Abstract
We study the estimation of a single parameter characterizing families of unitary transformations acting on two systems. We consider the situation with the presence of bottleneck, i.e., only one of the systems can be measured to gather information. The estimation capabilities are related to unitaries’ generators. In particular, we establish continuity of quantum Fisher information with respect to generators. Furthermore, we find conditions on the generators to achieve the same maximum quantum Fisher information we would have in the absence of bottleneck. We also discuss the usefulness of initial entanglement across the two systems as well as across multiple estimation instances.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
In passing, we notice that the error defined in Eq. (1) of Ref. [5], to be consistent with the results reported there, should have been written with a square root, i.e., \(\delta \varphi =\left\langle {\left( \varphi _{est}/| \frac{\partial \langle \varphi _{est}\rangle _{av}}{\partial \varphi }|-\varphi \right) ^{2}}\right\rangle ^{\frac{1}{2}}\).
Clearly, sampling a discontinuous function on a discrete set of points cannot be representative of the behavior of the function, while it can for a continuous function.
We can always factor out e.g., \(\Vert \hat{\varvec{m}}\Vert \) from \(G_1\), which will cause a rescaling of the parameter \(t_1\), and incorporate it into the parameter \(\alpha \).
It is worth mentioning that the set of optimal input states when \(t_1=t_2=0\) extends to \(\left( \cos \theta |0\rangle \pm i \sin \theta |1\rangle \right) _A |\varphi \rangle _E\), \(\forall \theta \in [0,2\pi ]\) and \(\forall |\varphi \rangle \in {\mathbb {C}}^2\).
Notice that in (91) we cannot take the limit \(t_1\rightarrow 0\) (or \(t_2\rightarrow 0\)), because otherwise we should consider the case ii) (or i), respectively).
References
Helstrom, C.W.: Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory. Academic Press, New York (1976)
Ballester, M.A.: Estimation of SU(d) using entanglement, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507073 (2005)
Hayashi, M.: Parallel treatment of estimation of SU(2) and phase estimation. Phys. Lett. A 354, 183 (2006)
Kahn, J.: Fast rate estimation of a unitary operation in su(d). Phys. Rev. A 75, 022326 (2007)
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)
Sasaki, M., Ban, M., Barnett, S.M.: Optimal parameter estimation of a depolarizing channel. Physical Review A 66, 022308 (2002)
Fujiwara, A., Imai, H.: Quantum parameter estimation of a generalized Pauli channel. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 8093 (2003)
Ji, Z., Wang, G., Duan, R., Feng, Y., Ying, M.: Parameter estimation of quantum channels. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54, 5172 (2008)
Stinespring, W.F.: Positive functions on \(C^*\)-algebras. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 6, 211 (1955)
Le Boudec, J.-Y.: Performance Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems. EPFL Press (2011)
Rexiti, M., Mancini, S.: Adversarial versus cooperative quantum estimation. Quantum Inf. Process. 18, 102 (2019)
Gambetta, J., Wiseman, H.M.: State and dynamical parameter estimation for open quantum systems. Physical Review A 64, 042105 (2001)
Tsang, M.: Quantum metrology with open dynamical systems. New J. Phys. 15, 073005 (2013)
Alipour, S., Mehboudi, M., Rezakhani, A.T.: Quantum metrology in open systems: dissipative Cramer-Rao bound. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120405 (2014)
Dragan, A., Fuentes, I., Louko, J.: Quantum accelerometer: distinguishing inertial Bob from his accelerated twin Rob by a local measurement. Phys. Rev. D 83, 085020 (2011)
Wang, J., Tian, Z., Jing, J., Fan, H.: Quantum metrology and estimation of Unruh effect. Sci. Rep. 4, 7195 (2014)
Safranek, D., Kohlrus, J., Bruschi, D.E., Lee, A.R., Fuentes, I.: Ultimate precision: Gaussian parameter estimation in flat and curved spacetime, arXiv:1511.03905 (2015)
El Gamal, A., Kim, Y.-H.: Lecture Notes on Network Information Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Winter, A.: The capacity of the quantum multiple-access channel. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47, 3059 (2001)
Safranek, D.: Discontinuities of the quantum Fisher information and the Bures metric. Phys. Rev. A 95, 052320 (2017)
