Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Operational meaning of quantum measures of recovery

Tom Cooney, Christoph Hirche, Ciara Morgan, Jonathan P. Olson, Kaushik P. Seshadreesan, John Watrous, and Mark M. Wilde
Phys. Rev. A 94, 022310 – Published 10 August 2016

Abstract

Several information measures have recently been defined that capture the notion of recoverability. In particular, the fidelity of recovery quantifies how well one can recover a system A of a tripartite quantum state, defined on systems ABC, by acting on system C alone. The relative entropy of recovery is an associated measure in which the fidelity is replaced by relative entropy. In this paper we provide concrete operational interpretations of the aforementioned recovery measures in terms of a computational decision problem and a hypothesis testing scenario. Specifically, we show that the fidelity of recovery is equal to the maximum probability with which a computationally unbounded quantum prover can convince a computationally bounded quantum verifier that a given quantum state is recoverable. The quantum interactive proof system giving this operational meaning requires four messages exchanged between the prover and verifier, but by forcing the prover to perform actions in superposition, we construct a different proof system that requires only two messages. The result is that the associated decision problem is in QIP(2) and another argument establishes it as hard for QSZK (both classes contain problems believed to be difficult to solve for a quantum computer). We finally prove that the regularized relative entropy of recovery is equal to the optimal type II error exponent when trying to distinguish many copies of a tripartite state from a recovered version of this state, such that the type I error is constrained to be no larger than a constant.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 28 April 2016

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022310

©2016 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Quantum Information, Science & Technology

Authors & Affiliations

Tom Cooney1, Christoph Hirche2, Ciara Morgan3, Jonathan P. Olson4, Kaushik P. Seshadreesan5, John Watrous6,7, and Mark M. Wilde4,8

  • 1Department of Mathematics, State University of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York 14454, USA
  • 2Física Teòrica: Informació i Fenòmens Quàntics, Departament de Física, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
  • 3School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
  • 4Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
  • 5Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Guenther-Scharowsky-Straße, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
  • 6Institute for Quantum Computing and School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, West Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
  • 7Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1Z8
  • 8Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 94, Iss. 2 — August 2016

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Illustration of the quantum interactive proof system that establishes an operational meaning of the fidelity of recovery and the containment FoR QIP. There are four distinct quantum messages exchanged between the verifier and the prover.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Two-message quantum interactive proof system for deciding the fidelity of recovery computational problem. The quantum gates with crossed wires denote controlled swap gates, as described in the text. A closed circle indicates that the swap occurs controlled on the value in T being equal to one, while an open circle indicates that the swap occurs controlled on the value in T being equal to zero.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review A

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×