Quantum state targeting

We introduce a new primitive for quantum communication that we term "state targeting" wherein the goal is to pass a test for a target state even though the system upon which the test is performed is submitted prior to learning the target state's identity. Success in state targeting can be described as having some control over the outcome of the test. We show that increasing one's control above a minimum amount implies an unavoidable increase in the probability of failing the test. This is analogous to the unavoidable disturbance to a quantum state that results from gaining information about its identity, and can be shown to be a purely quantum effect. We provide some applications of the results to the security analysis of cryptographic tasks implemented between remote antagonistic parties. Although we focus on weak coin flipping, the results are significant for other two-party protocols, such as strong coin flipping, partially binding and concealing bit commitment, and bit escrow. Furthermore, the results have significance not only for the traditional notion of security in cryptography, that of restricting a cheater's ability to bias the outcome of the protocol, but also on a novel notion of security that arises only in the quantum context, that of cheat-sensitivity. Finally, our analysis of state targeting leads to some interesting secondary results, for instance, a generalization of Uhlmann's theorem and an operational interpretation of the fidelity between two mixed states

Contextual advantage for state discrimination

Finding quantitative aspects of quantum phenomena which cannot be explained by any classical model has foundational importance for understanding the boundary between classical and quantum theory. It also has practical significance for identifying information processing tasks for which those phenomena provide a quantum advantage. Using the framework of generalized noncontextuality as our notion of classicality, we find one such nonclassical feature within the phenomenology of quantum minimum error state discrimination. Namely, we identify quantitative limits on the success probability for minimum error state discrimination in any experiment described by a noncontextual ontological model. These constraints constitute noncontextuality inequalities that are violated by quantum theory, and this violation implies a quantum advantage for state discrimination relative to noncontextual models. Furthermore, our noncontextuality inequalities are robust to noise and are operationally formulated, so that any experimental violation of the inequalities is a witness of contextuality, independently of the validity of quantum theory. Along the way, we introduce new methods for analyzing noncontextuality scenarios, and demonstrate a tight connection between our minimum error state discrimination scenario and a Bell scenario.Comment: 18 pages, 9 figure

How to quantify coherence: Distinguishing speakable and unspeakable notions

Quantum coherence is a critical resource for many operational tasks. Understanding how to quantify and manipulate it also promises to have applications for a diverse set of problems in theoretical physics. For certain applications, however, one requires coherence between the eigenspaces of specific physical observables, such as energy, angular momentum, or photon number, and it makes a difference which eigenspaces appear in the superposition. For others, there is a preferred set of subspaces relative to which coherence is deemed a resource, but it is irrelevant which of the subspaces appear in the superposition. We term these two types of coherence unspeakable and speakable respectively. We argue that a useful approach to quantifying and characterizing unspeakable coherence is provided by the resource theory of asymmetry when the symmetry group is a group of translations, and we translate a number of prior results on asymmetry into the language of coherence. We also highlight some of the applications of this approach, for instance, in the context of quantum metrology, quantum speed limits, quantum thermodynamics, and NMR. The question of how best to treat speakable coherence as a resource is also considered. We review a popular approach in terms of operations that preserve the set of incoherent states, propose an alternative approach in terms of operations that are covariant under dephasing, and we outline the challenge of providing a physical justification for either approach. Finally, we note some mathematical connections that hold among the different approaches to quantifying coherence.Comment: A non-technical summary of the results and applications is provided in the first section. V5 close to the published version. Typos correcte

From statistical proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem to noise-robust noncontextuality inequalities

The Kochen-Specker theorem rules out models of quantum theory wherein projective measurements are assigned outcomes deterministically and independently of context. This notion of noncontextuality is not applicable to experimental measurements because these are never free of noise and thus never truly projective. For nonprojective measurements, therefore, one must drop the requirement that an outcome is assigned deterministically in the model and merely require that it is assigned a distribution over outcomes in a manner that is context-independent. By demanding context-independence in the representation of preparations as well, one obtains a generalized principle of noncontextuality that also supports a quantum no-go theorem. Several recent works have shown how to derive inequalities on experimental data which, if violated, demonstrate the impossibility of finding a generalized-noncontextual model of this data. That is, these inequalities do not presume quantum theory and, in particular, they make sense without requiring an operational analogue of the quantum notion of projectiveness. We here describe a technique for deriving such inequalities starting from arbitrary proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem. It extends significantly previous techniques that worked only for logical proofs, which are based on sets of projective measurements that fail to admit of any deterministic noncontextual assignment, to the case of statistical proofs, which are based on sets of projective measurements that do admit of some deterministic noncontextual assignments, but not enough to explain the quantum statistics.Comment: 14 pages, 4 figures, published versio