IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO.
3, MARCH 2020
Channel Coding of a Quantum Measurement
Spiros Kechrimparis, Chahan M. Kropf, Filip Wudarski , and Joonwoo Bae
Abstract— In this work, we consider the preservation of a mea-
surement for quantum systems interacting with an environment.
Namely, a method of preserving an optimal measurement over
a channel is devised, what we call channel coding of a quantum
measurement in that operations are applied before and after
a channel in order to protect a measurement. A protocol that
preserves a quantum measurement over an arbitrary channel is
shown only with local operations and classical communication
without the use of a larger Hilbert space. Therefore, the protocol
is readily feasible with present day’s technologies. Channel coding
of qubit measurements is presented, and it is shown that a
measurement can be preserved for an arbitrary channel for both
i) pairs of qubit states and ii) ensembles of equally probable
states. The protocol of preserving a quantum measurement is
demonstrated with IBM quantum computers.
Index Terms— Quantum state discrimination, quantum com-
munication, quantum channels, quantum protocols, quantum
simulations.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Q UANTUM systems are generally fragile in that they
often interact with an environment [1], [2]. One of the
consequences is that a designed quantum information task
becomes noisy. For instance, when quantum states are stored
in a memory, they may interact with an environment so that
the resulting noisy states are finally read out by a mea-
surement. In a communication scenario, interactions with an
environment take place while quantum states are transmitted:
a state sent by a party is noisy and then measured by a
receiver.
Manuscript received July 1, 2019; revised December 15, 2019; accepted
January 6, 2020. Date of publication January 24, 2020; date of current
version April 3, 2020. This work was supported by National Research Foun-
dation of Korea (NRF-2019M3E4A1080001), an Institute of Information and
Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korean
government (MSIP), (Grant No. 2019-0-00831), University IT Research
Center (ITRC) Program (IITP-2020-2018-0-01402), NASA Academic Mis-
sion Services (contract number NNA16BD14C), and Iniziativa Specifica
341 INFN-DynSysMath. (Corresponding author: Spiros Kechrimparis.)
Spiros Kechrimparis and Joonwoo Bae are with the School of Electrical
Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST),
Daejeon 34141, South Korea (e-mail: spiros@kaist.ac.kr; joonwoo.bae@
kaist.ac.kr).
Chahan M. Kropf is with the Sezione di Pavia, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica
Nucleare, I-27100 Pavia, Italy, also with the Dipartimento di Matematica
e Fisica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, I-25121 Brescia, Italy, and
also with the Interdisciplinary Laboratories for Advanced Materials Physics,
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, I-25121 Brescia, Italy.
Filip Wudarski is with the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
(QuAIL), Exploration Technology Directorate, NASA Ames Research Center,
Mountain View, CA 94035 USA, also with the USRA Research Institute
for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS), Mountain View, CA 94043 USA,
and also with the Institute of Physics, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and
Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSAC.2020.2969034
0733-8716 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
439
The aforementioned scenario shares similarities with noisy
channels in information theory [3]. After messages are
encoded, sequences are transmitted and then corrupted during
the transmission by a noisy channel. In information theory,
the problem of unwanted interactions with an environment is
resolved by channel coding, in which messages are prepared
in longer sequences with additional bits in order to contain
some redundancy on purpose such that the redundant bits are
used to detect and correct errors that have appeared during
the transmission.
In quantum information theory, in a similar vein, quantum
systems can be protected by exploiting more resources in the
state preparation. As quantum states are described by linear,
non-negative, and unit-trace operators in a Hilbert space,
quantum states can be prepared in a subspace, also called
a code space, of a larger Hilbert space. The complementary
subspace is used to detect and correct errors that occurred in
the code space. Consequently, states prepared on the support
of the code space are protected from interactions with an
environment. The scheme has been referred to as quantum
error correction [4], [5] or noiseless subsystems [6].
So far, in both cases of classical and quantum scenarios
that deal with unwanted interactions with an environment,
the goal is to preserve systems prepared in sequences or states,
respectively. In quantum theory, we recall the significance of
an optimal measurement to read out which state a system
is prepared in. The role of a quantum measurement is illus-
trated as follows. Suppose that there are two sets of states,
SZ = {|0, √|1} and SX = {|+, |−}, where |± =
(|0 ± |1)/ 2. Although both contain a pair of orthogonal
states, the perfect distinguishability can be achieved only
when a measurement is performed in a correct basis: the
Z basis for the set SZ and the X basis for the set SX .
Measurements in the Z basis for the states SX , or X to
states SZ , give no information about the pair of orthogonal
states.
It is clear that if states are protected by a channel, so is
an optimal measurement preserved for the states. However,
the preservation of a measurement does not necessarily imply
that quantum states should be protected completely. For
instance, suppose that two states {|0, |1} are sent through
a channel as follows,
|0 → (1 − p)|00| + p|11|,
|1 → (1 − p)|11| + p|00| (1)
for p ∈ [0, 1]. An optimal measurement for state discrimination
remains the same as a measurement in the Z basis both before
and after a channel use. The measurement in the Z basis
 440 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 2020

