Download PPT

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Double-slit experiment wikipedia, lookup

Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia, lookup

Path integral formulation wikipedia, lookup

Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia, lookup

Quantum decoherence wikipedia, lookup

Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia, lookup

History of quantum field theory wikipedia, lookup

Coherent states wikipedia, lookup

Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia, lookup

Algorithmic cooling wikipedia, lookup

Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

EPR paradox wikipedia, lookup

Quantum machine learning wikipedia, lookup

Quantum group wikipedia, lookup

Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Quantum computing wikipedia, lookup

Bell's theorem wikipedia, lookup

Quantum entanglement wikipedia, lookup

Hidden variable theory wikipedia, lookup

Quantum teleportation wikipedia, lookup

Canonical quantization wikipedia, lookup

Quantum key distribution wikipedia, lookup

Density matrix wikipedia, lookup

Quantum state wikipedia, lookup

T-symmetry wikipedia, lookup

Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia, lookup

Probability amplitude wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
Introduction to
Quantum Information Processing
CS 667 / PH 767 / CO 681 / AM 871
Lecture 16 (2009)
Richard Cleve
DC 2117
[email protected]
1
Distinguishing between two
arbitrary quantum states
2
Holevo-Helstrom Theorem (1)
Theorem: for any two quantum states  and , the optimal
measurement procedure for distinguishing between them
succeeds with probability ½ + ¼|| −  ||tr (equal prior probs.)
Proof* (the attainability part):
Since  −  is Hermitian, its eigenvalues are real
Let + be the projector onto the positive eigenspaces
Let − be the projector onto the non-positive eigenspaces
Take the POVM measurement specified by + and − with
the associations +   and −  
* The other direction of the theorem (optimality) is omitted here
3
Holevo-Helstrom Theorem (2)
Claim: this succeeds with probability ½ + ¼|| −  ||tr
Proof of Claim:
A key observation is Tr(+ − −)( −  ) = || −  ||tr
The success probability is ps = ½Tr(+  ) + ½Tr(− )
& the failure probability is pf = ½Tr(+  ) + ½Tr(− )
Therefore, ps − pf = ½Tr(+ − −)( −  ) = ½|| −  ||tr
From this, the result follows
4
Purifications & Ulhmann’s Theorem
Any density matrix , can be obtained by tracing out part of
some larger pure state:
d
  j  j
j 1
 m
 m

 j  Tr2    j  j j    j  j j 
 j 1
 j 1

a purification of 
Ulhmann’s Theorem*: The fidelity between  and  is the
maximum of φψ taken over all purifications ψ and φ
* See [Nielsen & Chuang, pp. 410-411] for a proof of this
Recall our previous definition of fidelity as
F(,  ) = Tr√ 1/2  1/2  ||1/2  1/2||tr
5
Relationships between fidelity
and trace distance
1 − F(, )  || −  ||tr  √1 − F(, )2
See [Nielsen & Chuang, pp. 415-416] for more details
6
Entropy and
compression
7
Shannon Entropy
Let p = (p1,…, pd) be a probability distribution on a set {1,…,d}
Then the (Shannon) entropy of p is H(p1,…, pd)  
d
p
j 1
j
log p j
Intuitively, this turns out to be a good measure of “how random”
the distribution p is:
vs.
H(p) = log d
vs.
vs.
H(p) = 0
Operationally, H(p) is the number of bits needed to store the
outcome (in a sense that will be made formal shortly)
8
Von Neumann Entropy
For a density matrix , it turns out that S() = − Tr log is a
good quantum analog of entropy
Note: S() = H(p1,…, pd), where p1,…, pd are the eigenvalues
of  (with multiplicity)
Operationally, S() is the number of qubits needed to store 
(in a sense that will be made formal later on)
Both the classical and quantum compression results pertain to
the case of large blocks of n independent instances of data:
• probability distribution pn in the classical case, and
• quantum state  n in the quantum case
9
Classical compression (1)
Let p = (p1,…, pd) be a probability distribution on a set {1,…,d}
where n independent instances are sampled:
( j1,…, jn) {1,…,d}n (d n possibilities, n log d bits to specify one)
Theorem*: for all  > 0, for sufficiently large n, there is a
scheme that compresses the specification to n(H(p) + ) bits
while introducing an error with probability at most 
Intuitively, there is a subset of {1,…,d}n, called the “typical
sequences”, that has size 2n(H(p) + ) and probability 1 − 
A nice way to prove the theorem, is based on two cleverly
defined random variables …
* “Plain vanilla” version that ignores, for example, the tradeoffs between n and 
10
Classical compression (2)
Define the random variable f :{1,…,d}  R as f ( j ) = − log pj
Note that E[ f ] 
d
p
j 1
Define
g:{1,…,d}n
d
j
f ( j )    p j log p j  H  p1 ,, pd 
j 1
 R as g  j1 ,, jn  
Thus E[ g ]  H  p1 ,, pd 
Also, g( j1,…, jn)   log  p j  p j
1
n
1
n
f ( j1 )    f ( jn )
n