Felice, D., Cafaro, C., Mancini, S.: Information geometric methods for complexity. Chaos 28, 032101 (2018)
Rezakhani, A.T., Alipour, S.: On continuity of quantum Fisher information. Phys. Rev. A 100, 032317 (2019)
Karumanchi, S., Mancini, S., Winter, A., Yang, D.: Classical capacities of quantum channels with environment assistance. Probl. Inf. Transm. 52, 214 (2016)
Kretschmann, D., Schlingemann, D., Werner, R.F.: The information-disturbance tradeoff and the continuity of Stinespring’s representation. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54, 1708 (2008)
Rastegin, A.E.: Relations for certain symmetric norms and anti-norms before and after partial trace, arXiv:1202.3853v3 [quant-ph] (2012)
Hurwitz, A.: Über die erzeugung der invarianten durch integration. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse 71, (1897)
Zyczkowski, K., Sommers, H.-J.: Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 7111 (2001)
Dahlsten, O.C.O., Lupo, C., Mancini, S., Serafini, A.: Entanglement typicality. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 363001 (2014)
Acknowledgements
The work of M.R. is supported by China Scholarship Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Following up Hurwitz parametrization [26], we can write N-qubit states as
where \([n]_2\) stands for the binary representation of n. We also have
with
Now searching the maximum of a function over the set of states (101) can be done by randomly sampling such states according to the Haar measure of \(U(2^N)\) [27]. However, in such a way, we cannot account for separable states, as this subset of states has a vanishing probability measure [28]. Therefore, we opted for sampling on a grid of 50 points for \(\vartheta _n\) in \([0,\pi /2]\) and 200 points for \(\varphi _n\) in \([0,2\pi ]\).
Appendix B
Consider a unitary with generator
where \(t_{22}, t_{33}\in {\mathbb {R}}\). The eigenvalues of G result \(\{-1-t_{22}-t_{33}, 1+t_{22}-t_{33}, 1-t_{22}+t_{33}, -1+t_{22}+t_{33}\}\), hence, the maximum Fisher information we can get when accessing both systems B and F is:
We can obtain:
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( 1+t_{33}\right) ^2\), with input \(\frac{1}{2}\left( |00\rangle +|01\rangle -|10\rangle +|11\rangle \right) \);
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( 1-t_{33}\right) ^2\), with input \(\frac{1}{2}\left( |00\rangle +|01\rangle +|10\rangle -|11\rangle \right) \);
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( t_{22}+t_{33}\right) ^2\), with input \(\frac{1}{2}\left( |00\rangle +|01\rangle -|10\rangle -|11\rangle \right) \);
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( t_{22}-t_{33}\right) ^2\), with input \(\frac{1}{2}\left( |00\rangle +|01\rangle +|10\rangle +|11\rangle \right) \);
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( 1+t_{22}\right) ^2\), with input \(|01\rangle \);
-
\({\overline{J}}_{B}={\overline{J}}_{BF}=4\left( 1-t_{22}\right) ^2\), with input \(|00\rangle \).
Appendix C
Corollary 6.1
Given \(\rho _i(\alpha )=e^{\alpha {{\mathcal {L}}}_i}\rho \), with \({{\mathcal {L}}}_i\) Liuovillian superoperators, we have (dropping the dependence from \(\alpha \) for a lighter notation):
where \(C_1,C_2\) are as in Corollary 3.2, and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{1\rightarrow 1}\) is the induced 1-norm on the superoperators, i.e., \(\left\| {{\mathcal {L}}}\right\| _{1\rightarrow 1}:=\sup _{\rho : \Vert \rho \Vert _1=1} \Vert {{\mathcal {L}}}\rho \Vert _1\).
Proof
Moving on from Theorem 3.1, for the first term at the right hand side of Eq. (14), we have
where from (109) to (110) we have used the property (27) together with the fact that \(e^{\alpha {{\mathcal {L}}}_i}\) is trace preserving.
For the second term at the right hand side of Eq. (14), instead, we have
where from (115) to (116) we have used the property (27) together with the fact that \(e^{\alpha {{\mathcal {L}}}_i}\) is trace preserving. Notice that we could have reversed the role of \( {{\mathcal {L}}}_1\) and \( {{\mathcal {L}}}_2\). Thus, by inserting Eqs. (110), (116) into (14) and taking into account that \(\alpha \in [0,2\pi ]\) we get the desired result. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rexiti, M., Mancini, S. Quantum estimation through a bottleneck. Quantum Inf Process 19, 367 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-02875-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-02875-3