pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02122 · v1 · pith:TRJHBLNZnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Can scrambling protect quantum state distinguishability under noise?

Guoding Liu , Chushi Qin , Zitai Xu , Xiongfeng Ma , Zi-Wen Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum state distinguishability2-design ensemblesinformation scramblingnoise channelsconditional entropydecoupling boundsphase transitionshadow tomography
0
0 comments X

The pith

The distinguishability of noisy 2-design ensembles shows a sharp threshold governed by channel conditional entropy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends quantum state distinguishability from pairs to ensembles by using the average pairwise trace distance. It examines whether minimally scrambled ensembles modeled by 2-designs can protect this property under noise, revealing the competition between scrambling and noise. A decoupling approach produces tight bounds that display a phase transition: below a threshold set by the channel conditional entropy, the states stay mutually distinguishable with high probability; above the threshold, distinguishability first decays as a power law and then collapses exponentially. Post-measured ensembles under local purity-shrinking noise lose distinguishability exponentially for any measurement, with no protected regime. These findings separate the behavior of unmeasured scrambled ensembles from measured ones and bear on tasks in communication, cryptography, and learning.

Core claim

Using a rigorous decoupling approach, the distinguishability of noisy 2-design ensembles exhibits a sharp threshold and phase-transition behavior governed by channel conditional entropy: below the threshold, the states remain mutually distinguishable with high probability, while above it, distinguishability undergoes a sudden power-law decay and then collapses exponentially. On the other hand, under local purity-shrinking noise, post-measured noisy 2-design ensembles become exponentially indistinguishable for any measurement, precluding a noise threshold for learning tasks such as shadow tomography.

What carries the argument

The decoupling approach applied to 2-design ensembles to obtain tight bounds on noisy ensemble distinguishability in terms of channel conditional entropy.

If this is right

  • Below the conditional entropy threshold, noisy 2-design states remain mutually distinguishable with high probability.
  • Above the threshold, distinguishability first decays according to a power law and then collapses exponentially.
  • Post-measured 2-design ensembles under local purity-shrinking noise become exponentially indistinguishable for any measurement.
  • Learning tasks such as shadow tomography have no protected noise regime when applied to these post-measured ensembles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The protected regime for unmeasured ensembles may allow scrambling to aid quantum communication or cryptography when measurements are avoided.
  • The phase transition could be checked in small-scale quantum simulations by preparing approximate 2-designs and applying tunable noise channels.
  • Results imply that measurement effects must be accounted for separately when applying scrambling to cryptographic or learning protocols.
  • Similar threshold behavior might appear in other ensemble designs if the decoupling method can be extended beyond 2-designs.

Load-bearing premise

That 2-designs constitute an adequate model of minimally scrambled ensembles whose distinguishability properties under noise can be tightly bounded via the decoupling approach without additional assumptions on the noise channel beyond conditional entropy.

What would settle it

Measure the average pairwise trace distance for a 2-design ensemble after a noise channel whose conditional entropy is varied across the predicted threshold value and check whether distinguishability stays high below the threshold and drops sharply above it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02122 by Chushi Qin, Guoding Liu, Xiongfeng Ma, Zitai Xu, Zi-Wen Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Information-theoretic perspectives of our results. We unify the classical capacity of quantum channels and state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distinguishability phase diagram for local Pauli noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum state distinguishability is a fundamental concept in quantum information science that underpins a wide range of important practical tasks. Traditionally formulated for pairs of states, quantum state distinguishability is here extended to quantum state ensembles, which we characterize through the average pairwise trace distance. Motivated by both theoretical and practical interest in noisy quantum information processing, we ask whether ``minimally'' scrambled ensembles modeled by 2-designs protect distinguishability under noise, which sheds light on the fundamental competition between noise and information scrambling. Using a rigorous decoupling approach, we establish tight bounds on noisy ensemble distinguishability. We show that the distinguishability of noisy 2-design ensembles exhibits a sharp threshold and phase-transition behavior governed by channel conditional entropy: below the threshold, the states remain mutually distinguishable with high probability, while above it, distinguishability undergoes a sudden power-law decay and then collapses exponentially. On the other hand, under local purity-shrinking noise, post-measured noisy 2-design ensembles become exponentially indistinguishable for any measurement, precluding a noise threshold for learning tasks such as shadow tomography. These results reveal a sharp difference between unmeasured and post-measured scrambled ensembles: the former can retain high distinguishability for sufficiently small noise, whereas the latter exhibits no such protected regime. We discuss the implications of these results for crucial tasks ranging from quantum communication and cryptography to learning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends quantum state distinguishability to ensembles via average pairwise trace distance and models minimally scrambled states with 2-designs. Using a decoupling approach, it derives tight bounds showing that noisy 2-design distinguishability exhibits a sharp threshold and phase transition governed by channel conditional entropy: below threshold the states remain mutually distinguishable with high probability, while above it distinguishability first decays as a power law then exponentially. For post-measured ensembles under local purity-shrinking noise, the ensembles become exponentially indistinguishable for any measurement, with no protected regime. Implications for communication, cryptography, and learning tasks such as shadow tomography are discussed.

Significance. If the decoupling bounds are tight and the conversion from average to high-probability statements is rigorously controlled, the results would provide a clear characterization of when scrambling protects ensemble distinguishability under noise, highlighting a sharp difference between unmeasured and post-measured cases with relevance to quantum information processing tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Decoupling approach and phase-transition analysis] The decoupling approach controls expected pairwise trace distance, but the central claim of mutual distinguishability 'with high probability' below the threshold (abstract and main result) requires tail bounds or concentration inequalities on the finite 2-design ensemble. Conditional entropy alone does not supply these tails; the manuscript must explicitly provide the variance control or moment bound used, or the sharpness of the claimed phase transition is not guaranteed for all channels.
  2. [Post-measured ensemble analysis] For the post-measured case under local purity-shrinking noise, the exponential indistinguishability claim for any measurement should include an explicit uniform bound over the measurement set and confirm that the decay rate is independent of the specific measurement choice.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'rigorous decoupling approach' without naming the specific decoupling theorem or inequality; adding this reference would aid readability.
  2. [Notation and definitions] Notation for the average pairwise trace distance should be defined once and used consistently in all subsequent sections and equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas for clarification. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested additions into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Decoupling approach and phase-transition analysis] The decoupling approach controls expected pairwise trace distance, but the central claim of mutual distinguishability 'with high probability' below the threshold (abstract and main result) requires tail bounds or concentration inequalities on the finite 2-design ensemble. Conditional entropy alone does not supply these tails; the manuscript must explicitly provide the variance control or moment bound used, or the sharpness of the claimed phase transition is not guaranteed for all channels.

    Authors: We agree that the decoupling bound controls the expectation and that an explicit concentration argument is needed to rigorously support the high-probability claim. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection deriving a variance bound for the average pairwise trace distance that exploits the 2-design property (specifically, the second-moment calculation over the design yields a variance scaling as O(1/|E|), where |E| is the ensemble size). Chebyshev's inequality then converts the expectation bound into a high-probability statement whose failure probability decays with ensemble size, independent of the particular channel. This establishes the sharpness of the phase transition for all channels whose conditional entropy satisfies the threshold condition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Post-measured ensemble analysis] For the post-measured case under local purity-shrinking noise, the exponential indistinguishability claim for any measurement should include an explicit uniform bound over the measurement set and confirm that the decay rate is independent of the specific measurement choice.

    Authors: We will strengthen the post-measured analysis by deriving an explicit uniform bound. Because the noise is local and purity-shrinking, the trace-distance decay after measurement can be bounded by averaging the design over all possible post-measurement states; the resulting exponential rate depends only on the noise strength and the design order, not on the particular POVM. We will state this uniform bound explicitly and confirm its measurement independence in the revised text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bounds derived from external channel property via decoupling

full rationale

The derivation relies on a decoupling approach to bound average pairwise trace distance for 2-design ensembles, with the threshold and phase transition explicitly governed by the channel's conditional entropy (an input property independent of the distinguishability quantity being bounded). No self-definitional reductions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the claims. The central results are presented as mathematical consequences of the decoupling inequality applied to the external entropy parameter, making the chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5779 in / 1060 out tokens · 27344 ms · 2026-06-28T14:27:26.579623+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The behavior for local Pauli noise exhibits identical structural transitions, as illustrated in Fig

    The critical thresholdH(N)=0 is crossed at a physical noise rate ofp≈0.2524, marking the exit from the resilient phase, while the terminalH 2(N)=0 threshold occurs at p≈0.4227. The behavior for local Pauli noise exhibits identical structural transitions, as illustrated in Fig. 2. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Z-Error Probability pz 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10...