is optimal for both the initial ensemble and its resulting

ensemble. That is, a measurement can be preserved over a
channel. This shows that the preservation of a measurement is
not equivalent to the preservation of states. It is then natural
to characterize channels over which a quantum measurement
can be preserved, and also to ask how the preservation can be
generally achieved.
The preservation of an optimal measurement is also useful
from a practical point view: one may desire to exploit a
measurement setting, once prepared, repeatedly in a different
environment. This happens, for instance, in quantum algo-
rithms: a measurement in the computational basis is supposed
to find a solution from a resulting state. If states cannot be fully
preserved due to noise from an environment, a next best option
could be to find an optimal measurement for the resulting
noisy states, in order to maximize the probability of obtaining
a solution. If the optimality of a measurement is preserved,
a measurement does not have to be revised but remains optimal
ever. Similarly, in quantum communication where states are
sent through a noisy channel, an optimal measurement can find
which state has been sent through a channel, although states
may not be protected completely. The scheme of preserving
an optimal measurement over a channel can be referred to
as channel coding of a quantum measurement. We recall that
methods of preserving states have been called channel coding
of states [7].
The advantages of preserving an optimal measurement over
a quantum channel are twofold. Firstly, the verification of
resulting states can be circumvented. If a measurement once
prepared would be optimal ever after a channel use, the step
of identifying resulting states can be bypassed: even if the
states are unknown, an optimal measurement for the states is
already there. In this way, quantum tomography that is highly
demanding in practice can be circumvented. This can also
be interpreted that measurement devices do not have to be
realigned under unknown and unwanted interactions with an
environment. For instance, measurement devices prepared in a
laboratory can be re-used in some other applications such as
platforms of satellite or free-space quantum communication,
in which it is in fact difficult to characterize the environment.
Next, as it is shown above, the preservation of an optimal
measurement implements a cost effective optimal scheme of
extracting information from quantum states.
In this work, we show a framework of channel coding of a
measurement by local operations and classical communication
(LOCC), without resort to a larger Hilbert space (see Fig. 1).
By chracterizing channels that preserve a measurement for
an ensemble, channel coding of a measurement is formulated
as a supermap from a channel to a measurement-preserving
one, where a supermap can be implemented by an LOCC
protocol. We present channel twirling, which is implemented
by a unitary 2-design, as channel coding of a measurement
for ensembles of equally probable states in general. We then
consider channel coding of a qubit measurement for i) any pair
of states and ii) ensembles of equally probable states. Proof-
of-principle demonstrations are shown with IBM quantum
computers.
Fig. 1. Quantum information processing consists of preparation, channel
evolution, and measurements of quantum states. Channel coding can protect
states or a measurement against interactions with an environment during the
transmission. By channel coding of a measurement, detectors prepared in a
noiseless scenario can be used repeatedly when states are sent through an
arbitrary and unknown channel N .
II. P RELIMINARIES
Let us begin with notation and terminology to be
used throughout. The building blocks of quantum infor-
mation processing, states, channels, and measurements are
summarized, see e.g., [8], [9]. Discrimination of quantum
states under a channel is introduced.
A. States, Channels, and Measurements
Let B(H) denote a set of bounded linear operators in a
Hilbert space H. A set of quantum states on a Hilbert space H
is denoted by S(H), i.e.,
S(H) = {ρ ∈ B(H) : tr[ρ] = 1, ρ ≥ 0}.
A quantum channel that describes transformations of quantum
states, denoted by,
N : ρ → N [ρ]
is characterized by a completely positive and trace preserving
map for quantum states, i.e., id ⊗ N ≥ 0, and tr[N [ρ]] = 1,
∀ρ ∈ S(H) where id is an identity map.
A quantum measurement that shows the transition from
quantum states to measurement outcomes contains positive
operator values measure (POVM) elements, denoted as,

{Mk }nk=1 , such that Mk ≥ 0 ∀k, Mk = I.
k
Note that each POVM element gives the description of a
detector. The measurement postulate states that when a system
is prepared in a state ρ, the probability of having a detection
event on a POVM element Mk is given by Prob[k] = tr[ρMk ].
B. Optimal Quantum State Discrimination Over a Channel
Discrimination of quantum states is a fundamental task
where a measurement finds which state has been prepared
[10]–[12]. Let S (id) denote a set of n quantum states in a
noiseless environment. We also introduce its noisy ensemble,
denoted by S (N ) , i.e., the set of resulting states after a
channel N . That is, we write the ensembles as follows,
S (id) = {qx , ρx }nx=1 and
S (N ) = {qx , N [ρx ]}nx=1 , (2)

