# General Strategies for Discrimination of Quantum States

## Abstract

We derive general discrimination of quantum states chosen from a certain set, given initial $`M`$ copies of each state, and obtain the matrix inequality, which describe the bound between the maximum probability of correctly determining and that of error. The former works are special cases of our results.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 03.65.Bz, 89.70.+c

It is determined by the principle of quantum mechanics  that we can’t perfectly discriminate or clone an arbitrary,unknown quantum states. But this important result doesn’t prohibit discrimination and cloning strategies which has a limited success. Numerous projects has been made to this subject by many author. Discrimination of states has a close connection with quantum measurement. The general approach of quantum measurement theory has been consider a quantum system whose unknown state belongs to a finite, known set and devise the measurement which yields the most information about initial state, where the figure of merit is the probability of a correct result or the mutual information . We have known that a set of orthogonal quantum states can be discriminated perfectly. Approximate state determination of a set of non-orthogonal states is also possible. Helstrom has found the absolute maximum probability of discriminating between two states, which is instead given by the well-known Helstrom limit . Non-orthogonal quantum states can also,with some probability, be discriminated without approximation. Ivanovic , Dieks  and Peres  have showed that it is possible to discriminate exactly ,which means with zero error probability, between a pair of non-orthogonal states and they derive the maximum probability of success called IDP limit. The IDP limit is not the absolute maximum of the discrimination probability, but is rather the maximum subject to the constraint that the measurement never give error results. Chelfes and Barnett \[6-10\] extent their results to the constraint of $`M`$ initial copies of states and also they consider the results for $`n`$ states. They found that $`n`$ non-orthogonal states can be probabilistic discriminate without error if and only if they are linearly independent. Their works connect the approximate and exact discrimination and give an inequality that describe the relation between the probability of correctly and error discriminating. All their works have use an assumption that the probabilities of correct or error for discrimination are equal for different state. More recently, Duan and Guo  have found the maximum probabilities of exact discrimination of $`n`$ linearly independent quantum states and for different state the maximum probability may be different. Exact discrimination attempts may give inconclusive results,but we can always know with certainty whether or not the discrimination has been a success. Recently, however, Massar and Popescu  and Derka et al  have considered the problem of estimating a completely unknown quantum state, given $`M`$ independent realizations.

In quantum mechanics, a combination of unitary evolution together with measurements often yields interesting results, such as the quantum programming , the purification of entanglement ,and the teleportation  and preparation  of quantum states. Duan and Guo  used such combination in the field of quantum cloning and showed that the states secretly chosen from a certain set $`S=\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_1,|\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Psi }_n\}`$ can be probabilistically cloned if and only if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$,$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$,$`\mathrm{}`$,and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ are linearly independent. They derive the best cloning efficiencies and also extent their results to the discrimination of a set of states and give the optimal efficiencies for exactly probabilistically discriminating. In this paper we’ll also use such combination and construct general discrimination of the states secretly chosen from a certain set $`S`$, given $`M`$ initial copies of each state. We derive the matrix inequality, which describe the bound between the maximum probability of correctly determining and that of error. We give the most general results about quantum discrimination in a finite set of states and prove that the former works can be derived from our results in different conditions.

Consider a set of quantum states $`S=\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_1,|\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Psi }_n\}`$ ,$`S`$ ,where $``$ is a $`n`$-dimension Hilbert space. If there are $`M`$ quantum systems, all of which are prepared in the same states, then we can denote the possible states of the combined system are the $`M`$-fold tensor products

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M=|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_1\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_M\text{ }$$
(1)   
Any operation in quantum mechanics can be represented by a unitary evolution together with a measurement. We use a unitary evolution $`\widehat{U}`$ and yield

$$\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_A^M|P_0=\sqrt{\gamma _i}|\phi _i_A|P_0+\underset{j}{}t_{ij}|\phi _j_A|P_0+\underset{j}{}c_{ij}|\phi _j_A|P_1,$$
(2)   
where $`t_{ii}=0`$, $`\gamma _i0`$, $`t_{ij}0`$, $`\left\{|\phi _i_A,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ are a set of orthogonal states in Hilbert space $`^M`$, $`\{|P_0,|P_1\}`$ are the orthogonal basis states of the probe system $`P`$, and $`A`$ represent the system of initial states. After the unitary evolution we measure the probe system $`P`$. If we get $`|P_1`$,the discrimination fails and we discard the output, so we call this situation as an inconclusive result, else if we get $`|P_0`$, we then measure system $`A`$ and if get $`|\phi _k_A`$ ,we determine the initial states as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k^M`$. We can see the discrimination may be correctly success (when $`k=i`$, the probability is $`P_D^{(i)}=\gamma _i`$) or have errors (when $`ki`$, the all probability is $`P_E^{(i)}=_kt_{ik}^2`$) when the initial state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M`$.We can also give the inconclusive probability $`P_I^{\left(i\right)}=1P_D^{(i)}P_E^{(i)}`$.

