Skip to main content

Direct state measurements under state-preparation-and-measurement errors

Abstract

Direct state measurement (DSM) is a tomography method that allows for retrieving quantum states’ wave functions directly. However, a shortcoming of current studies on the DSM is that it does not provide access to noisy quantum systems. Here, we attempt to fill the gap by investigating the DSM measurement precision that undergoes the state-preparation-and-measurement (SPAM) errors. We manipulate a quantum controlled measurement framework with various configurations and compare the efficiency between them. Under such SPAM errors, the state to be measured lightly deviates from the true state, and the measurement error in the postselection process results in less accurate in the tomography. Our study could provide a reliable tool for SPAM errors tomography and contribute to understanding and resolving an urgent demand for current quantum technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Paris, M., Rehacek, J. (eds.): Quantum State Estimation. Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Helsen, J., Xue, X., Vandersypen, L.M.K., Wehner, S.: A new class of efficient randomized benchmarking protocols. npj Quantum Inf. 5(1), 71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0182-7

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frank, F., Unden, T., Zoller, J., Said, R.S., Calarco, T., Montangero, S., Naydenov, B., Jelezko, F.: Autonomous calibration of single spin qubit operations. npj Quantum Inf. 3(1), 48 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0049-8

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gheorghiu, A., Kapourniotis, T., Kashefi, E.: Verification of quantum computation: an overview of existing approaches. Theory Comput. Syst. 63(4), 715 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-018-9872-3

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Preskill, J.: Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schlosshauer, M.: Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson, C., van Enk, S.J.: Detecting correlated errors in state-preparation-and-measurement tomography. Phys. Rev. A 92, 042312 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042312

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kosaka, H., Inagaki, T., Rikitake, Y., Imamura, H., Mitsumori, Y., Edamatsu, K.: Spin state tomography of optically injected electrons in a semiconductor. Nature 457(7230), 702 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07729

    ADS  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Vanner, M.R., Hofer, J., Cole, G.D., Aspelmeyer, M.: Cooling-by-measurement and mechanical state tomography via pulsed optomechanics. Nat. Commun. 4(1), 2295 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3295

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu, D., Xin, T., Yu, N., Ji, Z., Chen, J., Long, G., Baugh, J., Peng, X., Zeng, B., Laflamme, R.: Tomography is necessary for universal entanglement detection with single-copy observables. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 230501 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.230501

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baldwin, C.H., Deutsch, I.H., Kalev, A.: Strictly-complete measurements for bounded-rank quantum-state tomography. Phys. Rev. A 93, 052105 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052105

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lundeen, J.S., Sutherland, B., Patel, A., Stewart, C., Bamber, C.: Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction. Nature 474(7350), 188 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lundeen, J.S., Bamber, C.: Procedure for direct measurement of general quantum states using weak measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 070402 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.070402

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shi, Z., Mirhosseini, M., Margiewicz, J., Malik, M., Rivera, F., Zhu, Z., Boyd, R.W.: Scan-free direct measurement of an extremely high-dimensional photonic state. Optica 2(4), 388 (2015)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mirhosseini, M., Magaña Loaiza, O..S., Hashemi Rafsanjani, S..M., Boyd, R.W.: Compressive direct measurement of the quantum wave function. Phys. Rev. Lett 113, 090402 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.090402

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Malik, M., Mirhosseini, M., Lavery, M.P.J., Leach, J., Padgett, M.J., Boyd, R.W.: Direct measurement of a 27-dimensional orbital-angular-momentum state vector. Nat. Commun. 5(1), 3115 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4115

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bolduc, E., Gariepy, G., Leach, J.: Direct measurement of large-scale quantum states via expectation values of non-Hermitian matrices. Nat. Commun. 7(1), 10439 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10439

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Knarr, S.H., Lum, D.J., Schneeloch, J., Howell, J.C.: Compressive direct imaging of a billion-dimensional optical phase space. Phys. Rev. A023854 98, 023854 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thekkadath, G.S., Giner, L., Chalich, Y., Horton, M.J., Banker, J., Lundeen, J.S.: Direct measurement of the density matrix of a quantum system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 120401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.120401

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Calderaro, L., Foletto, G., Dequal, D., Villoresi, P., Vallone, G.: Direct reconstruction of the quantum density matrix by strong measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 230501 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230501

