Algorithmica

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 490–516

Random Measurement Bases, Quantum State Distinction and Applications to the Hidden Subgroup Problem

  • Jaikumar Radhakrishnan
  • Martin Rötteler
  • Pranab Sen
Article

Abstract

We show that measuring any two low rank quantum states in a random orthonormal basis gives, with high probability, two probability distributions having total variation distance at least a universal constant times the Frobenius distance between the two states. This implies that for any finite ensemble of quantum states there is a single POVM that distinguishes between every pair of states from the ensemble by at least a constant times their Frobenius distance; in fact, with high probability a random POVM, under a suitable definition of randomness, suffices. There are examples of ensembles with constant pairwise trace distance where a single POVM cannot distinguish pairs of states by much better than their Frobenius distance, including the important ensemble of coset states of hidden subgroups of the symmetric group (Moore et al., Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2005).

We next consider the random Fourier method for the hidden subgroup problem (HSP) which consists of Fourier sampling the coset state of the hidden subgroup using random orthonormal bases for the group representations. In cases where every representation of the group has polynomially bounded rank when averaged over the hidden subgroup, the random Fourier method gives a POVM for the HSP operating on one coset state at a time and using totally a polynomial number of coset states. In particular, we get such POVMs whenever the group and the hidden subgroup form a Gel’fand pair, e.g., Abelian, dihedral and Heisenberg groups. This gives a positive counterpart to earlier negative results about random Fourier sampling when the above rank is exponentially large (Grigni et al., Combinatorica 24(1):137–154, 2004), which happens for example in the HSP in the symmetric group.

Keywords

Random orthonormal measurement bases Ensemble quantum state distinction Hidden subgroup problem Frobenius distance Quantum Fourier transforms Gel’fand pairs Quantum algorithms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambainis, A., Emerson, J.: Quantum t-designs: t-wise independence in the quantum world. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 129–140 (2007). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701126
  2. 2.
    Arora, S., Kannan, R.: Learning mixtures of arbitrary Gaussians. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 247–257 (2001) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aharonov, D., Kitaev, A., Nisan, N.: Quantum circuits with mixed states. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 20–30 (1998) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacon, D., Childs, A., van Dam, W.: From optimal measurement to efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over semidirect product groups. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 469–478 (2005). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504083
  5. 5.
    Bacon, D., Childs, A., van Dam, W.: Optimal measurements for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2 (2006). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501044
  6. 6.
    Barnum, H., Knill, E.: Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity. J. Math. Phys. 43(5), 2097–2106 (2002). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004088 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ettinger, M., Høyer, P.: On quantum algorithms for noncommutative hidden subgroups. Adv. Appl. Math. 25, 239–251 (2000). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9807029 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ettinger, M., Høyer, P., Knill, E.: Hidden subgroup states are almost orthogonal. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9901034 (1999)
  9. 9.
    Feller, W.: Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. 2. Wiley, New York (1971) MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grigni, M., Schulman, L., Vazirani, M., Vazirani, U.: Quantum mechanical algorithms for the nonabelian hidden subgroup problem. Combinatorica 24(1), 137–154 (2004) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutoski, G., Watrous, J.: Quantum interactive proofs with competing provers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3404, pp. 605–616. Springer, Berlin (2005). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CC/0412102 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hallgren, S., Russell, A., Ta-Shma, A.: The hidden subgroup problem and quantum computation using group representations. SIAM J. Comput. 32(4), 916–934 (2003) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hausladen, P., Wootters, W.: A ‘pretty good’ measurement for distinguishing quantum states. J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2385–2390 (1994) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrow, A., Winter, A.: How many copies are needed for state discrimination? Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606131 (2006)
  15. 15.
    Jain, R.: Distinguishing sets of quantum states. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506205 (2005)
  16. 16.
    Kuperberg, G.: Numerical cubature using error-correcting codes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 44, 897–907 (2006). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0402047 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matoušek, J.: Lectures on Discrete Geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (2002) MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mehta, M.: Random Matrices. Academic Press, San Diego (2004) MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore, C., Russell, A.: For distinguishing conjugate hidden subgroups, the pretty good measurement is as good as it gets. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501177 (2005)
  20. 20.
    Moore, C., Rockmore, D., Russell, A., Schulman, L.: The power of basis selection in Fourier sampling: hidden subgroup problems in affine groups. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 1113–1122 (2004). Journal version in preparation, preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503095
  21. 21.
    Moore, C., Russell, A., Schulman, L.: The symmetric group defies strong Fourier sampling. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 479–488 (2005). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501056
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, M., Chuang, I.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000) MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Radhakrishnan, J., Rötteler, M., Sen, P.: On the power of random bases in Fourier sampling: hidden subgroup problem in the Heisenberg group. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3580, pp. 1399–1411. Springer, Berlin (2005). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503114 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sen, P.: Random measurement bases, quantum state distinction and applications to the hidden subgroup problem. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 274–287 (2006). Also preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512085
  25. 25.
    Serre, J.-P.: Linear Representations of Finite Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (1977) MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shiganov, I.: Refinement of the upper bound of the constant in the central limit theorem. J. Sov. Math. 35(3), 2545–2550 (1986) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shor, P.: Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26(5), 1484–1509 (1997) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsirelson, B.: Gaussian measures and Gaussian processes. Lecture 3 of course notes available at http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/Courses/Gaussian/syllabus.html (2005)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaikumar Radhakrishnan
    • 2
  • Martin Rötteler
    • 1
  • Pranab Sen
    • 2
  1. 1.NEC Laboratories America, Inc.PrincetonUSA
  2. 2.School of Technology and Computer ScienceTata Institute of Fundamental ResearchMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations