Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Performance advantage of discriminating one-versus-two incoherent sources based on quantum hypothesis testing
arXiv
Authors: Jian-Dong Zhang, Mei-Ming Zhang, Chuang Li, Shuai Wang
Year
2024
Paper ID
37664
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
167
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Detecting the presence of multiple incoherent sources is a fundamental and challenging task for quantum imaging, especially within sub-Rayleigh region. In this paper, the discrimination of one-versus-two point-like incoherent sources in symmetric and asymmetric scenarios is studied. We calculate the quantum lower bounds on error probabilities of making a decision after one-shot and multi-shot tests. The results are compared with the error probability of prior-based direct guess, and the minimal number of tests required to make a decision outperforming direct guess is discussed. We also show the asymptotic quantum lower bound for a large number of tests. For practical purposes, we propose a specific strategy along with decision rule of which can work without any prior knowledge. With respect to each of two scenarios, the error probability can approach the quantum lower bound in one-shot test as well as multi-shot test. In addition, the potential challenges and solutions in a realistic scenario are analyzed. Our results may contribute to real-world quantum imaging such as microscopy and astronomy.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Detecting the presence of multiple incoherent sources is a fundamental and challenging task for quantum imaging, especially within sub-Rayleigh region.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.