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho, L.B.: Improving direct state measurements by using rebits in real enlarged Hilbert spaces. Phys. Lett. A 383(4), 289 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2018.10.047

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pan, W.W., Xu, X.Y., Kedem, Y., Wang, Q.Q., Chen, Z., Jan, M., Sun, K., Xu, J.S., Han, Y.J., Li, C.F., Guo, G.C.: Direct measurement of a nonlocal entangled quantum state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 150402 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.150402

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gross, J.A., Dangniam, N., Ferrie, C., Caves, C.M.: Novelty, efficacy, and significance of weak measurements for quantum tomography. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062133 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062133

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sainz, I., Klimov, A.B.: Error estimation in the direct state tomography. EPL (Europhysics Lett.) 116(1), 10002 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/116/10002

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pang, S., Alonso, J.R.G., Brun, T.A., Jordan, A.N.: Protecting weak measurements against systematic errors. Phys. Rev. A 94, 012329 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012329

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ho, L.B.: Systematic errors in direct state measurements with quantum controlled measurements. J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53(11), 115501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ab7881

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. von Neumann, J.: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New Princeton University Press, Princeton (2018)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Hofmann, H.F.: Sequential measurements of non-commuting observables with quantum controlled interactions. New J. Phys. 16(6), 063056 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063056

    ADS  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Ogawa, K., Yasuhiko, O., Kobayashi, H., Nakanishi, T., Tomita, A.: A framework for measuring weak values without weak interactions and its diagrammatic representation. New J. Phys. 21(4), 043013 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab0773

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shikano, Y., Hosoya, A.: Weak values with decoherence. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43(2), 025304 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/2/025304

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Weiss, T., Romero-Isart, O.: Quantum motional state tomography with nonquadratic potentials and neural networks. Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Palmieri, A.M., Kovlakov, E., Bianchi, F., Yudin, D., Straupe, S., Biamonte, J.D., Kulik, S.: Experimental neural network enhanced quantum tomography. npj Quantum Inf. 6(1), 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-0248-6

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vallone, G., Dequal, D.: Strong measurements give a better direct measurement of the quantum wave function. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 040502 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.040502

    ADS  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Maccone, L., Rusconi, C.C.: State estimation: a comparison between direct state measurement and tomography. Phys. Rev. A 89, 022122 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022122

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ho, L.B., Tuan, K.Q., Nguyen, H.Q.: tqix: A toolbox for quantum in X: X: quantum measurement, quantum tomography, quantum metrology, and others. Computer Phys. Commun. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107902

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mezzadri, F.: How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 54(5), 592 (2007)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Carvacho, G., Graffitti, F., D’Ambrosio, V., Hiesmayr, B.C., Sciarrino, F.: Experimental investigation on the geometry of GHZ states. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 13265 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13124-6

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Li, D.X., Zheng, T.Y., Shao, X.Q.: Adiabatic preparation of multipartite GHZ states via Rydberg ground-state blockade. Opt. Express 27(15), 20874 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.020874

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Paris, M.G.A.: Quantum estimation for quantum technology. Int. J. Quantum Inf. 07(supp01), 125 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749909004839

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Nielsen, M.A., Caves, C.M., Schumacher, B., Barnum, H.: Information-theoretic approach to quantum error correction and reversible measurement. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 277 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1998.0160

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Watanabe, Y., Sagawa, T., Ueda, M.: Optimal measurement on noisy quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 020401 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.020401

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yang, M., Xiao, Y., Liao, Y.W., Liu, Z.H., Xu, X.Y., Xu, J.S., Li, C.F., Guo, G.C.: Zonal reconstruction of photonic wavefunction via momentum weak measurement. Laser Photonics Rev. 14(5), 1900251 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.201900251

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20F20021 and the Vietnam National University under Grant Number QG.20.17. LBH would like to thank Shikano for pointing out Ref. [30].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Le Bin Ho.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

