PreprintPDF Available

# The measurement and the state evaluation

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

## Abstract

I critically analyze the fidelity measure used for state estimation. I discuss the impossibility of complete determination. As an alternative to traditional fidelity, I suggest a figure of merit called confidence in the knowledge of an arbitrary state
The measurement and the state evaluation
Sergei Viznyuk
Abstract
I critically analyze the fidelity measure used for state estimation. I discuss
the impossibility of complete determination. As an alternative to traditional
fidelity, I suggest a figure of merit called confidence in the knowledge of an
arbitrary state
The question of how well one can determine the state of an object by performing measurement
is of rather fundamental nature, laying at the base of most scientific disciplines. Here I shall provide
a general approach to evaluation of degree of confidence in the knowledge of an arbitrary object,
based on the fact that any measurement and associated knowledge is represented by a sample of
events (symbols), each symbol being the outcome of a measurement event.
Consider the measurements are done in preparation + measurement cycles (PMC). The input
to each PMC is , and the output is one of output events 󰇝󰇞, ; where is the dimension
of measurement basis. If PMC is repeated times, the full input is represented by the tensor
product , and the output by


, where
 . Two
1. how close is to , or, alternatively, how reliably one can determine from
2. what is the probability of given
A figure of merit, called Uhlmann-Jozsa fidelity [1, 2] has been defined to answer question 1:
󰇧󰇨
(1)
, where , are density matrices of input , and of output . If or is pure, (1) becomes:
󰇛󰇜
(2)
, which is a case of an expression for the expectation value of an operator :
󰇛󰇜
(3)
, with in (2) being the probability POVM. Expression (2) is Born rule, postulated [3] to be the
answer to question 2. When the same measure is used as the answer to both questions, it leads to
some issues I discuss below.
The proposition the fidelity can be used for determination [4] of from lays at the foundation
of several technologies, such as quantum state tomography (QST), quantum process tomography
(QPT) [5]. Due to non-linearity of (1), its practical use for QST is nearly impossible. Linear
inversion of (2), or of alternative fidelity measures [6], is used in all situations, even when both
inputs and outputs are mixtures [4]. Even as (1) is touted as a measure of closeness between
and , specifically for mixtures, (1) does not make sense from standpoint of closeness of states.
For example, if 󰇛󰇜
then . However, it should be
. The
reason is, output 󰇛󰇜
is a mixture with no correlation to input. Thus, the
output is either  or  with
probability, independent of the input . Hence, is not the
measure of closeness of states, but a measure of closeness of density matrices. For mixtures,
density matrix is not synonymous with state but rather with distribution of states. From this
prospective, makes sense, because . There is an example given in [6] of
󰇛󰇜
and , when (2) gives
. In authors’ opinion, that is
incorrect. However, that is the expected outcome of the measurement. To assume the Uhlmann-
Jozsa fidelity (1) provides the figure of merit for closeness of states means accepting possibility of
(1) telling is the same as , while measurements show is different from half the times. I shall
conclude, from standpoint of closeness of states, fidelity (2) is the correct measure.
Even as (2) is the correct measure of closeness of states, its use in QST for determination of
is not faultless, for the following reasons:
1. It is impossible to determine a state in a single-device measurement due to no-cloning
theorem [7, 8]. Therefore, (2) implies an ensemble-average. Hence, calculated in QST
is a mixture, even if the input is pure. For evidence, the calculated in QST density
matrices invariably have multiple non-zero eigenvalues, while pure state density matrix
would only have 1 non-zero eigenvalue equal to 1
2. The measure (2) itself cannot be precisely determined in a finite number of measurements,
resulting in uncertainty relation formulated below
The optimal state evaluation involves finding a measurement basis 󰇝󰇞 which maximizes (2).
From basic geometric consideration it is clear, that in optimal basis [9]:
󰇛󰇜
󰇟󰇠
󰇟󰇠
(4)
, where 
 is the minimum possible Bures [10] angle between and ; 󰇟󰇠 and 󰇟󰇠 are
dimensions [9] of the input and output vector spaces; 󰇟󰇠 and 󰇟󰇠 are equal to the number of
ways to distribute and identical balls into distinguishable cells:
;
󰇟󰇠
(5)
, where is the number of input events, and is the number of output events (measurements),
. The difference is the number of future measurements, given already performed
PMCs. The expression (4) gives the maximum probability that in future 
measurements the result will be the same as in already performed measurements. From (4, 5):
󰇛󰇜
(6)
󰇛󰇜

(7)
󰇛󰇜
(8)
Defining 󰇛󰇜 󰇛󰇜 as the minimum possible uncertainty in
state determination, it follows:
󰇛󰇜
(9)
The expression (4), being sensible as probability measure, has an issue from standpoint of fidelity
of state determination: the fidelity depends on number of measurements already performed, but
it cannot depend on the number of future measurements; e.g. (7) does not make sense. This is a
conceptual issue of identifying fidelity of state determination with measurement probability (2).
In practice [11], the fidelity of optimal state estimation (4) is only used with .
To resolve the conceptual issue, I propose an alternative to fidelity measure, which I call the
confidence in the knowledge of state. The concept of knowledge is based on entropy as the measure
of missing information. The entropy is the amount of unknown. The maximum entropy state, i.e.
equilibrium, has zero information content, i.e. zero known. Thus, the amount of known, i.e. the
knowledge, equals the difference between entropy of equilibrium, and the entropy of the estimated
state. From here I obtain the expression for knowledge [12]:
󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
(10)
, where
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜 󰇛󰇜

