!
You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.
Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Entropic Bounds For Unitary Testers and Mutually Unbiased Unitary Bases
arXiv
Authors: Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Stefano Mancini
Year
2019
Paper ID
7157
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
115
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We define the entropic bounds, i.e minimal uncertainty for pairs of unitary testers in distinguishing between unitary transformations not unlike the well known entropic bounds for observables. We show that in the case of specific sets of testers which pairwise saturate the trivial zero bound, the testers are all equivalent in the sense their statistics are the same. On the other hand, when maximal bounds are saturated by such sets of testers, the unitary operators would form unitary bases which are mutually unbiased. This resembles very much the role of mutually unbiased bases in maximizing the entropic bounds for observables. We show how such a bound can be useful in certain quantum cryptographic protocols.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We define the entropic bounds, i.e minimal uncertainty for pairs of unitary testers in distinguishing between unitary transformations not unlike the well known entropic bounds...
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.