18]. It would be interesting to try to improve the bounds of Theorem 7. In particular, it is left as an open problem whether one can construct a bound similar to inequality 15 but depending on more than one index l. Whether the exponent in the right-hand-side of this inequality can be reduced is also a possibly interesting problem. Acnowledgements: The author would lie to than Arthur Jaffe for his encouragement. References [1] C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory Academic, New Yor [2] P. Hausladen, R. Josza, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and W. K. Wootters, Classical information capacity of a quantum channel, Phys Rev A 54, [3] B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Sending classical information via noisy quantum channels, Phys Rev A 56, [4] A. S. Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44,

11 [5] R. Koenig, R. Renner, and C. Schaffner, The operational meaning of minand max-entropy, e-print arxiv: [6] L. Ip, Shor s algorithm is optimal, [7] D. Bacon, A. M. Childs, and W. van Dam, Optimal measurements for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem, Chicago J. of Theoret. Comput. Sci. 2006, 2006; e-print arxiv: quant-ph/ [8] D. Bacon, A. M. Childs, and W. van Dam, From optimal measurement to efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over semidirect product groups, Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Symp. Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 2005, pp [9] A. M. Childs and W. van Dam, Quantum algorithm for a generalized hidden shift problem, Proceedings of the 18th ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2007, pp ; e-print arxiv:quant-ph/ [10] C. Moore and A. Russell, For Distinguishing Hidden Subgroups, the Pretty Good Measurement is as Good as it Gets, Quantum Inform. Compu. 7, ; e-print arxiv:quant-ph/ [11] D. Bacon and T. Decer, The optimal single-copy measurement for the hidden-subgroup problem, Phys. Rev. A 77, ; e-print arxiv: [12] S. M. Barnett and S. Croe, On the conditions for discrimination between quantum states with minimum error, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor ; arxiv: [13] H. P. Yuen, R. S. Kennedy, and M. Lax, Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, IT- 21, [14] A. S. Holevo, Statistical Decision Theory for Quantum Systems, J. Multivariate Anal. 3, [15] C. W. Helstrom, Bayes-Cost reduction algorithm in quantum hypothesis testing, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-28 no.2, March Note: It is asserted in footnote [36] of [16] that this algorithm generally only gives a lower bound on P succ. [16] M. Ježe, J. Řeháče, and J. Fiuráše, Finding optimal strategies for minimum-error quantum state discrimination, Physical Review A 65, R 2002; quant-ph/

12 [17] Z. Hradil, J. Řeháče, J. Fiuráše, and M. Ježe, Maximum-Lielihood Methods in Quantum Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Physics 649, [18] Y. C. Eldar, A. Megretsi, and G. C. Verghese, Designing Optimal Quantum Detectors Via Semidefinite Programming, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 49, Note: The reported implementation appears to have mild numerical inaccuracies in the case of optimal measurement operators which are identically zero. In particular, the numerical example reported in equation 40 has the unique exact solution µ 1 = 0, 0, /2, 1, and µ3 = N 1 3 µ 2 = N /2, 1, where N2,3 are normalization factors. The identity µ 1 µ 1 = 0 follows from the invertibility of L ρ 1, by an application of condition III above. [19] V. P. Belavin and V. Maslov, Design of Optimal Dynamic Analyzer: Mathematical Aspects of Wave Pattern Recognition In Mathematical Aspects of Computer Engineering, Ed V. Maslov, , Mir, Moscow 1987; quant-ph/ [20] M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathmatical Physics I: Functional Analysis Academic, New Yor, [21] M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics IV: Analysis of Operators, Academic Press, Boston

Unambiguous Discrimination Between Linearly Dependent States With Multiple Copies

Unambiguous Discrimination Between Linearly Dependent States With Multiple Copies Anthony Chefles Department of Physical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, UK arxiv:quant-ph/0105016v3