Scribd
Upload
2 views

PHYS8149E-AY113-Sem2-Assignment-4

The document outlines the assignments for PHYS8149E Quantum Information, focusing on various problems related to quantum gates, the no-cloning theorem, unambiguous state discrimination, minimum error discrimination, and Shannon entropy. Each problem requires students to demonstrate understanding and application of quantum concepts through circuit identities, mathematical proofs, and entropy calculations. Assignments are due on April 10, 2025, and involve both theoretical explanations and practical implementations.

Uploaded by

徐育兆
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

PHYS8149E-AY113-Sem2-Assignment-4

The document outlines the assignments for PHYS8149E Quantum Information, focusing on various problems related to quantum gates, the no-cloning theorem, unambiguous state discrimination, minimum error discrimination, and Shannon entropy. Each problem requires students to demonstrate understanding and application of quantum concepts through circuit identities, mathematical proofs, and entropy calculations. Assignments are due on April 10, 2025, and involve both theoretical explanations and practical implementations.

Uploaded by

徐育兆
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

PHYS8149E Quantum Information (AY2024/25 Sem 2)

Instructor: Len Yink Loong

Assignment 4
Submit your solutions for Problem 1. Due on: 10 Apr 2025, Thursday, 2:10PM.

Problem 1: Two circuit identities


(i) Consider an (k +1)-qubit gate written as ck V , a controlled gate with m control qubits (indicated
by the “ck ” in the gate notation) and 1 target qubit. V is a single-qubit unitary operator. ck V
is the gate that applies V on the target qubit only when all the k control qubits are in the |1⟩
state; otherwise, the identity is applied. In other words, ck V is the operator,

ck V ≡ | 11
| ·{z
· · 11}⟩ ⟨11 · · · 11| ⊗ V + (1k − |11 · · · 11⟩⟨11 · · · 11|) ⊗ 1,
k qubits

where 1k is the identity on the k control qubits; the last 1 is the identity on the target qubit.
Note that c1 X is the CNOT gate, while c2 X is the Toffoli gate.
Show that the ck V gate can be implemented by the circuit on the right:

Here, R is the gate (a unitary operator) such that R2 = V (such an R always exists; can you
see why?). ⊕ is the NOT or X gate. As usual, a small black dot indicates a control, which
must be in the |1⟩ state for the gate to be applied on the target; black dots over multiple qubits
connected by a vertical line indicate a controlled gate that is applied only when all the controls
are in the |1⟩ state.
Explain why this implies that any ck V gates can be implemented by using only 2-qubit gates.
(ii) Show the circuit identity below, i.e., explain why the two circuits are mathematically equivalent.

In the left circuit, the gate G is classically controlled by the Z measurement outcome, with G
being applied only when the measurement outcome is 1 (corresponding to the |1⟩ eigenstate of Z).
In the right circuit, the gate G is quantumly controlled by the upper qubit, which is subsequently
measured. A double line indicates a classical bit, usually the outcome of a measurement; a black
dot again indicates a control.
Problem 2: No cloning theorem with ancilla
In class, we proved the no-cloning theorem for unitary operation, i.e., for any unknown state |ψ⟩A and
fixed, ψ-independent “white paper state” |ϕ⟩C , it is not possible to find Ucl that satisfies Ucl (|ψ⟩A ⊗
|ϕ⟩C ) = |ψ⟩A ⊗ |ϕ⟩C .
Show that, even if we include an ancilla, i.e., additional degrees of freedom in our “white paper state”
for the cloning process, the no cloning theorem still holds. That is, show that there exists no Ucl
and fixed, ψ-independent “white paper state” |ϕ⟩CC ′ which is a general (entangled) state in the CC ′
composite, such that

Ucl |ψ⟩A ⊗ |ϕ⟩CC ′ = |ψ⟩A ⊗ |ψ⟩C |f (ψ)⟩C ′

holds for any unknown state |ψ⟩A and some ψ-dependent “garbage” state |f (ψ)⟩C ′ on C ′ .
*Note that we have been considering only cloning of pure states. There is generalization to mixed
states as well, known as the “no-broadcast theorem” (see Barnum et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2818
(1996)), which however is much subtler and hence we do not discuss it in this course.

Problem 3: Unambiguous state discrimination


Suppose you are in a betting game, and you are given a state, which is either |ψ1 ⟩ and |ψ2 ⟩, with some
prior probability p and 1 − p respectively. If you guess which state correctly, you win 1 dollar, but if
you lose, you will have to pay the dealer 100 dollar. Of course, if you don’t bet, then you have nothing
to lose.
Using the MSD strategy will be very risky, unless the minimum error is less than 1%. Another
approach is to bet safely, such that when you make your guess, you are 100% certain that you will
be right, and when you are not certain, you just don’t bet. With this way you either win 1 dollar or
nothing every time, but you won’t lose any money. In order to optimize the return, you then have
to minimize the probability of getting inconclusive results, i.e., not betting. This is known as the
“unambiguous state discrimination” (USD) problem. Focus on |ψ1 ⟩ and |ψ2 ⟩ being qubit states.
(i) Explain why in general the measurement of USD M ∼ {Mi }3i=1 will have 3 outcomes. In par-
ticular, explain why in general we have M1† M1 = c1 ψ2⊥ ψ2⊥ , M2† M2 = c2 ψ1⊥ ψ1⊥ , M3† M3 =
1 − M1† M1 − M2† M2 , for some 0 ≤ c1 , c2 ≤ 1. By definition, ψi⊥ is the state that is orthonormal
to |ψi ⟩.
(ii) With ⟨ψ1 | ψ2 ⟩ ≡ cos θ, show that there is an additional constraint on c1 and c2 , which reads
1 − c1 − c2 + c1 c2 sin2 θ ≥ 0. Explain where this constraint comes from.
(iii) Show that the probability for inconclusive outcome is p3 = 1 − sin2 θ c1 p + c2 − c2 p .


The minimization of p3 with the constraints on c1 and c2 is doable but kind of tedious, so we
skip it here. (If you like, try it out!)

Problem 4: Minimum error discrimination: two-pure states scenario


Show that the eigenvalues for the Helstrom operator ∆ = p |ψ1 ⟩⟨ψ1 | − (1 − p) |ψ2 ⟩⟨ψ2 | are
1 1p
λ± = p − ± 1 − 4p(1 − p)| ⟨ψ1 | ψ2 ⟩|2 .
2 2

2
Problem 5: Shannon entropy and mutual information: some exercises
(i) Show that the conditional entropy of X on Y can be written as
X X
H(X|Y ) = − py p(x|y) log p(x|y).
y x

(ii) Show that the mutual information is non-negative, i.e., I(X : Y ) ≥ 0.


(iii) Show the conditional entropy in page 80 of the lecture notes:
h  pp1+   (1 − p)p2+ 
H(X|Y ) = − pp1+ log + (1 − p)p2+ log
pp1+ + (1 − p)p2+ pp1+ + (1 − p)p2+
 pp1−   (1 − p)p2− i
+ pp1− log + (1 − p)p2+ log .
pp1− + (1 − p)p2− pp1− + (1 − p)p2−

You might also like