An example of noisy quantum state preparation

We provide an example for preparing the quantum state GHZ\(_3\) that contains noise. Consider a quantum circuit as shown in Fig. 7 (inset). Therein, three qubits \(q_0, q_1\), and \(q_2\) are prepared in the ground state, i.e., \(|000\rangle \). Applying a sequence of Hadamard (H) gate onto \(q_0\), control-NOT (CNOT) gate onto \(q_0, q_1\), and control-NOT gate onto \(q_0, q_2\), as shown in the inset figure, respectively, we obtain the output state as

$$\begin{aligned} |000\rangle \xrightarrow []{H} \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000\rangle +|100\rangle ) \xrightarrow []{CNOT} \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000\rangle +|110\rangle ) \xrightarrow []{CNOT} \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000\rangle +|111\rangle ), \end{aligned}$$
(A.1)

which is the GHZ\(_3\) state. We simulate this state in Fig. 7 (left) by using the IBM Qiskis package. It can be seen that the amplitudes of \(|000\rangle \) and \(|111\rangle \) are the same and equal to \(1/\sqrt{2}\).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Inset: Quantum circuit for generating GHZ\(_3\) state. Initially, three qubits \(q_0, q_1\), and \(q_2\) are prepared in the ground state, i.e., \(|000\rangle \). Quantum Hadamard gate and Control-NOT gates are applied to transform the initial state to the desired state. See detailed in Appendix A. Left: the amplitudes of the components in the GHZ\(_3\) state after applying H and CNOT gates onto the initial state \(|000\rangle \). Right: the amplitudes of the components in the GHZ\(_3\) state under the imperfection of the Hadamard gate. These amplitudes are lightly deviated from the true values in the left figure

Now, let us assume the imperfection in the Hadamard gate as follows. We first decompose the Hadamard gate into the two rotations: \(\pi /2\) about the Y-axis, and \(\pi \) about the Z-axis, such that

$$\begin{aligned} -iH = \begin{pmatrix} \cos (\pi /4) &{} -\sin (\pi /4) \\ \sin (\pi /4)&{}\cos (\pi /4) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} e^{-i\pi /2} &{} 0 \\ 0 &{} e^{i\pi /2} \end{pmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$
(A.2)

where the rotation matrices are given as

$$\begin{aligned} R_y(\theta ) = \begin{pmatrix} \cos (\theta /2) &{} -\sin (\theta /2) \\ \sin (\theta /2)&{}\cos (\theta /2) \end{pmatrix} \;, R_z(\theta ) = \begin{pmatrix} e^{-i\theta /2} &{} 0 \\ 0 &{} e^{i\theta /2} \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(A.3)

Under the imperfection, assume that the rotation angles will deviate from their true values, such as \(\pi /2 + \alpha \), and \(\pi + \beta \), where \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) are small angles. Without loss of generality, we can choose \(\beta = 0\) since the operation of \(R_z(\theta )\) does not affect the amplitudes of the quantum state. As a result, the Hadamard gate becomes

$$\begin{aligned} -iH' = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} \cos (\frac{\alpha }{2})-\sin (\frac{\alpha }{2}) &{} \cos (\frac{\alpha }{2})+\sin (\frac{\alpha }{2})\\ \cos (\frac{\alpha }{2})+\sin (\frac{\alpha }{2})&{} -[\cos (\frac{\alpha }{2})-\sin (\frac{\alpha }{2})] \end{pmatrix} = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} a &{} b \\ b &{} -a \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(A.4)

Therefore, the final state becomes

$$\begin{aligned} \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a|000\rangle +b|111\rangle ), \end{aligned}$$
(A.5)

which slightly different from the true GHZ\(_3\) state. Here, \(\frac{1}{2}(|a|^2 + |b|^2) = 1\). This is an example of a noisy state-preparation process. In Fig. 7 (right), we simulate the GHZ\(_3\) state assuming that the Hadamard gate is under the imperfection at \(\alpha = 0.2\) as an example. Under this noisy state-preparation, the two components \(|000\rangle \) and \(|111\rangle \) are deviated from \(1/\sqrt{2}\). In general, all the components will be deviated from their values as we have modeled from Eq. 3 in the main text.

Quantum controlled measurements for pure states

In this appendix, we closely follow the quantum controlled measurement framework introduced by Ogawa et al. [29] for pure states, and we derive it under the noise using our denotation to make the work self-consistency.

