Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

Random access test as an identifier of nonclassicality

arXiv
Authors: Teiko Heinosaari, Leevi Leppäjärvi

Year

2021

Paper ID

40897

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

109

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Random access codes are an intriguing class of communication tasks that reveal an operational and quantitative difference between classical and quantum information processing. We formulate a natural generalization of random access codes and call them random access tests, defined for any finite collection of measurements in an arbitrary finite dimensional general probabilistic theory. These tests can be used to examine collective properties of collections of measurements. We show that the violation of a classical bound in a random access test is a signature of either measurement incompatibility or super information storability. The polygon theories are exhaustively analyzed and a critical difference between even and odd polygon theories is revealed.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Random access codes are an intriguing class of communication tasks that reveal an operational and quantitative difference between classical and quantum information processing.

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #40897 #77849 The pure Yang-Mills field, I: f... #77847 Fabrication of the Au/guaiazule... #77845 Quantum-mechanical model of vis... #77844 Nonequilibrium bosonization of ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.