Unitary evolution $`\widehat{U}`$ exist if and only if 

$$X^{(M)}=(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+T)(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+T^+)+CC^+,$$
(3)   
where the $`n\times n`$ matrices $`X^{(M)}=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j^M\right]`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=diag(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\mathrm{}\gamma _n)`$, $`C=\left[c_{ij}\right]`$, $`T=\left[t_{ij}\right]`$, we call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as correctly discriminating probabilistic matrix and $`T`$ as error discriminating probabilistic matrix. $`CC^+`$ is semipositive definite,that yield

$$X^{(M)}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+T)(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+T^+)0,$$
(4)   
where $`0`$ means semipositive definite. This inequality give a general bound among the initial states matrix $`X`$, correctly discriminating probabilistic matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and error discriminating probabilistic matrix $`T`$. We don’t make constraint on the initial states, which means we don’t demand that the initial states must be linearly independent. In the following we discuss Inequality.(4) and find many former works about discrimination can be derived from this inequality.

Denote $`B=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+T`$,we rewrite inequality.(4) as

$$X^{(M)}BB^+0.$$
(5)   
We begin our discuss with giving a condition that yield $`\left\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ are linearly independent, that is

$$\sqrt{\gamma _i}>\underset{j}{}t_{ij},$$
(6)   
where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Condition (6) yield $`X^{(M)}`$ is a positive definite matrix , which means$`\left\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ are linearly independent. We can derive from inequality.(6) that $`P_D^{(i)}>P_E^{(i)}`$, which means the correctly discriminating probability is great than that of error. We consider a special situation that $`T=0`$. To obtain maximum of correctly discriminating probability $`\gamma _i>0`$, the inequality (6) must be satisfied and $`\left\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ must be linearly independent, which means only linearly independent states can be discriminated with non-zero probability if we demand there are no error existence. Such result has been obtained by Duan and Guo  and Chefles and Barnett . We can also give the maximum discriminating probability that is determined by such inequality

$$X^{(M)}\mathrm{\Gamma }0.$$
(7)   
This inequality is just a generalization of the optimal efficiencies for exactly probabilistically discriminating which has been given by Duan and Guo  and we also obtain such inequality in .

In the following discussion we are only concerned with the discrimination of two states. This situation is the most important and many valuable works has been done to this. We will give the most general bound between the correctly discriminating probability and that of error in this situation using inequality.(4) and this bound comes to the former results in different special conditions.

Consider a quantum system prepared in one of the two states $`|\psi _\pm ^M`$ .We are not told which of the states the system is in, although we do know that it has some probability of being in either. Denote $`P_{IP}=\psi _+\psi _{}^M`$.We represent $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`T`$ as $`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& P_{IP}\\ P_{IP}^{}& 1\end{array}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=diag(\sqrt{P_D^+},\sqrt{P_D^{}})`$, $`T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{P_E^+}\\ \sqrt{P_E^{}}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and inequality.(4) yield

$$(1P_D^+P_E^+)(1P_D^{}P_E^{})(P_{IP}\sqrt{P_D^+P_E^{}}\sqrt{P_D^{}P_E^+})(P_{IP}^{}\sqrt{P_D^+P_E^{}}\sqrt{P_D^{}P_E^+}).$$
(8)   
For $`P_I^+=1P_D^+P_E^+`$, $`P_I^{}=1P_D^{}P_E^{}`$, we can rewrite inequality.(8) as

$$P_I^+P_I^{}\left|P_{IP}\sqrt{P_D^+P_E^{}}\sqrt{P_D^{}P_E^+}\right|^2.$$
(9)   
This inequality is just the most general bound among the discriminating probabilities of correct ($`P_D^+`$, $`P_D^{}`$),error ($`P_E^+`$, $`P_E^{}`$) and inconclusive ($`P_I^+`$, $`P_I^{}`$). In the following we will give some special conditions and simple inequality.(9).

