Discriminating an Arbitrary Number of Pure Quantum States by the Combined and Hermitian Measurements
Yaroslav Balytskyi
[email protected]Department of Physics and Energy Science, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933, USA
ββSang-Yoon Chang
[email protected]Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933, USA
ββAnatoliy Pinchuk
[email protected]Department of Physics and Energy Science, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933, USA
ββManohar Raavi
[email protected]Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933, USA
Abstract
If the system is known to be in one of two non-orthogonal quantum states, or , -symmetric quantum mechanics can discriminate them, in principle, by a single measurement.
We extend this approach by combining -symmetric and Hermitian measurements and show that itβs possible to distinguish an arbitrary number of pure quantum states by an appropriate choice of the parameters of -symmetric Hamiltonian.
Quantum state discrimination; -symmetry; Unstructured database search;
Quantum state discrimination is an important problem which has many applications in quantum computing and quantum cryptography; see a review article, Ref.Rev . In quantum computation it is known that an unstructured database search can be mapped to the problem of distinguishing exponentially close quantum states, Ref.Exp . In turn, it is related to the hash functions widely used in cryptography, Ref.Hash .
Suppose, the system may be in one of two possible states, or and the task is to find in which of them the system is. A simple classical example: The experimenter is told that the coin is either fair or biased. The task is to determine by tossing the coin which option is true.
Quantum state discrimination consists of finding an optimal observable and strategy of measurements, Ref.Rev . In an conventional quantum mechanics, itβs impossible to find the state of the system by a single measurement. However, it is not possible in general to repeat the measurement since it changes the state of the system. Therefore, to know the state of the system with a high confidence level, one has to prepare a large number of identical samples.
However, -symmetric quantum mechanics, RefsNH1 ; NH2 ; NH3 , offers new opportunities. If the symmetry of a Hamiltonian is not broken, then its eigenvalues are real and Hamiltonian determines an inner product giving an extra degree of freedom in comparison with a conventional quantum mechanics.
While itβs an open question on how to properly treat the boundary between Hermitian and non-Hermitian regimes, Refs.(Doubt1, ; Doubt2, ; Doubt3, ), itβs worth considering a potential implications of an additional degree of freedom.
In particular, it was shown that in a -symmetric quantum mechanics itβs possible in principle to discriminate between 2 states just by a single measurement, Ref.PTDis . On practice, discriminating two non-orthogonal states in a closed system with one measurement can only be done with probability less then one, otherwise it would be a violation of unitarity. Therefore, even in the ideal noiseless case, sometimes we may have to apply the measurement more then once.
Two alternative solutions were proposed:
β’
Solution 1: Finding a -symmetric Hamiltonian whose inner product interprets and as being orthogonal under the scalar product.
β’
Solution 2: Finding a -symmetric Hamiltonian under which the states and evolve into orthogonal states under Hermitian scalar product.
We propose to combine Solution 1 and Solution 2 to extend this approach to be able to discriminate more than two states.
Start with 3 states:
(1)
and prepare two identical samples for measurements, .
Consider a general -symmetric Hamiltonian and an associated operator which defines scalar product:
(2)
where .
By setting we make and orthogonal in a sense of the scalar product. Note that and remain orthogonal by over time since and but Hermitian scalar product changes over time since .
The projection operators are:
(3)
(4)
Then, make and orthogonal in a sense of Hermitian scalar product by the Hamiltonian evolution:
(5)
(6)
The Hermitian scalar product becomes zero after the time :
(7)
where positive or negative sign depends on the geometry of states and is chosen in such a way that .
Apply the projection operator on the first sample,
(8)
β’
Apply the Hermitian projection operator on the second sample,
(9)
We may get the following results:
β’
If , the system is the state and the problem is solved (since )
β’
If , the system may be in the states or and we need to consider the second measurement.
β’
If and , the system is in the state (since )
β’
If and , the system is in the state (since it is not in the states and which we assumed to be pure states)
As we shown, the same Hamiltonian makes the corresponding and Hermitian products zero. Another possible solution would be to apply two different -symmetric Hamiltonians on and to make and and then apply two projections instead of the combined and Hermitian measurements.
This scheme can be extended for distinguishing an arbitrary number of pure quantum states. Suppose, we have an arbitrary number of states
(10)
Prepare samples for measurements and consider three states from the list, . Then do the following:
β’
Make and (or and )
β’
Apply the projection operator on the first sample,
(11)
β’
Apply the Hermitian (or ) projection operator on the second sample,
(12)
We find a state of the system if one of the measurements is zero, or exclude two possibilities from our list. By applying this procedure several times on the remaining states from our list, we exhaust all possibilities and find the state of the system assuming itβs in the pure state.
The question on whether this scheme could be extended to mixed states we refer to our future research.
I Acknowledgments
Y.B. was supported by the UCCS Graduate Research Award.
References
(1) Joonwoo Bae and Leong-Chuan Kwek, βQuantum state discrimination and its applicationsβ, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48 083001 (2015), DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/48/8/083001
(2) Abrams, D., and Lloyd, S.
βNonlinear quantum mechanics implies polynomial-time solution for NP-complete and P problemsβ Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3992-3995 (1998)
(3) Gilles Brassard, Peter Hoyer, Alain Tapp, βQuantum Algorithm for the Collision Problemβ, Third Latin American Symp. on Theoretical Informatics (LATINβ98), pp. 163-169, 1998. LNCS 1380, DOI: 10.1007/BFb0054319
(4) Bender, C.M., Brody, D.C., and Jones, H.F. βComplex extension of quantum mechanicsβ, Phys. Rev. Lett89, 270401 (2002)
(5) Bender, C.M., Brody, D.C., and Jones, H.F. βMust a Hamiltonian be Hermitian?β, Am. J. Phys.71, 1095-1102 (2003).
(6) Mostafazadekh, A. βPseudo-Hermiticity versus PT-symmetry III: Equivalence of pseudo-Hermiticity and the presence of antilinear symmetriesβ J. Math. Phys.43, 3944 (2002).
(7) Y.-C. Lee, M.-H. Hsieh, S. T. Flammia, and R.-K. Lee, Phys.Rev.Lett.112, 130404 (2014)
(8) A.K. Pati, arXiv:1404.6166.
(9) G. Scolarici and L.Solombrino, J. Phys. A 42, 055303, (2009)
(10) Carl M. Bender, Dorje C. Brody, JoΓ£o Caldeira, Uwe GΓΌnther, Bernhard K. Meister and Boris F. Samsonov, βPT-symmetric quantum state discriminationβ, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0160, (2013).