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 KECHRIMPARIS et al.: CHANNEL CODING OF A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT
where qx denotes the a priori probability that a state ρx
is prepared. In addition, we write an ensemble of equally
probable states as follows,
(id)
S0 = {1/n, ρx}nx=1 .
Throughout, S (id) means an ensemble of states prepared in a
noiseless environment, and S (N ) the resulting ensemble by a
channel N .
The problem of optimal state discrimination aims to find
the maximal probability of making a correct guess on average
when one of the states in an ensemble is given, called the
guessing probability. It also finds an optimal measurement
that attains the guessing probability [13]–[20]. For the sake
of generality, suppose that states are sent through a chan-
nel N . The guessing probability for the ensemble S (N ) can be
written as,
 can be generally characterized by the information preserving
(N )
pguess = max qx tr[N [ρx ]Mx ] (4)
M
x
where M denotes a set of POVM elements.
The standard problem of optimal state discrimination cor-
responds to the case S (id) , for which the guessing probability
(id) (id) (N )
is denoted by pguess . It is clear that pguess ≥ pguess for a
channel N [21], i.e., distinguishability does not increase under
a quantum channel. Note also that optimal POVM elements
are not always non-zero, i.e., no-measurement is sometimes
optimal [22].
III. P RESERVATION OF Q UANTUM R ESOURCES
Quantum information processing consists of preparation,
dynamics, and measurement of quantum states: a state ρ is
prepared, processed by quantum dynamics U and measured by
a detector described by a POVM element M . Let us consider
the case U = I and the effects of noise due to interactions with
an environment. When all these are performed in a noiseless
scenario, it is expected that a detection event happens with the
probability tr[M ρ]. A noisy scenario introduces a channel on
quantum states N [ρ]. Then, the detection event appears with
a probability tr[M N [ρ]] with the same measurement prepared
in a noiseless scenario, in which the measurement does not
lead to an optimal detection in general.
Let us consider an ensemble S (id) = {qx , ρx }nx=1 as the
code states that are prepared for some information tasks.
We assume that the states are pairwise orthogonal so that they
can be perfectly discriminated by a measurement {Mx }nx=1 .
We also write R as a recovery operation acting on the noisy
states such that the following is fulfilled,
 It has been shown that a channel N is OMP for an ensemble
min qx tr[Mx R ◦ N [ρx ]−tr[Mx ρx ]1 , (5)
R S (id) if the following is satisfied [21],
x
where  ·1 denotes the L1 norm. Note that the figure of merit
in the optimization can also be taken as Uhlmann’s fidelity [8],
which is equivalent to the L1 -distance when code states are
pure. A recovery operation aims to make a best approximation
to a noiseless scenario.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
441
A. The Preservation of States
Quantum states can be preserved if there exists a perfect
recovery map, i.e., R such that R ◦ N = id. Correctable
errors on code states can be characterized by the condition of
(3) quantum error correction. Let P denote the projection onto
a code space for a noisy channel N described by Kraus
operators {Ej }. Then, a perfect recovery exists if it holds that
P Ei Ej P = αij P for some constants αij . This is equivalent
to the condition that the resulting states after a channel are
supported by subspaces that are pairwise orthogonal, i.e., dis-
tinguishability can be preserved [4], [5]. The preservation of
states can be also obtained by finding a subspace of a larger
Hilbert space such that distinguishability of states is unaffected
by a noisy channel, such as decoherence-free subspace [23],
or more generally decoherence-free subsystems [24]. Note that
in all case, it is essential to exploit a larger Hilbert space.
The aforementioned methods of preserving quantum states
structure [25], [26]. Namely, quantum states {ρx }nx=1 are pre-
served by a channel N if and only if the following conditions
are satisfied: for all q ∈ (0, 1),
∀x, y, qρx −(1−q)ρy 1 = qN [ρx ] − (1 − q)N [ρy ]1 . (6)
The information preserving structure can be used to construct
the code states which remain perfectly distinguishable after a
channel use. Note also that, once states are perfectly recovered,
the measurement for the ensemble S (id) can also be used after
a channel, see Eq. (5).
B. The Preservation of a Measurement
The preservation of a measurement is then a suboptimal
strategy that can be considered when no ancillary system is
available. Note also that it is assumed a noisy channel N in
Eq. (5) is unverified yet as it is in the case of quantum error
correction. The preservation of a measurement aims to re-use
the POVM elements prepared in a noiseless scenario as an
optimal measurement for the resulting states from an unver-
ified channel. Since a measurement is preserved, an equidi-
mensional Hilbert space is referred throughout, i.e., no
ancillary system is applied, that is more feasible with current
technologies.
Let us first identify those channels that preserve an optimal
measurement for code states. Then, channel coding of a mea-
surement corresponds to a systematic method of manipulating
a channel such that an optimal measurement is preserved.
Definition: A channel N is called optimal measurement pre-
serving (OMP) for an ensemble S (id) if the resulting ensemble
S (N ) and the ensemble S (id) share the same measurement for
optimal state discrimination.
∀x, y, (qx ρx − qy ρy ) = κ−1 (qx N [ρx ] − qy N [ρy ]) (7)
for some κ ∈ (0, 1]. Note that this is a sufficient condition for
preserving a measurement. It is generally not known when the
condition in Eq. (7) is also necessary for the preservation of
a measurement.
 442
C. States Versus a Measurement as Preserving Resources
One can, however, observe that the condition Eq. (7) shares
some similarities with the information preserving structure in
Eq. (6). Technically, taking the L1 norm in the OMP condition
in Eq. (7) for κ = 1, one can obtain the condition of preserving
states in Eq. (6) with a specific set of a priori probabilities
{qx }nx=1 . If states can be preserved such that the condition in
Eq. (6) holds true for arbitrary probabilities {qx }nx=1 , there
exists a recovery operation that finds the states before a
channel use [25], [26]: ∃R such that R ◦ N [ρy ] = ρy , for
ρy ∈ span{ρx }nx=1 . This shows that, when a set of states can
be preserved by a channel, i.e., Eq. (6) is fulfilled, it follows
that an optimal measurement can also be preserved, i.e., the
OMP condition is satisfied, by applying a recovery operation.
However, the OMP condition with κ < 1 cannot be reduced
to the information preserving structure for the preservation of
states. This means that even if the preservation of quantum
states is unsuccessful, it is possible to preserve an optimal
measurement.
D. Channels Preserving a Measurement
Let us now present a class of channels that preserve a
(id)
measurement. For ensembles of equally probable states S0
in Eq. (3), the following channels are OMP.
Remark: A channel Nσ : ρ → (1 − η)ρ + ησ for a fixed
(id)
state σ is OMP for any ensemble S0 .
One can easily find that a channel Nσ satisfies the OMP
condition in Eq. (7). Clearly, channels Nσ do not preserve
states.
This shows that a measurement can be preserved if a channel
can be manipulated such that it is transformed to an OMP one
Nσ For this purpose, a particular choice of the state σ = I/d
is useful, where d denotes the dimension of a Hilbert space.
This introduces a depolarization channel as follows,
Dη [ρ] = (1 − η)ρ + ηI/d.
A depolarization channel is then OMP for any ensemble S0 .
IV. C HANNEL C ODING OF A M EASUREMENT
A. The Formalism
We now formulate channel coding of a quantum measure-
ment that aims to preserve an optimal measurement over a
channel. The main idea is to manipulate a given channel such
that an OMP channel can be established between a sender
and a receiver. The framework of a supermap that formulates
transformations among channels each other [27] is useful to
describe channel coding of a measurement.
Definition Channel Coding of a Measurement: For a quan-
tum channel N : S(H) → S(H) and an ensemble S of interest
to be sent through the channel, let C (N ,S) denote a supermap
that works as N → C (N ,S) [N ]. Then, a supermap C (N ,S)
is called channel coding of a measurement if the channel
C (N ,S) [N ] is OMP for the ensemble S.
It has been shown that a deterministic supermap can be
implemented as follows [27]: for a state ρ ∈ S, the resulting
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 2020
state after channel coding of a channel C (N ,S) [N ](ρ) is given
as follows,
trX UP X (N ⊗ idE [VP X (ρ ⊗ IX )VP†X ])UP† X (9)
with unitary transformations UP X and VP X on the system
of a sender and a receiver (P ) and an extra system (X).
We summarize that channel coding of a measurement with
respect to a given channel N establishes a channel C (N ,S) [N ]
which is OMP for an ensemble S. As it is shown in the
framework of a supermap in Eq. (9), a transformation among
channels corresponds to an LOCC protocol of applying unitary
transformations before and after a channel use.
We here take a depolarization channel in Eq. (8) as an OMP
channel of interest. In this case, a supermap in Eq. (9) can be
realized with unitaries,

UP† X = VP X = Ux ⊗ |xx|
x
where {Ux } forms a unitary 2-design [28] and {|x} denotes
a set of orthonormal basis. The supermap is then equivalent to
the well-known result called channel twirling that transforms
a channel to a depolarization map by using LOCC only [29].
B. Realization
1) Channel Twirling: Let T denote a twirling operation for
a channel N as follows,

T N [ρ] = dμ(U )U † N [U ρU † ]U ,
(10)
where the average is performed over the Haar measure,
the uniform measure in the space of unitary operators. The
consequence is that the resulting map corresponds to a
depolarization,
I
T N [ρ] = DηN [ρ] = (1 − ηN )ρ + ηN , (11)
d
where ηN is determined by a channel N . Note also that DηN
is a quantum channel for (1 − ηN ) ∈ [−1/(d2 − 1), 1].
(8)
To perform channel twirling, one has to implement appli-
(id) cations of unitary transformations, called a unitary 2-design.
A unitary 2-design is a set of unitary transformations in
a d-dimensional Hilbert space, denoted by a set W =
{Uk }k=1...N , such that the following is satisfied [30]. For any
quantum channel N , it holds that

