Coherent quantum channel discrimination

Mark M. Wilde

Hearne Institute for Theoretical Phyiscs

Department of Physics and Astronomy
Center for Computation and Technology
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA

Available as arXiv:2001.02668
ISIT 2020 (virtual)

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 1 / 17

Motivation

Diamond distance is a fundamental metric used for characterizing the

distinguishability of quantum channels

One reason is that it appears in the expression for the success

probability in distinguishing two quantum channels in quantum
channel discrimination

Here I propose a fully coherent or fully quantum version of quantum

channel discrimination

Motivation: Ideal quantum computers operate in a fully coherent

manner, and we often take a circuit and construct a controlled version
of it. We may not implement a perfect controlled version and so we
want to understand how the unideal case deviates from the ideal one,
even when the channel is called in controlled form

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 2 / 17

Review of diamond distance

Diamond distance quantifies the distance between two quantum

0
channels NA→B 1
and NA→B , and there are two good reasons to use it
(discussed later)

It is defined as follows:
0
N − N 1 := sup N 0 (ρRA ) − N 1 (ρRA )

 A→B A→B 1
ρRA

where k · k1 is the trace norm and the optimization is over all bipartite
states ρRA with unbounded reference system R.

It suffices to restrict the optimization to be over pure bipartite states

ψRA with system R isomorphic to system A.

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 3 / 17

Reason 1: Diamond distance as “observational error”

Diamond distance characterizes “observational error” between

0
quantum channels NA→B and NA→B1 .

Most general way that we can process a channel to obtain classical

data is to 1) prepare a state ρRA , 2) send A through the channel, and
3) perform a measurement on systems RB

Probability for a particular measurement outcome to occur when

0
using first channel is Tr[ΛRB NA→B (ρRA )].

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 4 / 17

Reason 1 (ctd.): Diamond dist. as “observational error”

Observational error between the different probabilities obtained by

using the same procedure on different channels is
Tr[ΛRB N 0 (ρRA )] − Tr[ΛRB N 1 (ρRA )]
 
A→B A→B

Maximum observational error = normalized diamond distance:

1 0 1 0 1
 
2 N −N 
:= sup Tr[ΛRB NA→B (ρRA )] − Tr[ΛRB NA→B (ρRA )]
ρRA ,ΛRB

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 5 / 17

Reason 2: Diamond distance from channel discrimination
Diamond distance arises in the expression for the optimal success
probability in distinguishing two quantum channels.
A quantum channel discrimination protocol:
R

A
Alice
B
Bob Channel

Alice sends one share of a state ψRA . Bob flips a fair coin and applies
0
NA→B 1
if heads and NA→B if tails.
Optimal success probability in distinguishing channels is equal to
 
1 1 0 1

1+ N −N 
2 2
Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 6 / 17
Purifying quantum channel discrimination
Every quantum channel can be purified, such that it is realized by
attaching an auxiliary system in the state |0ih0|G , applying an
isometric channel WAG →BE , and then tracing over E :
i
NA→B (ωA ) = TrE [WAG →BE (ρA ⊗ |0ih0|G )].

Can depict conventional quantum channel discrimination as

E’ E’
|0〉
Prover F B
R
|0〉 R
V
B F

A B
Verifier
G
Wi E
|0〉
R1
π
where π = (|0ih0| + |1ih1|)/2 is the maximally mixed qubit state,
representing random choice of channel selection
Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 7 / 17
Coherent quantum channel discrimination

Main idea behind coherent quantum channel discrimination is to

“coherify” each step of a channel discrimination protocol
E’ E’
|0〉
Prover F F
R
|0〉 R
V
B B

A B B A F
Verifier
G
Wi E E Wi †
G
|0〉
R1
|+〉

Replaces initial maximally mixed state with coherent version |+ih+|,

includes an uncomputing step, and final measurement is a Bell
measurement

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 8 / 17

Details of coherent channel discrimination

Step 1 → |+iR1 |ψiRA

1 X i
Step 2 → √ |iiR1 WAG →BE |ψiRA |0iG
2 i∈{0,1}
1 X i
Step 3 → √ |iiR1 VRBE 0 F WAG →BE |ψiRA |000iGE 0 F .
2 i∈{0,1}
1 X
Step 4 → √ |iiR1 W i† VW i |ψiRA |000iGE 0 F ,
2 i∈{0,1}
Step 5 → Measure {ΦR1 F ⊗ |0ih0|G , IR1 FG − ΦR1 F ⊗ |0ih0|G }
Success if first outcome occurs. Probability of success:
2