We consider the initial joint state of the target system and the control qubit probe as \(|\varPsi \rangle = |\psi '\rangle \otimes |\xi \rangle \), where

$$\begin{aligned}&|\psi '\rangle = \dfrac{1}{{\mathcal {N}}}\sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \Bigl (\psi _n + \delta _n\Bigr )|n\rangle = \sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \psi '_n |n\rangle , \text { and } \end{aligned}$$
(B.1)
$$\begin{aligned}&|\xi \rangle \equiv |+\rangle = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl (|0\rangle + |1\rangle \Bigr ), \end{aligned}$$
(B.2)

where \(\mathcal {N}\) is the normalization factor, \(\psi '_n = \frac{\psi _n+\delta _n}{\mathcal {N}}\), and \(\delta _n = x_1 + ix_2\) is a complex random number, where \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) are random numbers that follow the normal distribution \(f(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }} \exp [-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{x}{\sigma })^2]\).

For C1

For C1, following Ogawa et al. [29], we consider the interaction as

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}_n = \bigl (\varvec{I}_\mathrm{s}-|n\rangle \langle n|\bigr ) \otimes |0\rangle \langle 0| + |n\rangle \langle n| \otimes |1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(B.3)

After the interaction, the joint state becomes

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}_n|\varPsi \rangle = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigl [ \sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\psi '_{m}|m\rangle - \psi '_n|n\rangle \Bigr ]\otimes |0\rangle +\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \psi '_n|n\rangle \otimes |1\rangle . \end{aligned}$$
(B.4)

We postselect the target system onto the conjugate basis

$$\begin{aligned} |\mathfrak {c}'_0\rangle = \frac{1}{\mathcal {M}}\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}(1+\kappa _m)|m\rangle = \sum _{m=0}^{d-1} \mathfrak {c}_m |m\rangle , \end{aligned}$$
(B.5)

where \(\mathcal {M}\) is the normalization factor, and \(\mathfrak {c}_m = \frac{1+\kappa _m}{\mathcal {M}}\). Here, \(\kappa _m\) is a real random number and distributes according to the normal distribution. The final control qubit state is given by

$$\begin{aligned} |\eta \rangle&= \bigl (\langle \mathfrak {c}'_0| \otimes \varvec{I}_\mathrm{p}\bigr ) \varvec{U}_n|\varPsi \rangle \nonumber \\&=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl [ \big (\varGamma - \mathfrak {c}_n\psi '_n\big )|0\rangle +\mathfrak {c}_n\psi '_n|1\rangle \Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.6)

where \(\varGamma = \sum _{m=0}^{d-1} \mathfrak {c}_{m}\psi '_{m}\).

Finally, we measure the control qubit probe in the Pauli basis \(|j\rangle \in \{ |0\rangle , |1\rangle , |+\rangle , |-\rangle , |L\rangle , |R\rangle \}\), where \(|\pm \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl (|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle \bigr ), |L\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl (|0\rangle + i|1\rangle \bigr ), |R\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl (|0\rangle - i|1\rangle \bigr )\). The probability for measuring \(|j\rangle \langle j|\) is \(P_j = |\langle j|\eta \rangle |^2\) explicitly give

$$\begin{aligned}&P_0=\frac{1}{2} \Bigl [\varGamma ^2 - 2\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \, \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +\mathfrak {c}_n^2|\psi '_n|^2\Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.7)
$$\begin{aligned}&P_1=\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak {c}_n^2|\psi '_n|^2, \end{aligned}$$
(B.8)
$$\begin{aligned}&P_+=\frac{1}{4}\varGamma ^2, \end{aligned}$$
(B.9)
$$\begin{aligned}&P_-=\frac{1}{4} \Bigl [\varGamma ^2-4\varGamma \mathfrak {c}_n \, \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +4 \mathfrak {c}_n^2|\psi '_n|^2 \Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.10)
$$\begin{aligned}&P_L=\frac{1}{4} \Bigl [\varGamma ^2-2\varGamma \mathfrak {c}_n \, \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +2\varGamma \mathfrak {c}_n \, \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n + 2\mathfrak {c}_n^2|\psi '_n|^2 \Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.11)
$$\begin{aligned}&P_R=\frac{1}{4} \Bigl [\varGamma ^2-2\varGamma \mathfrak {c}_n \, \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n -2\varGamma \mathfrak {c}_n \, \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n + 2 \mathfrak {c}_n^2 |\psi '_n|^2 \Bigr ]. \end{aligned}$$
(B.12)

As a result, the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude \(\psi '_n\) are reproduced as

$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n=\frac{P_+-P_-+2P_1}{\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma }, \ \text{ and } \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n=\frac{P_L-P_R}{\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma }. \end{aligned}$$
(B.13)

For C2

For C2, the interaction is given by [29]