1  †
N
Ui N [Ui ρUi† ]Ui = dU U † N [U ρU † ]U.
N i=1 U(d)
Then, channel twirling can be realized by random applications
of elements in a unitary 2-design.
2) Channel Coding of a Measurement for Code States:
Therefore, channel coding of a measurement for an ensemble
(id)
of equally probable states S0 can be implemented by
applying unitaries from a unitary 2-design before and after
a channel. The schematic is also shown in Fig. 1. Channel
coding of a measurement is summearized as follows.
A Protocol of Channel Coding of a Measurement:
(id)
1) For a state ρ ∈ S0 , an element Uj ∈ W is randomly
chosen from a unitary 2-design W and applied to the
state before a channel N .
 KECHRIMPARIS et al.: CHANNEL CODING OF A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT 443

2) The sender and the receiver communicate their selection 1) Minimal Unitary 2-Design: For qubit cases, a subgroup
of unitaries. of the tetrahedral group of rotations [31] that forms a unitary
3) After the channel transmission, the receiver applies its 2-design with a conjectured minimal [30] cardinality of 12
inverse Uj† to a resulting state N [Uj ρUj† ]. is chosen. Then, these elements can be found explicitly as
4) By randomizing the resulting states, an optimal mea- follows:
(id)
surement for the ensemble S0 is also optimal for its
(N ) W = {U1 , U2 · · · , U12 } (13)
resulting ensemble S0 for any quantum channel N .
where,
C. Enhancement by Preserving a Measurement U1 = I, U2 = −iX, U3 = −iY, U4 = −iZ
   
We stress that with the protocol, a measurement once 1 1−i −1−i 1 1+i 1 − i
U5 = , U6 = ,
prepared for an ensemble S0
(id)
remains ever optimal no 2 1 − i 1+i 2 −1 − i 1 − i
   
matter what interactions a system suffers from an environment. 1 −1 − i − 1 − i 1 −1+i 1−i
U7 = , U8 = ,
We also remark that channel coding can improve distinguisha- 2 1 − i − 1+i 2 −1 − i − 1−i
(id)
bility of states over a channel. To be precise, let pguess denote    
1 −1+i − 1+i 1 −1 − i 1+i
(id) (N )
the guessing probability for an ensemble S0 , pguess for the U9 = , U10 =
2 1+i − 1 − i 2 −1+i − 1+i
(N ) (T N )
ensemble S0 , and pguess for the ensemble S0
(T N )
. It is clear    
1 1+i −1+i 1 1 − i 1+i
that U11 = , U12 =
2 1+i 1 − i 2 −1+i 1+i
(T N )
guess ≥ pguess and pguess ≥ pguess
p(id) (N ) (id)
and X, Y , and Z are the Pauli matrices. With the latter unitary
2-design, the protocol in Sec. IV can realize channel coding
since distinguishability does not increase under a channel. of a measurement for ensembles of equal a priori probabilities
However, for some channels N , it appears that distinguisha- (id)
S0 , as it transforms a channel to a depolarization map.
bility can be improved,
An alternative and widely used unitary 2-design is the Clifford
(N ) N) group that contains 24 elements up to phase factors.
pguess < p(T
guess . (12)
Let Np denote a Pauli channel for a qubit state ρ as follows,
When an ensemble of code states is identified, channels for
Np [ρ] = p0 ρ + px XρX + py Y ρY + pz ZρZ
which distinguishability can be improved by channel coding
of a measurement can be characterized. For instance, the tech- where p = (p0 , px , py , pz ). We also write collections of
niques of optimal state discrimination, e.g., [13]–[20], can be unitarties in Eq. (13) as Ui = {Ui , Ui+1 , Ui+2 , Ui+3 } for
applied to find the guessing probability, and then channels i = 1, 5, 9. Taking three unitaries from the sets, U ∈ U1 ,
satisfying the relation in Eq. (12) can be classified. In the V ∈ U5 , and W ∈ U9 , channel twirling on a Pauli channel
next section, examples of such channels are provided. In fact, can be achieved for an ensemble of equiprobable qubit states.
in a wide range of channels distinguishability can be improved Hence, three unitaries suffice to realize channel twirling of a
by channel coding of a measurement. Finally, we emphasize Pauli channel.
that that resources to realize the protocol of channel coding of 2) Validity of Channel Coding of a Measurement: Channel
a measurement contain LOCC only: local unitaries are only coding of a measurement is useful only when a measurement
applied before and after a channel use, which are feasible with for optimal detection is valid. Note that no-measurement is
current technologies. sometimes optimal when states are too noisy [22]. Then,
an optimal discrimination is obtained by simply making a
V. C HANNEL C ODING OF A Q UBIT M EASUREMENT guess according to a priori probabilities without a detection
Channel coding of a measurement is applied to qubit event by a measurement. This strategy is here referred to as a
cases. We begin by identifying a minimal unitary 2-design trivial measurement. Channel coding of a measurement is not
in order to efficiently realize channel twirling in practice with valid if a channel T N leads to an ensemble S (T N ) for which
a minimal number of unitaries. Its subset is also identified a measurement is trivial.
to perform channel twirling for Pauli channels. Then, there Furthermore, a caveat is also that from Eq. (11), the preser-
are two cases to additionally consider in the preservation of a vation of a measurement does not work if a resulting depo-
measurement. First, if states are so noisy after a channel that a larization map has 1 − ηN < 0 since states of an ensemble
null measurement is optimal, a measurement is not preserved S (id) are less probable than their complement ones after a
by a channel. In this case, no measurement is optimal but a channel use. Note that for qubits, we have 1−ηN ∈ [−1/3, 1].
random guess according to the a priori probabilities is the In this case, as we will show below, it is possible to have an
best strategy. The condition that channels do not lead to a optimal measurement such that existing POVM elements are
null measurement is characterized. Next, some channels do only re-labeled. Since a set of POVM elements is identical
not lead to a null measurement but ask a rearrangement of before and after a channel, we say that a measurement is
the labels of the POVM elements. From a practical point preserved but it is essential to re-label them.
of view, we conclude that a measurement is preserved as a Therefore, for the preservation of a measurement, it is
measurement setting remains the same. It is then necessary to important to find when channel twirling leads to a null
re-label POVM elements for optimal detection of states. measurement or requires a new set of labels to existing

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 444 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 2020

