Optimal quantum detectors for unambiguous detection of mixed states

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 6, 2004, Pages

  Eldar, Yonina C ^a   Stojnic, Mihailo ^b   Hassibi, Babak ^b  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b California Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ERROR DETECTION; LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; MEASUREMENT THEORY; POLYNOMIALS; PROBABILITY; PROBLEM SOLVING; THEOREM PROVING; VECTORS;

DENSITY OPERATORS; QUANTUM CHANNELS; QUANTUM STATES; VECTOR SPACE OPTIMIZATION;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 4043144361     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062318     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. A. S. Holevo, J. Multivariate Anal. 3, 337 (1973).
2. C. W. Heistrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory (Academic, New York, 1976).
3. Y. C. Eldar, A. Megretski, and G. C. Verghese, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49, 1012 (2003).
4. M. Charbit, C. Bendjaballah, and C. W. Heistrom, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 35, 1131 (1989).
5. M. Osaki, M. Ban, and O. Hirota, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1691 (1996).
6. M. Ban, K. Kurokawa, R. Momose, and O. Hirota, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 1269 (1997).
7. Y. C. Eldar and C. D. Forney, Jr., IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47, 858 (2001).
8. Y. C. Eldar, A. Megretski, and G. C. Verghese, e-print quant-ph/0211111.
9. Y. C. Eldar, Phys. Rev. A 68, 052303 (2003).
10. H. P. Yuen, R. S. Kennedy, and M. Lax, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IT-21, 125 (1975).
11. I. D. Ivanovic, Phys. Lett. A 123, 257 (1987).
12. D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 126, 303 (1988).
13. A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A 128, 19 (1988).
14. G. Jaeger and A. Shimony, Phys. Lett. A 197, 83 (1995).
15. A. Peres and D. R. Terno, J. Phys. A 31, 7105 (1998).
16. A. Chefles, Phys. Lett. A 239, 339 (1998).
17. A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Lett. A 250, 223 (1998).
18. Y. C. Eldar, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49, 446 (2003).
19. Y. C. Eldar, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042309 (2003).
20. C. W. Zhang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Quo, Phys. Lett. A 261, 25 (1999).
21. J. Fiurášek and M. Ježek, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012321 (2003).
22. T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. A 68, 010301 (2003).
23. P. Raynal, N. Lutkenhaus, and S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022308 (2003).
24. A. Peres, Found. Phys. 20, 1441 (1990).
25. Y. C. Eldar and H. Bölcskei, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49, 993 (2003).
26. F. Alizadeh, Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1991 (unpublished).
27. F. Alizadeh, in Advances in Optimization and Parallel Computing, edited by P. Pardalos (North-Holland, Netherlands, 1992).
28. Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovski, Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994).
29. L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, SIAM Rev. 38, 40 (1996).
30. D. P. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming, 2nd ed. (Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 1999).
31. G. D. Forney, Jr., IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 37, 1241 (1991).
32. A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski, Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001).
33. i,1 ≤ i ≤ m}.
34. Interior point methods are iterative algorithms that terminate once a prespecified accuracy has been reached. A worst-case analysis of interior point methods shows that the effort required to solve a semidefinite program to a given accuracy grows no faster than a polynomial of the problem size. In practice, the algorithms behave much better than predicted by the worst-case analysis, and in fact in many cases the number of iterations is almost constant in the size of the problem.