1 X
i† i

hΦ|R 1 F h0|G |iiR 1 W VW |ψiRA |000iGE 0F
2
i∈{0,1}
2
Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 9 / 17
Optimal success probability of coh. channel discrimination

Optimizing over all input states |ψihψ|RA and unitaries V of the

prover, the optimal success probability is
 2

1 
X †
pscoh (N 0 , N 1 ) =  i i

sup (NA→B ) (PRB→RBE 0 )
 
 2 {P i } 
i∈{0,1}
: i∈{0,1} 
∞
P i† P i =IRB
P
i

This can be compared with an alternate expression for success

probability of conventional channel discrimination:


inc 0 1 1 X
i † i

ps (N , N ) = sup (NA→B ) (ΛRB )
2 { Λi }
RB i∈{0,1} i∈{0,1}

∞

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 10 / 17

Bounding the optimal success probability

Optimal success probability is bounded as

1/2 ≤ pscoh (N 0 , N 1 ) ≤ 1

Upper bound is saturated if and only if the channels are orthogonal.

Lower bound is saturated if the channels are identical.

Bounds relating optimal success probability in coherent versus

conventional channel discrimination
q
pscoh (N 0 , N 1 ) ≤ psinc (N 0 , N 1 ) ≤ pscoh (N 0 , N 1 )

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 11 / 17

Quantum superchannels

Most general physical transformation of a quantum channel is a

superchannel, which accepts as input a quantum channel and
outputs a quantum channel

The superchannel Θ(A→B)→(C →D) takes as input a quantum channel

NA→B and outputs a quantum channel KC →D , which we denote by

Θ(A→B)→(C →D) (NA→B ) = KC →D .

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 12 / 17

Physical realizations of quantum superchannels
Superchannel has a physical realization in terms of pre- and
post-processing quantum channels:

Θ(A→B)→(C →D) (NA→B ) = DBM→D ◦ NA→B ◦ EC →AM ,

where EC →AM and DBM→D are pre- and post-processing channels

A B
N
C D
E D
M

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 13 / 17

Optimal success probability and superchannels

Fundamental property: Optimal success probability of coherent

channel discrimination does not increase under a superchannel

Expected property because superchannel can be viewed as a particular

kind of discrimination strategy; this is main proof idea:
E’ E’
|0〉
Prover F F
R
|0〉 R
V
D D

M1 G’ D D G’ M1
C |0〉 M
C
E M
WD WD WE
† †
L W M2 M2 L
|0〉 A B

B B A F
Verifier
G
Wi E E Wi † G
|0〉
R1
|+〉

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 14 / 17

Optimal success probability as SDP

Optimal success probability can be computed by a semi-definite

program (SDP):
n o
sup Tr[YR1 FBE σR1 FBE ] : TrBF [σR1 FBE ] = ZRρ1 E ,
σR1 FBE , ρA

where σR1 FBE and ρA are density operators and

1
|iiihjj|R1 F ⊗ Nki N`j† ⊗ |kih`|E ,
X
YR1 FBE :=
2
i,j∈{0,1},k,`
1
ZRρ1 E := Tr[N`j† Nki ρA ]|iihj|R1 ⊗ |kih`|E ,
X
2
i,j∈{0,1},k,`

with {Nki }k a set of Kraus operators for the channel NA→B

i for
i ∈ {0, 1}.

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 15 / 17

Comparing conventional to coherent channel discrimination
SDP allows for comparing conventional (incoherent) to coherent quantum
channel discrimination for simple examples.
0.55
Incoherent Channel Discrimination
0.545 Coherent Channel Discrimination

0.54

0.535
Success probability

0.53

0.525

0.52

0.515

0.51

0.505

0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Noise parameter N

Figure: Comparison of the success probabilities of coherent and incoherent

channel discrimination for a generalized amplitude damping channel with damping
parameter γ = 0.2 and another with damping parameter γ = 0.3. The channels
have the same value of the noise parameter N, which is varied in the plot.
Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 16 / 17
Conclusion and future directions

Defined the task of coherent quantum channel discrimination and

motivated it use in the context of discriminating quantum channels
called in superposition

Found expression for the optimal success probability, compared it to

that for conventional channel discrimination, showed that it does not
increase under superchannels, and that it can be computed by SDP

For future work, try to show that the optimal success probability is
faithful (i.e., equal to 1/2 if and only if the channels are identical)

Mark M. Wilde Coherent quantum channel discrimination 17 / 17