POVM elements. A pre-protocol for preserving a measurement  x ) = (I + m

s(m  x · σ )/2 where σ = (X, Y, Z) with Pauli
decides if a measurement should remain or relabeled. In what matrices. For a channel N having 1 − ηN < 0 after channel
(T N )
follows, we describe a pre-protocol as a method of updating twirling, an optimal measurement for the ensemble S0 is
⊥ n ⊥
an optimal measurement. given by {Mx }x=1 where Mx = wx s(−m  x ).
(id)
Proof: For an ensemble S0 , an optimal measurement can
A. Pre-Protocol for Communication be found by maximizing the guessing probability
1
1) No-Measurement Is Sometimes Optimal: Let us begin n
with discrimination of two states. Let S (id) = {qx , ρx }x=1,2 max tr(Mx ρx )
n x=1
denote a pair of qubit states. A measurement for optimal
discrimination can be found by finding the spectrum of the 
with the constraint that Mx ≥ 0 and Mx = I. Let
operator, q1 ρ1 − q2 ρ2 : two projectors into positive and neg- Mx = wx s(m  x ) denote POVM elements with wx ∈ [0, 1]
ative eigenvalues constitute an optimal measurement. As it is and s(m x ) = (I + m x · σ )/2. We also write the states in the
mentioned, this construction is valid only when a measurement ensemble by ρx = (I +rx ·σ )/2 where rx is the Bloch vector.
is non-trivial. In fact, an optimal measurement is non-trivial Then, the optimization problem is equivalently written as
only when the following condition is satisfied [32]
1 
n
1
|q1 − q2 | < q1 ρ1 − q2 ρ2 1 . (14) max +  x · rx
wx m (15)
n 2n x=1
Otherwise, an optimal measurement is trivial, i.e., one of the 
POVM elements is zero and the other is the identity. The where the constraints are wx ≥ 0 and  x · σ = I.
x wx m
optimal discrimination is achieved by guessing the state that Suppose that by twirling a channel N the fraction is given
has a higher a priori probability, i.e., the guessing probability by 1 − ηN < 0. The optimal discrimination for a resulting
is therefore given by pguess = max{q1 , q2 }. ensemble S (T N ) can be found by solving
1 − ηN 
The protocol of channel coding of a measurement in Sec. IV n
1
performs twirling a channel N , by which the resulting channel max +  x · rx .
wx m (16)
n 2n x=1
DηN is obtained. Applying the condition in Eq. (14), it follows
that a measurement is trivial if Solutions of two optimization problems in Eqs. (15) and (16)
|q1 − q2 | > |1 − ηN |q1 ρ1 − q2 ρ2 1 . are related by a simple inversion. The optimal measurement
in Eq. (16) can be obtained by converting the direction
In this case, the optimal discrimination is to guess a state  x → −m
m  x in Eq. (15). 
 x for solutions m
according to a priori probabilities. Otherwise, the protocol in In particular, for the case of two qubit states, the update
Sec. IV can preserve a measurement. of a measurement is simply re-labelling of POVM elements
Recently [32], it has been shown that for an ensemble S (id) since two POVM elements are orthogonal to each other. This
of multiple states, a measurement is trivial if there exists a shows an analogy to the aforementioned classical counterpart.
state ρj such that,
|qj − qk | > qj ρj − qk ρk 1 , ∀k. B. The Preservation of a Measurement for Two States
Thus, it follows that an optimal measurement after a channel So far, we have applied the protocol in Sec. IV for equiprob-
N is trivial if there is a state ρj such that able qubit states. We here show that the protocol works for
any pair of qubit states as far as a measurement is not trivial.
|qj − qk | > (1 − ηN )qj ρj − qk ρk 1 , ∀k. Proposition: A measurement for an ensemble of two states
The preservation of a measurement is valid when a measure- can be generally preserved over an arbitrary channel by
ment is non-trivial both before and after a channel use. channel twirling.
2) Updating a Measurement: Suppose that after twirling Proof: For an ensemble, S (id) = {qx , ρx }2x=1 , an optimal
a channel, a depolarization map DηN has the noise fraction measurement can be found by finding the spectral decompo-
1−ηN < 0, see Eq. (11). This may be compared to its classical sition,
counterpart, a binary symmetric channel [8] with 1 − p < 1/2
q1 ρ1 − q2 ρ2 = r2 σ2 − r1 σ1
where p denotes the probability of flip: then x is mapped to
x ⊕ 1 more frequently than x, where ⊕ is the bitwise addition. where σ1 and σ2 are a pair of orthogonal pure states and
In the classical case, by re-labeling x to x + 1 before or after r1 and r2 are non-negative. It also holds that σ1 + σ2 = I.
a binary symmetric channel, the probability of flip can be Then, the optimal POVM elements are M1 = σ1⊥ and
suppressed to be smaller than 1/2. M2 = σ2⊥ .
Similarly, if 1−ηN < 0, states in an ensemble S (id) are less Suppose that a channel N is twirled by the protocol in
probable than their orthogonal complement : a measurement Sec. IV so that a depolarization channel in Eq. (11) is obtained.
is not preserved. The update of an optimal measurement is To find an optimal measurement for the resulting ensemble,
shown as follows. we find the spectral decomposition,
(id)
Proposition: For an ensemble S0 , let {Mx }nx=1 denote
an optimal measurement. POVM elements can be writ- q1 DηN [ρ1 ] − q2 DηN [ρ2 ]
ten as, Mx = wx s(m  x ) such that wx ∈ [0, 1] and = (1 − ηN )(r2 σ2 − r1 σ1 ) + ηN (r2 − r1 )I/2.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 KECHRIMPARIS et al.: CHANNEL CODING OF A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT 445

From the relation σ1 + σ2 = I, we have

q1 DN ,η [ρ1 ] − q2 DN ,η [ρ2 ] = r2 σ2 − r1 σ1 ,
where ri = ri − (r1 + r2 )ηN /2. Thus, it is shown that a
measurement is preserved. 

Note that for an ensemble S (id) = {qx , ρx }2x=1 , a channel

DηN does not fulfil the OMP condition in Eq. (7) although it
is OMP as shown above. This confirms that the condition in
Eq. (7) is only sufficient for a channel to preserve an optimal
measurement.