  2. [2]

    If the state ensemble forms a2-design, then N=Ω( log∣X∣ ∥N⊗2(S)∥∞ ).(20)

  3. [3]

    Consequently, the learning protocol necessar- ily demands an exponentially large sample complexity, rendering it inefficient without fault tolerance

    If the POVM elements form a2-design, then N=Ω( log∣X∣ ∥N†⊗2(S)∥∞ ).(21) For unital and local purity-shrinking noise like depolar- izing noise,∥N ⊗2(S)∥∞=∥N †⊗2(S)∥∞ is exponentially small inn. Consequently, the learning protocol necessar- ily demands an exponentially large sample complexity, rendering it inefficient without fault tolerance. The implicatio...

  4. [4]

    A. S. Holevo, Statistical decision theory for quantum sys- tems, J. Multivariate Anal.3, 337 (1973)

    1973

  5. [5]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, J. Stat. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  6. [6]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    Aaronson, The learnability of quantum states, Proc

    S. Aaronson, The learnability of quantum states, Proc. R. Soc. A463, 3089 (2007)

    2007

  9. [9]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nat. Phys.16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, D. W. Leung, and B. M. Terhal, Quan- tum data hiding, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory48, 580 (2002)

    2002

  11. [11]

    Hayden, D

    P. Hayden, D. Leung, P. W. Shor, and A. Winter, Ran- domizing quantum states: Constructions and applica- tions, Commun. Math. Phys.250, 371 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Matthews, S

    W. Matthews, S. Wehner, and A. Winter, Distinguisha- bility of quantum states under restricted families of mea- surements with an application to quantum data hiding, Commun. Math. Phys.291, 813 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    D¨ ur and H.-J

    W. D¨ ur and H.-J. Briegel, Stability of macroscopic entan- glement under decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 180403 (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    Arunachalam, S

    S. Arunachalam, S. Bravyi, A. Dutt, and T. J. Yoder, Optimal algorithms for learning quantum phase states (2023), arXiv:2208.07851 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, Chaos in quantum channels, J. High Energ. Phys.2016(2), 004

    2016

  18. [18]

    Z.-W. Liu, S. Lloyd, E. Y. Zhu, and H. Zhu, Entan- glement, quantum randomness, and complexity beyond scrambling, J. High Energ. Phys.2018(7), 041

    2018

  19. [19]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  20. [20]

    Brown and O

    W. Brown and O. Fawzi, Short random circuits define good quantum error correcting codes, in2013 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Information Theory(2013) pp. 346–350

    2013

  21. [21]

    M. J. Gullans, S. Krastanov, D. A. Huse, L. Jiang, and S. T. Flammia, Quantum coding with low-depth random circuits, Phys. Rev. X11, 031066 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Kong and Z.-W

    L. Kong and Z.-W. Liu, Near-optimal covariant quan- tum error-correcting codes from random unitaries with symmetries, PRX Quantum3, 020314 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    A. S. Darmawan, Y. Nakata, S. Tamiya, and H. Ya- masaki, Low-depth random clifford circuits for quantum coding against pauli noise using a tensor-network de- coder, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023055 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    J. Yi, W. Ye, D. Gottesman, and Z.-W. Liu, Complex- ity and order in approximate quantum error-correcting codes, Nature Physics20, 1798 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Nelson, G

    J. Nelson, G. Bentsen, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Gullans, Fault-tolerant quantum memory using low-depth random circuit codes, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013040 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    G. Liu, Z. Du, Z.-W. Liu, and X. Ma, Approximate quan- tum error correction with 1D log-depth circuits, PRX Quantum7, 010331 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, Quantum er- ror correction in scrambling dynamics and measurement- induced phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 030505 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandr` a, A. Bengts- son, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. As- faw, L. T. A. N. Brand˜ ao, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J...

    2024

  29. [29]

    Aharonov, X

    D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazi- rani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy ran- dom circuit sampling, inProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(2023) pp. 945–957

    2023

  30. [30]

    Fefferman, S

    B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, M. Gullans, K. Kuroiwa, and K. Sharma, Effect of nonunital noise on random-circuit sampling, PRX Quantum5, 030317 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: Quan- tum information in random subsystems, J. High Energ. Phys.2007(9), 120

    2007

  32. [32]

    Z.-W. Liu, S. Lloyd, E. Y. Zhu, and H. Zhu, Generalized entanglement entropies of quantum designs, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 130502 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Szehr, F