1. We let $`P_I^+=P_I^{}=0`$, which means that we don’t give inconclusive results, then inequality.(9) yield

$$P_{IP}=\sqrt{P_D^+(1P_D^{})}+\sqrt{P_D^{}(1P_D^+)}.$$
(10)   
Eq.(10) give a bound of the maximum correctly discriminating probabilities $`P_D^+`$, $`P_D^{}`$ of the two states $`|\psi _+`$ and $`|\psi _{}`$ given $`M`$ initial copies of each states. We find $`P_{IP}`$ must be real, which means if the inter-produce of two states $`|\psi _+`$ and $`|\psi _{}`$ is not real we can’t execute discrimination without inconclusive results. Furthermore we can suppose $`P_D^+=P_D^{}=P_D`$, and derive

$$P_D=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1P_{IP}^2}).$$
(11)   
When $`M=1`$, Eq.(11) just give the well-known Helstrom limit 

$$P_D=P_H=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{1\left|\psi _+\psi _{}\right|^2}).$$
(12)   
Eq.(11) give the absolute maximum probability of discriminating between two states $`|\psi _\pm `$ with given $`M`$ initial copies. The measurement it represents does not give inconclusive results, but will incorrectly identify the states with probability $`1P_D`$.

2. We suppose $`P_{IP}=P_{IP}^{}`$, $`P_D^+=P_D^{}=P_D`$, $`P_E^+=P_E^{}=P_E`$, so $`P_I^+=P_I^{}=P_I`$ and Eq.(9) yield

$$\frac{1}{2}(P_{IP}P_I)\sqrt{P_EP_D}\frac{1}{2}(P_{IP}+P_I)\text{ .}$$
(13)   
Inequality (13) give a general lower bound on the combination of errors and inconclusive result and corresponds to a family of measurements which optimally interpolates between the Helstrom and IDP limits. If $`P_{IP}P_I`$ ,we can get

$$\frac{1}{4}(P_{IP}P_I)^2P_EP_D\frac{1}{4}(P_{IP}+P_I)^2\text{ .}$$
(14)   
When $`M=1`$, the left side of inequality (14) is just the inequality that has been obtained by Chefles and Barnett . If $`P_{IP}<P_I`$, we have

$$P_EP_D\frac{1}{4}(P_{IP}+P_I)^2$$
(15)   
3. We suppose $`P_E^+=P_E^{}=0`$, and inequality (8) yield

$$(1P_D^+)(1P_D^{})\left|P_{IP}\right|^2.$$
(16)   
So we obtain

$$\frac{P_D^++P_D^{}}{2}1\left|\psi _+\psi _{}\right|^M$$
(17)   
When $`P_D^+=P_D^{}=P_{IDP}`$, we give $`P_{IDP}=1\left|\psi _+\psi _{}\right|^M=1P_{IP}`$, which is a generalization of IDP limit.

Denote $`P_S=P_D+P_E`$. It is obvious that $`P_S`$ is the probability with which we measurement the probe system and get $`|P_0`$ after the unitary evolution in Eq.(2). Comparing with , we can say $`P_S`$ is just the probability that two states can be separated by an arbitrary degree with states separating operation. In similar way we can denote $`P_S^{(i)}=P_D^{(i)}+P_E^{(i)}`$ and find the unitary evolution $`\widehat{U}`$ in Eq.(2) just transfer states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_A^M|P_0`$ into states $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{P_S^{(i)}}}\left(\sqrt{\gamma _i}|\phi _i_A+_jt_{ij}|\phi _j_A\right)|P_0`$ with transfer probability $`P_S^{(i)}`$ and realize states separating operate. We can give $`P_D=P_SP_H`$, and $`P_E=P_S(1P_H)`$, where $`P_H`$ is the Helstrom limit for $`M`$ initial states. With these representations, inequality (13) yield

$$P_E\frac{1}{2}\left(P_S\sqrt{P_S^2(P_SP_{IDP})^2}\right)\text{ if }P_SP_{IDP}$$
(18)   
This inequality is just that has been obtained by Chefles and Barnett  when $`M=1`$, which give a bound on the error probability $`P_E`$ given a fixed value of the probability $`P_S`$ and it is equivalent to inequality (15).

So far we have constructed general discrimination of the states secretly chosen from a certain set $`S`$ given $`M`$ initial copies of each state by a combination of unitary evolution together with measurements. We have derived the matrix inequality, which describe the bound among three different discriminating results: correct, error and inconclusive. For different $`n`$-state,we give a condition which yield such $`n`$-state are linearly independent and find the result of Duan and Guo is just obtained in a special situation of our condition. For two states, we find the most general bound (inequality (9)) among the discriminating probabilities of correctly ($`P_D^+`$, $`P_D^{}`$),error ($`P_E^+`$,$`P_E^{}`$) and inconclusive ($`P_I^+`$,$`P_I^{}`$) and the former works are the results of different applications of our bound in different situation.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.