C. A Measurement for Multiple States Is not Preserved by Fig. 2. In a quantum algorithm, the initial state |0 ⊗ · · · ⊗ |0 evolves
Channel Twirling by a series of quantum gates and the measurement in the Z basis is applied.
Suppose that one of the qubits contains unverified noise N after the circuit due
For more than two states, the protocol of channel coding of to interactions with a local environment. While ancillary systems cannot be
a measurement in Sec. IV fails to preserve a measurement exploited for detecting and correcting errors, channel coding of a measurement
provides a suboptimal strategy for optimal detection of desired measurement
if a priori probabilities are unequal. We here provide a outcomes. For the qubit under noise, local operations are applied before and
counter-example that channel twirling fails to preserve a after the channel. The measurement in the Z basis remains optimal. The box
measurement. is simulated on the IBM quantum computer, see Figs. (3) and (4).
Let us consider a set of modified trine states with unequal
a priori probabilities S (id) = {qx , ρx }3x=1 , with q1 = 2q2 =
2q3 = 1/2. Trine states can be characterized as three states
that are equally spaced in a half-plane of a Bloch sphere. Let r
denote the Bloch vector of a qubit state ρ. Then, we consider
modified trine√ states with Bloch vectors √ r1 = (1/2, 0, 0),
r2 = (−1/2, 3/2, 0) and r3 = (−1/2, − 3/2, 0), i.e., the Fig. 3. A quantum circuit for channel coding of a qubit measurement is
first state is not pure. For the ensemble, an optimal measure- shown. The interaction between a system qubit q1 and an environment (ani-
ment can be found explicitly [33] as follows clla) qubit q0 in Eq. (20) is realized with two CNOT gates, so that the channel
for the system is described by NY . By default all qubits are initialized in |0,
    so that a unitary operation Ui is required to prepare other states, for instance
0.44 0.44 0.28 − 0.22 − 0.17 i
, , |1, |+, and |−. Analogously, since measurements are always done in the
0.44 0.44 −0.22 + 0.17 i 0.28 Z-basis, a unitary transformation Um is required to prepare POVM elements
  other than |00| or |11|. The channel NX is realized by replacing the block
0.28 − 0.22+0.17 i
. inside the dashed box with a single CNOT gate. The gates Utwirl denote the
−0.22 − 0.17 i 0.28 application of one of the elements in a unitary 2-design, Eq. (13).
Note that none of the POVM elements is zero, i.e., a null
detector is not applied. No ancillary system is needed. For instance, a measurement
Suppose that the ensemble is sent through a channel N in quantum key distribution can be preserved [34], where it is
with the protocol of channel coding in Sec. IV such that a also shown that security can be improved.
depolarization channel is obtained with 1 − ηN = 2/3. For The preservation of a measurement can also be applied in
the ensemble S (T N ) , an optimal measurement can be found the realization of quantum algorithms with noisy intermediate
as follows scalable quantum (NISQ) devices, in which imperfections
   
0.46 0.46 0.27 − 0.23 − 0.14 i exist such that some qubits are under a high-precision control
, ,
0.46 0.46 −0.23 + 0.14 i 0.27 and some are not. In a quantum algorithm, a measurement
  is prepared in the Z basis, MZ = {|00|, |11|}, which
0.27 − 0.23+0.14 i
. would remain for optimal detection by channel coding of a
−0.23 − 0.14 i 0.27
measurement. Thus, the preservation of a measurement can
Thus, it is shown that an optimal measurement is not preserved be used as a suboptimal strategy to improve the probability of
with the protocol of channel coding. Note that the a priori obtaining the desired measurement outcomes. As it is depicted
probabilities are not equal. in Fig. 2, our result can be applied to protecting a measurement
on a single qubit state. In the following subsection, it is
VI. A PPLICATIONS TO Q UANTUM C OMPUTING demonstrated that a single qubit measurement can be protected
A. Practical Applications in NISQ devices and, by doing so, the probability of optimal
detection can also be improved.
Channel coding of a measurement can be applied whenever
one aims to preserve a measurement for quantum systems that
suffer from unwanted interactions with an environment. The B. Demonstration on the IBM Quantum Computer
scheme we propose here is feasible with current technologies We here present a proof-of-principle demonstration of chan-
as three unitaries are applied before and after a channel. nel coding of a qubit measurement with the IBM quantum

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 446 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 2020

Fig. 4. Guessing probabilities for channels NX and NY in Eq. (17) are shown: a) a channel NX for a pair of orthogonal states SZ and b) a channel
NY for the BB84 states SBB84 . The solid lines are theoretical prediction in Eqs. (21) and (22). The guessing probabilities after a channel are in the red
color. After twirling a channel, they are in the blue color. Circles are guessing probabilities from the ibmqx2. The circle size is larger than the statistical
measurement noise. The dashed line is made by assuming the noise model in Eq. (23) η = 0.05 for a) and η = 0.15 for b), which shows a reasonably good
explanation about the source of errors in IBM quantum computers.

computer ibmqx2 using the Qiskit package [35]. We specif-
ically consider ensembles of a pair of orthogonal states
SZ = {|0, |1} and the four-states in the Bennett-Brassard
1984 (BB84) protocol [36] SBB84 = {|0, |1, |+, |−}, both
In order to implement channel coding of a qubit measure-
ment, the minimal unitary 2-design W in Eq. (13) is realized
with the unitary gate U2 (φ, λ) = U3 (π/2, φ, λ) as

U2 (0, π/2), U2 (π, π/2), U2 (0, 3π/2), U2(π, 2π/2),
with equal a priori probabilities. We consider flip channels 
U2 (π/2, π), U2 (π/2, 0), U2 (3π/2, π), U2 (3π/2, 0) ,
NR [ρ] = (1 − pf )ρ + pf RρR (17)
together with I, −iX, −iY , and −iZ. Note that for the
where pf ∈ [0, 1] is a flipping probability and R = X, Y ensemble SZ , a measurement in the basis Z is optimal. With
with Pauli matices X and Y , which arise as a result of the this measurement, for a Pauli channel NX we have (see also
interactions of the system qubit ρ with an environment. Eq. (4))
The aforementioned channels can be realized with a quan-
1 |1−2pf | NX ) 1 |3−4pf |
tum circuit with two qubits – q1 for the system, and q0 the p(N X)
guess = + , and p(T
guess = + . (21)
ancillary qubit mimicking an environment – see Fig. 3. To this 2 2 2 6
end, we need gate operations, Pauli X, Hadamard H, and For the ensemble SBB84 a random measurement in the X and
controlled-not (CNOT) gate denoted by CX . Note that with Z basis is optimal. With the measurement, we have
the Qiskit notation, the most general single-qubit operation is 1 |1−2pf | NY ) 1 |3 − 4pf |
written as p(N Y)
guess = + , and p(Tguess = + . (22)
  4 4 4 12
cos(θ/2) −eiθ sin(θ/2) To implement the twirling protocol, we collect the data for
U3 (θ, φ, λ) = iφ . (18)
e sin(θ/2) eiθ+iφ cos(θ/2) 8000 (maximum allowed is 8192) shots for each unitary matrix
In order to obtain the channel NX on the system q1, the envi- in the unitary-2-design W , which is applied before and its
ronment q0 is prepared in the state conjugate after the channel NR , and perform the averaging in
post-processing.
|aE = U3 (2α, 0, 0)|0E = cos(α)|0E + sin(α)|1E , As a proof-of-principle, this is equivalent to random applica-
tions of unitary 2-design before and after a channel use. Thus,
where the angle α corresponds to the flipping probability as
channel coding of a measurement is implemented. We show
cos(α)2 = 1 − pf . Then, when the system is prepared in a
in Fig. 4 the guessing probabilities Eq. (4) measured on the
state |ψ, the interaction with the environment is described as
5-qubit quantum machine ibmqx2. We verified that the results