    O. Szehr, F. Dupuis, M. Tomamichel, and R. Renner, Decoupling with unitary approximate two-designs, New J. Phys.15, 053022 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, Chaos and complexity by design, J. High Energ. Phys.2017(4), 121

    2017

  35. [35]

    Emerson, Y

    J. Emerson, Y. S. Weinstein, M. Saraceno, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Pseudo-random unitary operators for quan- tum information processing, Science302, 2098 (2003)

    2098

  36. [36]

    Dankert, R

    C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs, Commun. Math. Phys.291, 257 (2009)

    2009

  38. [38]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs, Commun. Math. Phys.346, 397 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Leung, L. Liu, and C. Wang, Near-linear constructions of exact unitary 2-designs, Quantum Inf. Comput.16, 721 (2016)

    2016

  40. [40]

    Qubit stabilizer states are complex projective 3-designs

    R. Kueng and D. Gross, Qubit stabilizer states are complex projective 3-designs (2015), arXiv:1510.02767 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys

    H. Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys. Rev. A96, 062336 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Webb, The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Info

    Z. Webb, The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Info. Comput.16, 1379–1400 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clifford group, IEEE Trans. Inf. The- ory67, 4546 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    C.-F. Chen, J. Haah, J. Haferkamp, Y. Liu, T. Met- ger, and X. Tan, Incompressibility and spectral gaps of random circuits, in2025 IEEE 66th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(2025) pp. 1304–1312

    2025

  45. [45]

    Z. Li, H. Zheng, and Z.-W. Liu, Efficient quan- tum pseudorandomness under conservation laws (2024), arXiv:2411.04893 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Random unitaries in extremely low depth, Science389, 92 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    LaRacuente and F

    N. LaRacuente and F. Leditzky, Approximate unitaryk- designs from shallow, low-communication circuits, Com- mun. Math. Phys.407, 51 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Knill, D

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, Randomized benchmarking of quan- tum gates, Phys. Rev. A77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The randomized measurement toolbox, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 9 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Zhou and S

    S. Zhou and S. Chen, Randomized measurements for multiparameter quantum metrology, PRX Quantum7, 010314 (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    2019

  52. [52]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling, Nature Physics15, 159 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  54. [54]

    Dupuis, M

    F. Dupuis, M. Berta, J. Wullschleger, and R. Renner, One-shot decoupling, Commun. Math. Phys.328, 251 (2014)

    2014

  55. [55]

    Quantum conditional entropies from convex trace functionals

    R. Rubboli, M. M. Goodarzi, and M. Tomamichel, Quan- tum conditional entropies from convex trace functionals (2026), arXiv:2410.21976 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Hayden, M

    P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, A. Winter, and J. Yard, A de- coupling approach to the quantum capacity, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.15, 7 (2008)

    2008

  57. [57]

    Hausladen, R

    P. Hausladen, R. Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmore- land, and W. K. Wootters, Classical information capacity of a quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A54, 1869 (1996)

    1996

  58. [58]

    Datta, M

    N. Datta, M. Mosonyi, M.-H. Hsieh, and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, A smooth entropy approach to quantum hy- pothesis testing and the classical capacity of quantum channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory59, 8014 (2013)

    2013

  59. [59]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, Quantum state discrimina- tion, Adv. Opt. Photon.1, 238 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    Schumacher and M

    B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Sending classi- cal information via noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A56, 131 (1997)

    1997

  61. [61]

    A. S. Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory44, 269 (1998)

    1998

  62. [62]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, A sharp continuity estimate for the von Neumann entropy, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 8127 (2007)

    2007

  63. [63]

    B´ eny and O

    C. B´ eny and O. Oreshkov, General conditions for approx- imate quantum error correction and near-optimal recov- ery channels, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 120501 (2010)

    2010

  64. [64]

    Tomamichel, R

    M. Tomamichel, R. Colbeck, and R. Renner, A fully quantum asymptotic equipartition property, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 5840 (2009)

    2009

  65. [65]

    C. Lupo, M. M. Wilde, and S. Lloyd, Quantum data hid- ing in the presence of noise, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory62, 3745 (2016)

    2016

  66. [66]

    Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol

    M. Ledoux,The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 89 (Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 2001)

    2001

  67. [67]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave func- tion renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  68. [68]

    Tomamichel, M

    M. Tomamichel, M. Berta, and M. Hayashi, Relating dif- ferent quantum generalizations of the conditional R´ enyi entropy, J. Math. Phys.55, 082206 (2014)

