Weak Decoupling Duality and Quantum Identification
Open accessAbstract
If a quantum system is subject to noise, it is possible to perform quantum error correction reversing the action of the noise if and only if no information about the system's quantum state leaks to the environment. In this paper, we develop an analogous duality in the case that the environment approximately forgets the identity of the quantum state, a weaker condition satisfied by -randomizing maps and approximate unitary designs. Specifically, we show that the environment approximately forgets quantum states if and only if the original channel approximately preserves pairwise fidelities of pure inputs, an observation we call weak decoupling duality. Using this tool, we then go on to study the task of using the output of a channel to simulate restricted classes of measurements on a space of input states. The case of simulating measurements that test whether the input state is an arbitrary pure state is known as equality testing or quantum identification. An immediate consequence of weak decoupling duality is that the ability to perform quantum identification cannot be cloned. We, furthermore, establish that the optimal amortized rate at which quantum states can be identified through a noisy quantum channel is equal to the entanglement-assisted classical capacity of the channel, despite the fact that the task is quantum, not classical, and entanglement-assistance is not allowed. In particular, this rate is strictly positive for every nonconstant quantum channel, including classical channels.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As shown in [62, 67], this would imply that there must also exist a state-independent reconstruction O_code^CFT that works for the entire code space and acts only on the CFT.
“However, as shown in [62, 67], this would imply that there must also exist a stateindependent reconstruction O code CFT that works for the entire code space and acts only on the CFT.”
From Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox (2020) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States
Jozsa, R. (1994) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500349414552171 · Cited by 1,911 · see citing works
The ‘transition probability’ in the state space of a—algebra
Uhlmann, A. (1976) · Reports on Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4 · Cited by 1,649 · see citing works
Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction
Kitaev, A. Y. (1997) · Russian Mathematical Surveys · doi:10.1070/rm1997v052n06abeh002155 · Cited by 1,424 · see citing works
Randomizing Quantum States: Constructions and Applications
Hayden, P., Leung, D., Shor, P. W., & Winter, A. (2004) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1087-6 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Information-Disturbance Tradeoff and the Continuity of Stinespring's Representation
Kretschmann, D., Schlingemann, D., & Werner, R. F. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2008.917696 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox
Penington, G. (2020) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)002 · Cited by 968 · see citing works
Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels
Cotler, J., Hayden, P., Penington, G., Salton, G., Swingle, B., & Walter, M. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.05839 · Cited by 221
Self-citationEntanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels
Cotler, J., Hayden, P., Penington, G., Salton, G., Swingle, B., & Walter, M. (2019) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031011 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning the Alpha-bits of black holes
Hayden, P., & Penington, G. (2019) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2019)007 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Self-citationApproximate Quantum Error Correction Revisited: Introducing the Alpha-Bit
Hayden, P., & Penington, G. (2020) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/s00220-020-03689-1 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hayden, P., & Winter, A.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Centre for Quantum Technologies (SG)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 4914-4929
- ISSN
- 0018-9448 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9654
- OpenAlex
- W2050047129
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- quantum error correction, quantum channels, equality testing, quantum cloning, quantum state discrimination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review