√
CX |aE |ψ = 1 − pf |0E |ψ + pf |1E X|ψ. (19) from the classical quantum circuit simulator ’qsam_simulator’
are in perfect agreement with Eqs. (21) and (22). This certifies
The channel NX is obtained by tracing out the environment that the circuits are simulating correctly the quantum channel
qubit q0, which in practice is done by measuring q1 only. and the twirling protocol.
For an observable M of interest (in particular POVMs) on the Comments on the Simulation: The results in Fig. 4 obtained
system, the expectation is given by in March in 2019 show a good agreement with the theoretical
† prediction in Eqs. (21) and (22). A certain loss of probability
tr[M NX [|ψψ|]] = tr[(I ⊗ M ) CX |aE a| ⊗ |ψψ|CX ]
can be observed that can be modelled by shot noise on the
Similarly, the channel NY is obtained by implementing the measurement outcome,
two-qubit controlled-Y gate CY as follows (see also Fig. 3)

tr(M ρ) → tr(M [(1 − η)ρ + ηI/2]), (23)
√
CY |aE |ψ = 1 − pf |0E |ψ + pf |1E Y |ψ, (20)
as indicated by the dashed line. The same measurements were
where CY = CX (I ⊗ H)CX (I ⊗ H) and subsequent tracing performed in June 2019. It turns out that the shot noise was
out the environment qubit. significantly higher (η = 0.65 instead of η = 0.05 for SZ ,

Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 KECHRIMPARIS et al.: CHANNEL CODING OF A QUANTUM MEASUREMENT
η = 0.57 instead of η = 0.15 for SBB84 ). This seems consistent
with a recent study of the noise sources on the IBM quantum
computers [37] where a loss of the overall norm of the Bloch
vectors due to shot noise is identified as one of the major
sources of error. The same measurements were performed in
June on ibmqx4 and ibmq_16_melbourne machines. For the
ibmq_16_melbourne, the shot noise was η ≈ 1 so that no
significant results could be extracted. For the ibmqx4, pguess
for T NR was systematically larger than for NR , in agreement
with the theory. However, the measured pguess values strongly
fluctuated around the theoretical values. These observations
cannot be accounted for by the estimates of the gate fidelities
reported by IBM Q Experience.
In an attempt to find the sources of the errors, we measured
the state of the environment qubit q0 to control the actual value
of pf . Some fluctuations were observed, which are correlated
with the fluctuations in pguess on ibmqx4, but can only partially
explain the deviations from the theory. Consequently, further
understanding of the device’s imperfections is of paramount
importance for channel coding, and for quantum information
processing in general, on available quantum hardware.
VII. C ONCLUSION
We have formulated and presented a framework of pre-
serving a measurement for quantum systems interacting with
an environment. We show that an LOCC protocol with local
unitaries only can realize the preservation of an optimal
measurement without further resources such as a larger Hilbert
space, contrasting to the case of preserving states. A general
framework for channel coding of a measurement is presented
as a supermap that transforms a channel to an OMP one.
In particular, it is shown that channel twirling implements
the preservation of a measurement for ensembles of equally
probable states. For qubit ensembles, the protocol of preserv-
ing a measurement is investigated in detail and is found that
it works for i) any pair of qubit states and ii) ensembles of
equally probable states. A counter-example for three states is
explicitly provided. Channel coding of a qubit measurement
is demonstrated for ensembles of a pair of orthogonal states
and the four states in the BB84 protocol, and can be readily
applied to practical quantum communication protocols.
Our work sheds a new light in directions of an early-stage
quantum information processor, that works with limited
resources and restricted controls. For instance, the preservation
of quantum states in a noisy environment, which needs ancillas
and a high-precision control over a system and ancillas,
may not be achieved within the near future. The presented
framework of preserving an optimal measurement could be
a next best and feasible opportunity. Our demonstration with
IBM quantum computers has shown that by channel coding
of a measurement, single-qubit information processing can
readily work against an adversarial environment that may
cause high-rate errors. Our work initiates a new direction
toward an early-stage quantum information processing, lead-
ing to a number of questions. First, channel coding of a
measurement for ensembles of arbitrary a priori probabilities
is sought, to apply channel coding of a measurement for
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
447
arbitrary ensembles. Next, for further extension beyond a
single qubit state, it is significant to find a minimal unitary
2-design or its approximation for multiple qubits. In addition,
it is interesting to find how tightly schemes of preserving
states and a measurement are related to each other. In future
investigations, it would be also interesting to apply channel
coding of a measurement in a realistic and practical application
such as few-qubit quantum algorithms.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the use of IBM QISKIT for this
work. The views expressed are those of the authors and do
not reflect the official policy or position of IBM. The authors
acknowledge support from the NASA Advanced Exploration
Systems program and the NASA Ames Research Center.
The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily repre-
senting the official policies or endorsements, either expressed
or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is
authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmen-
tal purpose notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon.
R EFERENCES
[1] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems.
New York, NY, USA: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002.
[2] R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applica-
tions (Lecture Notes in Physics). Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007.
[3] R. W. Hamming, “Error detecting and error correcting codes,” Bell Syst.
Tech. J., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 147–160, Apr. 1950.
[4] P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer
memory,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. R2493–R2496,
Jul. 2002.
[5] A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes
exist,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1098–1105, Jul. 2002.
[6] D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin, “Unified and generalized
approach to quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 94,
May 2005, Art. no. 180501.
[7] C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell Syst.
Tech. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, 1948.
[8] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011.
[9] M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2013.
[10] A. S. Holevo, “Remarks on optimal quantum measurements,” Problemy
Peredachi Informatsii, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 317, 1974.
[11] H. Yuen, R. Kennedy, and M. Lax, “Optimum testing of multiple
hypotheses in quantum detection theory,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 125–134, Mar. 1975.
[12] C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory. New York,
NY, USA: Academic, 1976.
[13] A. Chefles, “Quantum state discrimination,” Contemp. Phys., vol. 41,
no. 6, p. 401, Nov. 2000.
[14] J. A. Bergou, U. Herzog, and M. Hillery, “Discrimination of quantum
states,” in Quantum State Estimation (Lecture Notes Physics), vol. 649,
M. Paris and J. Řeháček, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2004.
[15] J. A. Bergou, “Quantum state discrimination and selected applications,”
in J. Phys. Conf., vol. 84, Oct. 2007, Art. no. 012001.
[16] J. A. Bergou, “Discrimination of quantum states,” J. Mod. Opt., vol. 57,
no. 3, pp. 160–180, Jan. 2010.
[17] J. Bae and W.-Y. Hwang, “Minimum-error discrimination of qubit states:
Methods, solutions, and properties,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 87,
Jan. 2013, Art. no. 012334.
[18] J. Bae, “Structure of minimum-error quantum state discrimination,” New
J. Phys., vol. 15, no. 7, Jul. 2013, Art. no. 073037.
[19] J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, “Quantum state discrimination and its
applications,” J. Phys. A, Math. Theor., vol. 48, no. 8, Feb. 2015,
Art. no. 083001.
 448 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 38, NO. 3, MARCH 2020
[20] S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, “Quantum state discrimination,” Adv. Opt.
Photon., vol. 1, p. 238, Apr. 2009.
[21] S. Kechrimparis, T. Singal, C. M. Kropf, and J. Bae, “Preserving
measurements for optimal state discrimination over quantum channels,”
Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 99, Jun. 2019, Art. no. 062302.
[22] K. Hunter, “Measurement does not always aid state discrimination,”
Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 68, Jul. 2003, Art. no. 012306.
[23] D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-free
subspaces for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 81, p. 2594,
Sep. 1998.
[24] E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, “Theory of quantum error correc-
tion for general noise,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 84, no. 11, pp. 2525–2528,
Jul. 2002.
[25] R. Blume-Kohout, H. K. Ng, D. Poulin, and L. Viola, “Characterizing
the structure of preserved information in quantum processes,” Phys. Rev.
Lett., vol. 100, Jan. 2008, Art. no. 030501,
[26] R. Blume-Kohout, H. K. Ng, D. Poulin, and L. Viola, “Information-
preserving structures: A general framework for quantum zero-error infor-
mation” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 82, Dec. 2010, Art. no. 062306.
[27] G. Chiribella, G. M. D’ariano, and P. Perinotti, “Transforming quan-
tum operations: Quantum supermaps,” Europhys. Lett., vol. 83, no. 3,
p. 30004, Aug. 2008.
[28] C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, “Exact and approximate
unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,” Phys. Rev.
A, Gen. Phys., vol. 80, Jul. 2009, Art. no. 012304.
[29] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “General teleportation
channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys.,
vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1888–1898, Jul. 2002.
[30] D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert, “Evenly distributed unitaries:
On the structure of unitary designs,” J. Math. Phys., vol. 48, no. 5,
May 2007, Art. no. 052104.
[31] I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An
Introduction to Quantum Entanglement. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2006.
[32] G. Weir, S. M. Barnett, and S. Croke, “Optimal discrimination of single-
qubit mixed states,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 96, Aug. 2017,
Art. no. 022312.
[33] D. Ha and Y. Kwon, “Complete analysis for three-qubit mixed-
state discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A, Gen. Phys., vol. 87, Jun. 2013,
Art. no. 062302.
[34] S. Kechrimparis et al., “Measurement-protected quantum key distrib-
ution,” 2019, arXiv:1912.00768. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/
abs/1912.00768
[35] G. Aleksandrowicz et al., “Qiskit: An open-source framework for
quantum computing,” Tech. Rep., 2019, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2562110.
[36] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key
distribution and coin tossing,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput., Syst.
Signal Process., New York, NY, USA, Jan. 1984, pp. 175–179.
[37] Y. Chen, M. Farahzad, S. Yoo, and T.-C. Wei, “Detector tomography on
IBM 5-qubit quantum computers and mitigation of imperfect measure-
ment,” 2019, arXiv:1904.11935. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/
abs/1904.11935
Authorized licensed use limited to: NUST School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS). Downloaded on May 11,2022 at 05:54:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Spiros Kechrimparis was born in Athens, Greece. He received the B.Sc.
degree in physics and the M.Sc. degree in theoretical physics, computational
physics, and astrophysics from the University of Patras, Greece, and the Ph.D.
degree in mathematics from the University of York, U.K. He subsequently held
a post-doctoral position at the Department of Applied Mathematics, Hanyang
University, South Korea. He is currently a Post-Doctoral Researcher with the
School of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology (KAIST), South Korea. His scientific interests include topics on
the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information theory, such
as quantum uncertainty, entanglement theory, and state discrimination among
others.
Chahan M. Kropf was born in Bern, Switzerland, in 1988. He received
the B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of Neuchâtel (CH)
in 2009, the M.Sc. degree in physics from the Ruprecht Karl Uni-
versity of Heidelberg (DE) in 2012, and the Ph.D. degree in physics
from the Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg (DE) in 2017. His Ph.D.
dissertation was on Effective dynamics of disordered quantum systems.
He is currently working as a Post-Doctoral Researcher with the INFN
Sezione di Pavia and with the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
Brescia, Italy. His main research interests are quantum technologies:
quantum transport, quantum communication, quantum computing, and
quantum machine learning. In 2014, he received the doctoral fellowship from
the German Academic Foundation. In October 2017, he was awarded the
INFN Post-Doctoral Fellowship in the research focus DYNSYSMATH from
the section of Pavia for two years.
Filip Wudarski was born in Poland, in 1987. He received the B.Sc. degree
in chemistry and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from Nicolaus
Copernicus University, Torun, Poland, in 2009, 2011, and 2015, respectively.
He was a National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NITheP) Post-Doctoral
Fellow with the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, from
2015 to 2017. He received the Mobility Plus IV Grant from the Polish
Ministry of Higher Education to join the Quantum Optics and Statistics Group,
Freiburg, as a Visiting Researcher, from 2017 to 2019. Since March 2019,
he has been a Research Associate with the University Space Research
Association and a member of the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Group at NASA Ames Research Center. His main area of research interests are
quantum computing (gate based and annealers), and theoretical and statistical
modeling of noise in quantum circuits.
Joonwoo Bae received the Ph.D. degree from the Universitat de Barcelona and
ICFO-The Institute of Photonic Sciences, Barcelona, in 2007. He has worked
with the Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS), the Centre for Quantum
Technologies (CQT), Singapore, the ICFO-Institute of Photonic Sciences,
the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) as a Junior Fellow, and
Hanyang University. He is currently with the School of Electrical Engineering,
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). His research
interests contain secure quantum communication, entanglement applications,
open quantum systems, quantum foundations, and their practical applications.