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}=(\varvec{I}_s-|\mathfrak {c}'_0\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_0|)\otimes |0\rangle \langle 0| +|\mathfrak {c}'_0\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_0|\otimes |1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(B.14)

The joint state after the interaction is given by

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}|\varPsi \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl [\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\psi '_{m}|m\rangle -\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\psi '_{m} \mathfrak {c}_{m}|\mathfrak {c}'_0\rangle \Bigr ] \otimes |0\rangle +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl [\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\psi '_{m} \mathfrak {c}_{m}|\mathfrak {c}'_0\rangle \Bigr ] \otimes |1\rangle . \end{aligned}$$
(B.15)

After the interaction, the target system is postselected onto \(|n\rangle \) while the remaining state of the control qubit probe is given as

$$\begin{aligned} |\eta \rangle =\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl [\big ( \psi '_n-\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \big )|0\rangle + \mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma |1\rangle \Big ]. \end{aligned}$$
(B.16)

Measuring the control qubit probe in the Pauli basis as above, we obtain

$$\begin{aligned} P_0&= \dfrac{1}{2}\Bigl [|\psi '_n|^2- 2\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +\mathfrak {c}_n^2\varGamma ^2\Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.17)
$$\begin{aligned} P_1&= \dfrac{1}{2}\mathfrak {c}_n^2\varGamma ^2, \end{aligned}$$
(B.18)
$$\begin{aligned} P_+&=\frac{1}{4}|\psi '_n|^2, \end{aligned}$$
(B.19)
$$\begin{aligned} P_-&= \dfrac{1}{4}\Bigl [|\psi '_n|^2-4 \mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +4 \mathfrak {c}_n^2\varGamma ^2\Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.20)
$$\begin{aligned} P_L&= \dfrac{1}{4}\Bigl [|\psi '_n|^2-2 \mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n +2\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n +2\mathfrak {c}_n^2\varGamma ^2\Bigr ], \end{aligned}$$
(B.21)
$$\begin{aligned} P_R&= \dfrac{1}{4}\Bigl [|\psi '_n|^2- 2\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n -2\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n +2\mathfrak {c}_n^2\varGamma ^2\Bigr ]. \end{aligned}$$
(B.22)

Then, we have

$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Re}\psi '_n=\frac{P_+-P_-+2P_1}{\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma },\ \text {and } \mathrm{Im}\psi '_n=\frac{P_L-P_R}{\mathfrak {c}_n\varGamma }. \end{aligned}$$
(B.23)

Quantum controlled measurements for mixed states

We consider the joint state \(\varLambda \) as following

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda = \rho '_0 \otimes |+\rangle \langle +|, \quad \text {with}\; \rho '_0 = \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1}\rho '_{nm}|n\rangle \langle m|. \end{aligned}$$
(C.1)

For C1

The interaction operator is given the same as above:

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}_n = \big (\varvec{I}_\mathrm{s} - |n\rangle \langle n|\big ) \otimes |0\rangle \langle 0 |+ |n\rangle \langle n|\otimes |1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(C.2)

After the interaction, the joint state evolves to

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ' = \varvec{U}_n\varLambda \varvec{U}_n^{\dag }\, , \end{aligned}$$
(C.3)

which is explicitly written as

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ' =&\Big [\rho '_0 -\Bigl (\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\rho '_{nm}|n\rangle \langle m|+c.c\Bigr )+\rho '_{nn}|n\rangle \langle n|\Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|0\rangle \langle 0|\nonumber \\&+ \Big [\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\rho '_{mn}|m\rangle \langle n|-\rho '_{nn}|n\rangle \langle n|\Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|0\rangle \langle 1|\nonumber \\&+ \Big [\sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\rho '_{nm}|n\rangle \langle m|-\rho '_{nn}|n\rangle \langle n|\Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|1\rangle \langle 0|\nonumber \\&+ \Big [\rho '_{nn}|n\rangle \langle n|\Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(C.4)

Here, c.c stands for ‘complex conjugate.’ After postselecting this state onto

$$\begin{aligned} |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k|&= \frac{1}{\mathcal {M}^2}\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} e^{i2\pi (m-n)k/d} (1+\kappa _{m})(1+\kappa _{n})|m\rangle \langle n|\nonumber \\&=\sum _{n,m = 0}^{d-1} e^{i2\pi (m-n)k/d} \mathfrak {c}_m\mathfrak {c}_n |m\rangle \langle n|\;, \end{aligned}$$
(C.5)

the final state of the control qubit probe becomes

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda '' = \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| \varLambda '|\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle = \begin{pmatrix} \varLambda _{00}''(n,k) &{} \varLambda _{01}''(n,k) \\ \varLambda _{10}''(n,k) &{} \varLambda _{11}''(n,k) \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(C.6)