    2014

  69. [69]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris,Representation Theory: A First Course(Springer, New York, NY, 2004)

    2004

  70. [70]

    J. J. Wallman and S. T. Flammia, Randomized bench- marking with confidence, New J. Phys.16, 103032 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Dall’Arno, G

    M. Dall’Arno, G. M. D’Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi, Infor- mational power of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062304 (2011). Appendix A: Preliminaries

    2011

  72. [72]

    We denote the Hilbert space asH, the set of the states on HasD(H), the set of the general matrices onHasM(H)

    Basic notations and quantities Let us start with the basic notations used in this work. We denote the Hilbert space asH, the set of the states on HasD(H), the set of the general matrices onHasM(H). The qubit Hilbert space is denoted withH 2 with basis {∣0⟩,∣1⟩}. The Hilbert space of then-qubit system isH⊗n 2 . The Hilbert spaceH SE of the combined systemS...

  73. [73]

    The twirling operation is defined over an ensemble of quantum unitary operations,S

    Random operations and states, twirling, and design In this part, we introduce the concept of twirling and the design associated with random unitary operations. The twirling operation is defined over an ensemble of quantum unitary operations,S. We consider the followingt-th order twirling operation overS: Φt S(O)=E U∼SU⊗tOU †⊗t.(A17) whereUis drawn from th...

  74. [74]

    We first present a more general theorem than that in the main text as follows

    Bounds of average pairwise distance Below, we show that the decoupling approach can provide both the upper bounds and lower bounds for the average pairwise distance,E ψ1∈S1,ψ2∈S2∥N(ψ1)−N(ψ2)∥1. We first present a more general theorem than that in the main text as follows. Then we give the proof. Theorem 4.Suppose state setS i can be generated by unitary e...

  75. [75]

    That is,S i ={p i, ψi}={p(U), U∣0n⟩⟨0n∣U†}whereU={p(U), U}is a unitary 2-design

    Average pairwise distance of two-design ensembles Here, we prove Theorem 3 where the two sets are invariant under the action of the same unitary 2-design ensemble. That is,S i ={p i, ψi}={p(U), U∣0n⟩⟨0n∣U†}whereU={p(U), U}is a unitary 2-design. Obviously, in this case,S i is a state 2-design. Also, note thatU W is always a unitary 2-design for arbitrary u...

  76. [76]

    One can view the sending stateρ x =N(ψ x)as the original noiseless stateψ x passing through the noise channelN

    Relation between mutual information and average pairwise distance We first discuss the case where Alice uses a noisy state ensembleE={p x, ρx}to encode the classical message X, sends one of the states to Bob, and Bob measuresρ X with a POVMF={F y}to get a measurement outcome. One can view the sending stateρ x =N(ψ x)as the original noiseless stateψ x pass...

  77. [77]

    Accessible information of noisy 2-design Below, we use the average pairwise distance of a noisy 2-design ensemble to provide upper bounds for its accessible information or information power. As mentioned before, when using the noisy 2-design to encode classical information, the upper bound of the accessible information can be given by I(X∶Y(N))≤1 2 Nlog(d...

  78. [78]

    Recall that the probability of Bob getting outcomeygiven Alice sentxisP(y∣x)=tr(F yN(ρ x))

    Upper bound of mutual information for noisy two-design POVM In this part, we present another way to upper bound the mutual information given the input state or measurement forming a noisy state 2-design, while the other side can be chosen freely. Recall that the probability of Bob getting outcomeygiven Alice sentxisP(y∣x)=tr(F yN(ρ x)). The mutual informa...

  79. [79]

    She prepares ann-qubit stateρ X to encodeX, and she sendsNcopies ofρ X to Bob

    Alice selects a classical random variableX, which equalsxwith probability distributionp X(x). She prepares ann-qubit stateρ X to encodeX, and she sendsNcopies ofρ X to Bob. Here, we require that any stateρ x can be transformed into the same stateρby a unitary operation,ρ x =U xρU † x, whereU x can be chosen freely

  80. [80]

    The elements satisfyF y ≥0,F † y =F y, and ∑y Fy =I

    For each copy ofρ X, Bob individually performs the POVMF={F y}on the received state to obtain measurement results. The elements satisfyF y ≥0,F † y =F y, and ∑y Fy =I. The group of all measurement outcomes is denoted asY=Y (N) =(Y 1, Y2,⋯, YN)whereY i is thei-th measurement outcome

Showing first 80 references.