(11)
󰇛󰇜 is Boltzmann’s entropy;
󰇛󰇜󰇛
󰇜 is entropy of equilibrium.
The knowledge obtained per measurement event is:
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
(12)
Knowledge (12) has its maximum for the given when :
󰇛󰇜󰇡󰇢
󰇛󰇜
(13)
󰇛󰇜 grows with number of measurements , toward limit:
 󰇛󰇜
(14)
As expected,  equals maximum per-event entropy, i.e. maximum Shannon’s entropy [13].
Once equipped with the notion of knowledge, I define the notion of confidence [12] as:
󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
 󰇛󰇜

(15)
The fidelity measure (4) for optimal state estimation corresponds to maximum confidence :
󰇛󰇜󰇡󰇢󰇛󰇜
 󰇛󰇜

󰇛󰇜
(16)
To summarize, the fidelity (2) is the probability of measurement outcome given input . The
fidelity (4) is the probability of measurement outcome given input in optimal state estimation.
The knowledge (12) is the obtained information (in nats) about estimated state, per measurement
event. The confidence (15) is the ratio of information obtained per measurement event to the
maximum possible information per event, which could have been obtained under optimal state
estimation with infinite number of measurements.
I shall compare the confidence (16) to fidelity of optimal state estimation (4). Re-normalizing
(4) to the same 󰇟󰇜 domain as confidence, I obtain:

󰆒󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜
(17)
The calculation of re-normalized fidelity (17) and confidence (16) vs number of input events
󰇛󰇜 is presented on Figure 1, for varying ; and dimension of the
measurement basis. The figure demonstrates the confidence (16) is close to fidelity (6) of optimal
state estimation, i.e. when . It also shows (4) loses its meaning of fidelity of optimal state
estimation when . I conclude the confidence (15, 16) provides the correct figure of merit
for state estimation.
Figure 1
Graphs of confidence (16) and fidelity (17) vs number of measurements .
Blue line: confidence (16).
Red lines: re-normalized fidelity (17) for several values of .
The calculation was done for dimension of measurement basis .
The MATLAB code used for calculation:



References
[1]
A. Uhlmann, "The "transition probability" in the state space of a *-algebra," Reports on
Mathematical Physics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 273-279, 1976.
[2]
R. Jozsa, "Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States," Journal of Modern Optics, vol. 41, no. 12,
pp. 2315-2323, 1994.
[3]
L. Masanes, T. Galley and M. Müller, "The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics
are operationally redundant," Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1361, 2019.
[4]
R. Blume-Kohout, "Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states," arXiv:quant-
ph/0611080, 2006.
[5]
M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
[6]
Y. Liang, Y. Yeh, P. Mendonca, R. Teh, M. Reid and P. Drummond, "Quantum ﬁdelity
measures for mixed states," arXiv:1810.08034 [quant-ph], 2019.
[7]
W. Wootters and W. Zurek, "A single quantum cannot be cloned," Nature, vol. 299, p.
802803, 1982.
[8]
J. Park, "The concept of transition in quantum mechanics," Foundations of Physics, vol. 1,
pp. 23-33, 1970.
[9]
R. Werner, "Optimal Cloning of Pure States," arXiv:quant-ph/9804001, 04 1998.
[10]
D. Bures, "An extension of Kakutani's theorem on infinite product measures to the tensor
product of semifinite w*-algebras," Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,
vol. 135, pp. 199-212, 1969.
[11]
J. Ren, P. Xu, H. Yong, L. Zhang, S. Liao, J. Yin, W. Liu, W. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, K.
Yang, X. Han, Y. Yao, J. Li, H. Wu, S. Wan, L. Liu and D. Liu, "Ground-to-satellite
quantum teleportation," arXiv:1707.00934 [quant-ph], 2017.
[12]
S. Viznyuk, "From QM to KM," 2020. [Online]. Available:
[13]
S. Viznyuk, "Shannon's entropy revisited," arXiv:1504.01407 [cs.IT], 2015.
[14]
A. Winter, "On the ﬁdelity of two pure states," J.Phys. A: Math. Gen., vol. 34, no. 35, pp.
7095-7101, 2001.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
An arbitrary unknown quantum state cannot be precisely measured or perfectly replicated1. However, quantum teleportation allows faithful transfer of unknown quantum states from one object to another over long distance2, without physical travelling of the object itself. Long-distance teleportation has been recognized as a fundamental element in protocols such as large-scale quantum networks3,4 and distributed quantum computation5,6. However, the previous teleportation experiments between distant locations7-12 were limited to a distance on the order of 100 kilometers, due to photon loss in optical fibres or terrestrial free-space channels. An outstanding open challenge for a global-scale “quantum internet”13 is to significantly extend the range for teleportation. A promising solution to this problem is exploiting satellite platform and space-based link, which can conveniently connect two remote points on the Earth with greatly reduced channel loss because most of the photons’ propagation path is in empty space. Here, we report the first quantum teleportation of independent single-photon qubits from a ground observatory to a low Earth orbit satellite—through an up-link channel—with a distance up to 1400 km. To optimize the link efficiency and overcome the atmospheric turbulence in the up-link, a series of techniques are developed, including a compact ultra-bright source of multi-photon entanglement, narrow beam divergence, high-bandwidth and high-accuracy acquiring, pointing, and tracking (APT).
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the core content of quantum mechanics requires us to disentangle the hidden logical relationships between the postulates of this theory. Here we show that the mathematical structure of quantum measurements, the formula for assigning outcome probabilities (Born’s rule) and the post-measurement state-update rule, can be deduced from the other quantum postulates, often referred to as “unitary quantum mechanics”, and the assumption that ensembles on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are characterized by finitely many parameters. This is achieved by taking an operational approach to physical theories, and using the fact that the manner in which a physical system is partitioned into subsystems is a subjective choice of the observer, and hence should not affect the predictions of the theory. In contrast to other approaches, our result does not assume that measurements are related to operators or bases, it does not rely on the universality of quantum mechanics, and it is independent of the interpretation of probability. The mathematical structure of quantum measurements and the Born rule are usually imposed as axioms; here, the authors show instead that they are the only possible measurement postulates, if we require that arbitrary partitioning of systems does not change the theory’s predictions.
Article
Applications of quantum technology often require fidelities to quantify performance. These provide a fundamental yardstick for the comparison of two quantum states. While this is straightforward in the case of pure states, it is much more subtle for the more general case of mixed quantum states often found in practice. A large number of different proposals exist. In this review, we summarize the required properties of a quantum fidelity measure, and compare them, to determine which properties each of the different measures has. We show that there are large classes of measures that satisfy all the required properties of a fidelity measure, just as there are many norms of Hilbert space operators, and many measures of entropy. We compare these fidelities, with detailed proofs of their properties. We also summarize briefly the applications of these measures in teleportation, quantum memories and quantum computers, quantum communications, and quantum phase-space simulations.
Article
Let ω,ϱ be two states of a ∗-algebra and let us consider representations of this algebra R for which ω and ϱ are realized as vector states by vectors x and y. The transition probability P(ω,ϱ) is the spectrum of all the numbers |(x,y)|2 taken over all such realizations. We derive properties of this straightforward generalization of the quantum mechanical transition probability and give, in some important cases, an explicit expression for this quantity.
Article
We consider quantum devices for turning a finite number N of d-level quantum systems in the same unknown pure state sigma into M>N systems of the same kind, in an approximation of the M-fold tensor product of the state sigma. In a previous paper it was shown that this problem has a unique optimal solution, when the quality of the output is judged by arbitrary measurements, involving also the correlations between the clones. We show in this paper, that if the quality judgment is based solely on measurements of single output clones, there is again a unique optimal cloning device, which coincides with the one found previously.
Article
If a photon of definite polarization encounters an excited atom, there is typically some nonvanishing probability that the atom will emit a second photon by stimulated emission. Such a photon is guaranteed to have the same polarization as the original photon. But is it possible by this or any other process to amplify a quantum state, that is, to produce several copies of a quantum system (the polarized photon in the present case) each having the same state as the original? If it were, the amplifying process could be used to ascertain the exact state of a quantum system: in the case of a photon, one could determine its polarization by first producing a beam of identically polarized copies and then measuring the Stokes parameters1. We show here that the linearity of quantum mechanics forbids such replication and that this conclusion holds for all quantum systems.
Article
The concept of quantum transition is critically examined from the perspective of the modern quantum theory of measurement. Historically rooted in the famous quantum jump of the Old Quantum Theory, the transition idea survives today in experimental jargon due to (1) the notion of uncontrollable disturbance of a system by measurement operations and (2) the wave-packet reduction hypothesis in several forms. Explicit counterexamples to both (1) and (2) are presented in terms of quantum measurement theory. It is concluded that the idea of transition, or quantum jump, can no longer be rationally comprehended within the framework of contemporary physical theory.
Article
We propose a definition of fidelity for mixed quantum states in terms of Uhlmann's ‘transition probability’ formula F(ϱ1, ϱ2) = {trace [(√ϱ1ϱ2 × √ϱ1)]} and give new elementary proofs of its essential properties.
Article
The fidelity of two pure states (also known as transition probability) is a symmetric function of two operators, and well-founded operationally as an event probability in a certain preparation-test pair. Motivated by the idea that the fidelity is the continuous quantum extension of the combinatorial equality function, we enquire whether there exists a symmetric operational way of obtaining the fidelity. It is shown that this is impossible. Finally, we discuss the optimal universal approximation by a quantum operation. Comment: LaTeX2e, 8 pages, submitted to J. Phys. A: Math. and Gen