1 / 26

260 likes | 263 Vues

How much can you tell about a state? process tomography (continued) & optimal state discrimination. Optical-latice state & process tomography (cont.) Discrimination of non-orthogonal states "Best guess" approach Unambiguous discrimination POVMs versus projective measurements

Télécharger la présentation
## Optical-latice state & process tomography (cont.) Discrimination of non-orthogonal states

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**How much can you tell about a state? process tomography**(continued)& optimal state discrimination • Optical-latice state & process tomography (cont.) • Discrimination of non-orthogonal states • "Best guess" approach • Unambiguous discrimination • POVMs versus projective measurements • A linear-optical experiment • State-filtering (discrimination of mixed states) 9 Dec 2003 (next-to-last lecture!)**Quantum state reconstruction**D x Wait… Shift… Measure ground state population (former for HO only; latter requires only symmetry) [Now, we can also perform translation directly in both x and p]**Oscillations in lattice wells**[essentially a measure of Q(r,) at fixed r-- recall, r is set by size of shift and by length of delay]**Nonclassical dip**Hard to tell what... Smooth gaussian Extracted phase-space distributions(Q rather than W in this case)**Can we see something more interesting?**"Number states" (energy eigenstates) other than the vacuum are nonclassical – the Q function has a dip, and the Wigner function goes negative. We do our best to prepare an excited state, succeeding on approximately 80% of the atoms. If we wait until |g> and |e> decohere, we achieve a phase-independent state – the delay is irrelevant, and W is azimuthally symmetric. The observed dip in Q comes about because a translation in any direction in phase space increases the population in |g>.**The Q distribution with a dip?**Experiment Theory Can we find a clearer signature?**Theory: W(x,p) for 80% excitation**W can be extracted from Q by a deconvolution, but this leads to so much extra noise that often nothing is recognizable...**Data:"W-like" [Pg-Pe](x,p) for a mostly-excited incoherent**mixture**Easier to just reconstruct (for a 2-state**lattice, with c0|0> + c1|1>) initial state displaced delayed & displaced left in ground band tunnels out during adiabatic lowering (escaped during preparation) |c0 + i c1 |2 |c0|2 |c0 + c1 |2 |c1|2**Extracting a superoperator:prepare a complete set of input**states and measure each output**Superoperator for resonant drive**Bloch sphere predicted from truncated harmonic-oscillator plus decoherence as measured previously. Operation: x (resonantly couple 0 and 1 by modulating lattice periodically) Measure superoperator to diagnose single-qubit operation (and in future, to correct for errors and decoherence) Observed Bloch sphere Upcoming goals: generate tailored pulse sequences to preserve coherence; determine whether decoherence is Markovian; et cetera.**TOMOGRAPHY SUMMARY**Any pure or mixed state may be represented by a density matrix or phase-space distribution (e.g., Wigner function). These can be reconstructed by making repeated measurements in various bases (n2 measurements for a density matrix). A superoperator determines the time-evolution of a density matrix (including decoherence), and requires n4 measurements. Elements in quantum-information systems can be characterized by performing such measurements. More work needs to be done on (a) optimizing the extraction of useful information (b) determining how to use the resulting superoperators.**Tomography References**Your favorite quantum optics text -- Loudon, Walls/Milburn,Milonni, etc. -- for introduction to phase-space methods in quantum optics. Kim's book Phase Space Methods in Quantum Mechanics. Leonhardt's Measuring the Quantum State of Light. Theory: Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932) Hillery et al., Phys. Rep. 106, 121 (1984) Early tomography experiments: Smithey et al, PRL 70, 1244 (1993) (light modes) Dunn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 884 (1995) (molecules) Measurement of negative Wigner functions: Nogues et al, Phys. Rev. A 62, 054101 (2000) (cavity QED) Leibfried et al, PRL 77, 4281 (1996) (trapped ion) Single-photon tomography: Kwiat...... Ancilla-assisted tomography: Altepeter et al., ..... Tomography on quantum fields: Lvovsky et al., PRL 87, 050402 (2001) Two-photon process tomography: Mitchell et al., PRL. 91, 120402 (2003) Applications of process tomography: Weinstein et al., ..... (in NMR experiment) Boulant et al., quant-ph/0211046 (interpreting superoperators) White et al., quant-ph/0308115 (for 2-photon gates)**Can one distinguish between nonorthogonal states?**• Single instances of non-orthogonal quantum states cannot be distinguished with certainty. Obviously, ensembles can. • This is one of the central features of quantum information which leads to secure (eavesdrop-proof) communications. • Crucial element: we must learn how to distinguish quantum states as well as possible -- and we must know how well a potential eavesdropper could do.