11
Classical compression (3)
By standard results in statistics, as n  , the observed
value of g( j1,…, jn) approaches its expected value, H(p)
More formally, call ( j1,…, jn) {1,…,d}n -typical if
g  j1 ,, jn   H p   ε
Then, the result is that, for all  > 0, for sufficiently large n,
Pr[( j1,…, jn) is -typical]  1− 
We can also bound the number of these -typical sequences:
• By definition, each such sequence has probability  2−n(H(p) + )
• Therefore, there can be at most 2n(H(p) + ) such sequences
12
Classical compression (4)
In summary, the compression procedure is as follows:
The input data is ( j1,…, jn) {1,…,d}n, each independently
sampled according the probability distribution p = (p1,…, pd)
The compression procedure is to leave ( j1,…, jn) intact if it is
-typical and otherwise change it to some fixed -typical
sequence, say, ( j ,…, j) (which will result in an error)
Since there are at most 2n(H(p) + ) -typical sequences, the data
can then be converted into n(H(p) + ) bits
The error probability is at most , the probability of an atypical
input arising
13
Quantum compression (1)
The scenario: n independent instances of a d-dimensional
state are randomly generated according some distribution:
φ1  prob. p1



φr  prob. pr
Example:
0 prob. ½
+ prob. ½
Goal: to “compress” this into as few qubits as possible so that
the original state can be reconstructed with small error in the
following sense …
The expected* trace distance between the reconstructed state
and the state that was actually generated should be small
* Defined as the expected value of the trace distance, taken with respect to the
randomness of the generation procedure
14
Quantum compression (2)
r
Define    pi φ i φ i
i 1
Theorem: for all  > 0, for sufficiently large n, there is a
scheme that compresses the data to n(S() + ) qubits,
with expected trace distance  √2
For the aforementioned example,  0.6n qubits suffices
The compression method:
d
Express  in its eigenbasis as    q j ψ j ψ j
j 1
With respect to this basis, we will define an -typical subspace
of dimension 2n(S() + ) = 2n(H(q) + )
15
Quantum compression (3)
The -typical subspace is that spanned by ψ j1 , , ψ jn
where ( j1,…, jn) is -typical with respect to (q1,…, qd)
Define typ as the projector into the -typical subspace
By the same argument as in the classical case, the subspace
has dimension  2n(S() + ) and Tr(typ  n)  1− 
This is because  is the density matrix of
1 prob. q1



d prob. qd
16
Quantum compression (4)
Calculation of the expected fidelity:
p
i1in
i i  typ i i 
1
n
1
i1in
n
p
i1in

Tr  typ i1in i1in

i1in
Abbreviations:
pi1i = pi1 pi
n
n
φi1in = φi1φin

 Tr   typ  pi1in i1in i1in
i1in

 Tr  typ n






1  
Using || −  ||tr  √1 − F(, )2, we can upper bound the
expected trace distance by √2
17