Explicitly,

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{00}''(n,k)&= \frac{1}{2}\Big [\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}e^{i2\pi (m-n)k/d} \mathfrak {c}_{m} \mathfrak {c}_{n} -\Big (\sum _{m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}e^{i2\pi (m-n)k/d}\mathfrak {c}_{n} \mathfrak {c}_{m}+c.c\Big ) +\rho '_{nn} \mathfrak {c}_n^2 \Big ] \end{aligned}$$
(C.7)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{01}''(n,k)&= \frac{1}{2}\Big [ \sum _{m=0}^{d-1}\rho '_{mn}e^{i2\pi (n-m)k/d} \mathfrak {c}_n \mathfrak {c}_{m}-\rho '_{nn} \mathfrak {c}_n^2 \Big ] \end{aligned}$$
(C.8)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{10}''(n,k)&= [\varLambda _{01}''(n,k)]^* \end{aligned}$$
(C.9)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{11}''(n,k)&= \frac{1}{2}\rho '_{nn} \mathfrak {c}_n^2. \end{aligned}$$
(C.10)

Using Fourier transformation on \(\varLambda ''_{10}(n,k)\), we obtain

$$\begin{aligned} \rho '_{nm} \varpropto \frac{1}{\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m}} \Big [d\delta _{n,m} \varLambda ''_{11}(n,k)+\sum _{k=0}^{d-1}e^{i2\pi (n-m)k/d} \varLambda _{10}''(n,k) \Big ]. \end{aligned}$$
(C.11)

To get \(\varLambda _{10}''(n,k)\) and \(\varLambda ''_{11}(n,k)\), the control qubit is measured as follows:

$$\begin{aligned}&\varLambda ''_{10}(n,k)= & {} \frac{1}{2}\Big [(P_+ - P_-) + i(P_L-P_R) \Big ], \, \text {and} \end{aligned}$$
(C.12)
$$\begin{aligned}&\varLambda ''_{11}(n,k)= & {} P_1, \end{aligned}$$
(C.13)

where \(P_j = \mathrm{Tr}[|j\rangle \langle j|\varLambda '']\) is the probability when measuring the control qubit probe in the element j of the Pauli basis.

For C2

In this case, the interaction is

$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U} = \big ({\varvec{I}}_\mathrm{s} - |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k|\big ) \otimes |0\rangle \langle 0 |+ |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k|\otimes |1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(C.14)

After applying this interaction U, the initial joint state becomes

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ' = \varvec{U}\varLambda \varvec{U}^{\dag }, \end{aligned}$$
(C.15)

which is explicitly given as

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda '&= \Big [\rho '_{0} - \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi km/d}|n\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k | - |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n} e^{-i2\pi kn/d}\langle m| \nonumber \\&\quad + \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| \Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|0\rangle \langle 0|\nonumber \\&\quad + \Big [ \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi km/d}|n\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| - \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| \Big ] \otimes \frac{1}{2}|0\rangle \langle 1|\nonumber \\&\quad + \Big [|\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n} e^{-i2\pi kn/d}\langle m| - \sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| \Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|1\rangle \langle 0|\nonumber \\&\quad + \Big [\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} |\mathfrak {c}'_k\rangle \langle \mathfrak {c}'_k| \Big ]\otimes \frac{1}{2}|1\rangle \langle 1|. \end{aligned}$$
(C.16)

Next, we postselect this state onto \(|n\rangle \langle n|\) and get

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda '' = \langle n|\varLambda '|n\rangle = \begin{pmatrix} \varLambda _{00}''(n,k) &{} \varLambda _{01}''(n,k) \\ \varLambda _{10}''(n,k)&{} \varLambda _{11}''(n,k) \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(C.17)