**What's the best way to tell these apart?**|a |"A" |b (if they occur with equal a priori probability) |"B" But unitary interactions preserve overlap: Error rate = (1- sin )/2 0 if <a|b> = 0 (ideal measurement) 1/2 if <a|b> = 1 (pure guessing) BUT: can we ever tell for sure? Some interaction would take input states |a> and |b> to "meter states" |"A"> and |"B">, which we could distinguish perfectly.**Theory: how to distinguish non-orthogonal states optimally**Step 1: Repeat the letters "POVM" over and over. Step 2: Ask Janos, Mark, and Yuqing for help. [or see, e.g., Y. Sun, J. Bergou, and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032315 (2002).] The view from the laboratory: A measurement of a two-state system can only yield two possible results. If the measurement isn't guaranteed to succeed, there are three possible results: (1), (2), and ("I don't know"). Therefore, to discriminate between two non-orth. states, we need three measurement outcomes – no 2D operator has 3 different eigenstates, though.**How to describe a measurement with 3 outcomes in a 2D space?**Generalized quantum measurements may be described by POVMs, or "positive operator-valued measures"... recall: There is no limitation on the number of operators in this sum.**Why extra states?**We want a nonunitary transformation to take non-orthogonal a and b to orthogonal "A" and "B". This can be accomplished by measurement – i.e., by throwing out events.**How does this compare with projective measurement?**|a |"A" |b |"B" |a Assuming, as always, equal probability of |a> or |b>, we choose in which basis to measure randomly. The success probability is then: |b The only way to be sure "A" means a is to be sure it doesn't mean b...**How do they compare?**POVM von Neumann measurement At 0, the von Neumann strategy has a discontinuity-- only then can you succeed regardless of measurement choice. At <a|b> = 0.707, the von Neumann strategy succeeds 25% of the time, while the optimum is 29.3%.**The advantage is higher in higher dim.**Consider these three non-orthogonal states: Projective measurements can distinguish these states with certainty no more than 1/3 of the time. (No more than one member of an orthonormal basis is orthogonal to two of the above states, so only one pair may be ruled out.) But a unitary transformation in a 4D space produces: …and these states can be distinguished with certainty up to 55% of the time**Experimental schematic**(ancilla)**Success!**"Definitely 3" "Definitely 2" "Definitely 1" "I don't know" The correct state was identified 55% of the time-- Much better than the 33% maximum for standard measurements. Further interesting result: mixed states may also be discriminated, contrary to earlier wisdom.**STATE-DISCRIMINATION SUMMARY**Non-orthogonal states may be distinguished with certainty ("unambiguously") if a finite rate of "inconclusives" is tolerated. The optimal (lowest) inconclusive rate is the absolute value of the overlap between the states (in 2D), and cannot be achieved by any projective measurement. POVMs, implementable by coupling to a larger Hilbert space, can achieve this optimum. In optics, they may be realized with optical multiports (interferometers). We successfully distinguish among 3 non-orthogonal states 55% of the time, where standard quantum measurements are limited to 33%. More recent observation: "state filtering" or discrimination of mixed states is also possible.**State-discrimination References**• C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976) • I. D. Ivanovic, Phys. Lett. A \23} 257 (1987). A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, J. Mod. Opt. 45, 1295 (1998) S. M. Barnett and E. Riis, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 1061 (1997) B. Huttner et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 3783 (1996) R. B. M. Clarke et al., Phys Rev A 63, 040305 (2001) R. B. M. Clarke et al., Phys Rev A 64, 012303 (2001) T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. A 68, 0101301 (2003) M. Takeoka, M. Ban, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. A 68, 012307 (2003). A. Chefles, Phys. Lett. A 239, 339 (1998) D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 126, 303 (1998) A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A 128, 19 (1988) A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Lett. A 250, 223 (1998) Y. Sun, M. Hillery, and J. A. Bergou, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022311 (2001) J. A. Bergou, M. Hillery, and Y. Sun, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 487 (2000) • Y. Sun, J. A. Bergou, and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032315 (2002) • J. A. Bergou, U. Herzog, and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 257901 (2003)

More Related