Explicitly,

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{00}''(n,k)&= \frac{1}{2}\Big [ \rho '_{nn} - \Big (\sum _{m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{m}\mathfrak {c}_{n} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} + c.c.\Big ) + \Big (\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} \Big )\mathfrak {c}_{n}^{2}\Big ], \end{aligned}$$
(C.18)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{01}''(n,k)&=\frac{1}{2}\Big [ \Big (\sum _{m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{m}\mathfrak {c}_{n} e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} \Big ) - \Big (\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m}e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} \Big )\mathfrak {c}_{n}^{2}\Big ], \end{aligned}$$
(C.19)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{10}''(n,k)&= [\varLambda _{01}''(n,k)]^*, \end{aligned}$$
(C.20)
$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda _{11}''(n,k)&= \frac{1}{2} \Big [\sum _{n,m=0}^{d-1} \rho '_{nm}\mathfrak {c}_{n}\mathfrak {c}_{m}e^{i2\pi k(m-n)/d} \Big ]\mathfrak {c}_{n}^{2}. \end{aligned}$$
(C.21)

Using Fourier transformation on \(\varLambda _{01}''(n,k)\), we obtain:

$$\begin{aligned} \rho '_{nm} \varpropto \frac{1}{\mathfrak {c}_{m}\mathfrak {c}_{n}} \Big [ \sum _{k=0}^{d-1} e^{i2\pi k(n-m)/d} \Big (\varLambda ''_{01}(n,k) + \varLambda ''_{11}(n,k) \Big ) \Big ], \end{aligned}$$
(C.22)

where \(\varLambda _{01}''(n,k)\) is obtained by measuring the control qubit probe as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \varLambda ''_{01}(n,k) = \frac{1}{2}\Big [(P_+ - P_-) - i(P_L-P_R) \Big ]. \end{aligned}$$
(C.23)

Quantum fisher information

In this section, we show how to calculate the total quantum Fisher information (QFI) for \(|\psi '\rangle \) state:

$$\begin{aligned} |\psi '\rangle = \dfrac{1}{\mathcal {N}} \sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \bigl (\psi _n + \delta _n\bigr ) |n\rangle , \end{aligned}$$
(D.1)

where \(\psi _n\) is unknown. The normalization constant is

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {N}^2 = \sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \Bigl (\psi _n + \delta _n\Bigr )^2. \end{aligned}$$
(D.2)

Here, note that we consider both \(\psi _n\) and \(\delta _n\) are real for simplicity. First, we calculate \(\partial _{\psi _n}|\psi '\rangle \), where we are using \(\partial _{\psi _n}\) as shorthand for \(\partial /\partial {\psi _n}\). We have

$$\begin{aligned} \partial _{\psi _n}|\psi '\rangle&= \dfrac{\partial }{\partial {\psi _n}} \Bigl (\dfrac{1}{{\mathcal {N}}}\Bigr ) \sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \bigl (\psi _n + \delta _n\bigr ) |n\rangle + \dfrac{1}{{\mathcal {N}}} \dfrac{\partial }{\partial {\psi _n}} \Bigl (\sum _{n=0}^{d-1} \bigl (\psi _n + \delta _n\bigr ) |n\rangle \Bigr )\nonumber \\&= -\dfrac{\psi _n+\delta _n}{{\mathcal {N}}^2} |\psi '\rangle + \dfrac{1}{{\mathcal {N}}} |n\rangle . \end{aligned}$$
(D.3)

The Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) is given by

$$\begin{aligned} Q'_n&= 4 \Bigl [\dfrac{\langle \partial \psi '|}{\partial _{\psi _n}} \dfrac{|\partial \psi '\rangle }{\partial _{\psi _n}} -\Bigl |\dfrac{\langle \partial \psi '|}{\partial _{\psi _n}}|\psi '\rangle \Bigr |^2\Bigr ],\nonumber \\&= \dfrac{4}{{\mathcal {N}}^2} \Bigl [ 1 - \dfrac{(\psi _n+\delta _n)^2}{{\mathcal {N}}^2} \Bigr ]. \end{aligned}$$
(D.4)

Then, the total QFI is

$$\begin{aligned} Q' = \sum _{n=0}^{d-1}Q'_n = \dfrac{4}{{\mathcal {N}}^2} (d-1). \end{aligned}$$
(D.5)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuan, K.Q., Nguyen, H.Q. & Ho, L.B. Direct state measurements under state-preparation-and-measurement errors. Quantum Inf Process 20, 197 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-021-03144-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-021-03144-7

Keywords

  • Quantum state tomography
  • Direct state measurement
  • Quantum controlled measurement