Quantum measurement operators with Poisson distribution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the adaptation of the Poisson distribution for defining quantum measurement operators, specifically exploring how to introduce an additional parameter to modify the distribution's shape while maintaining certain mathematical properties. The focus is on theoretical aspects related to quantum mechanics and probability distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a mathematical question about adapting the Poisson distribution to include an additional parameter, ##\mu##, to control the distribution's width while maintaining the property that the integral over the distribution equals one.
  • Another participant argues that adding a parameter would disqualify the distribution from being a Poisson distribution, suggesting the use of a two-parameter function like a beta function instead.
  • A participant describes a previously defined set of quantum measurement operators using the Poisson distribution and expresses a desire for more control over the shape of the probability distribution.
  • One participant proposes dividing the x-range into intervals to define probabilities, suggesting that this could satisfy the completeness condition for the measurement operators.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on how to define measurement operators using beta functions, referencing the completeness relation derived from the Poisson distribution.
  • A later reply attempts to clarify the definition of measurement operators using a beta function, but there is confusion regarding the proposed formulation and its implications for the completeness condition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of modifying the Poisson distribution and whether a beta function can adequately serve the purpose of defining measurement operators while satisfying the completeness condition. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the proposed approaches.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the proposed adaptations, including the dependence on specific definitions and the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in defining the measurement operators with the beta function.

Danny Boy
Messages
48
Reaction score
3
The following is a somewhat mathematical question, but I am interested in using the idea to define a set of quantum measurement operators defined as described in the answer to this post.

Question:
The Poisson Distribution ##Pr(M|\lambda)## is given by $$Pr(M|\lambda) = \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^M}{M!}~~~~M = 0,1,2...$$ with mean ##\lambda##. In addition, the distribution has the property that $$\int_{0}^{\infty} Pr(M|\lambda) d \lambda = 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(*)$$ as is proved in the post. I am interested in adapting this Poisson Distribution so that it can include an additional parameter (say ##\mu##) which determines the width of the distribution (much like the variance does for the normal distribution. Does anyone have any ideas of how this can be achieved while still maintaining that property ##(*)## holds?

Note I want to specifically work with the poisson distribution rather than the normal distribution due to how the shape of the poisson distribution at zero.

Thanks for your time and let me know if you have any queries.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It can't be done. If you add another parameter it is not a Poisson distribution. You need a 2-param function lke a beta function that starts at 0 and can be shaped by the parameters. There are some plots in this document
 
Thanks for your response. I have previously defined a set of quantum measurement operators by $$A_C = \sum _M \sqrt{Pr(M|C)} |M \rangle \langle M|~~~~~~~~~~~(*)$$ where ##Pr(M|C)## is the Poisson distribution $$Pr(M|C) = \frac{e^{-C}C^M}{M!}~~~~M = 0,1,2...$$ with mean ##C## and ##|M \rangle## are eigenstates of some observable and where there are finite members of ##\{ |M \rangle \}_M##. In order to be a suitable Kraus measurement operators I need the set of operators to satisfy the *completeness condition* $$\int_{C}A_C^{\dagger}A_C dC = I.$$

This is satisfied if I use the Poisson Distribution since $$
\int_0^\infty \mathrm{Pr}(M|C) \: \mathrm dC
= \int_0^\infty \frac{e^{-C}C^M}{M!} \mathrm dC
=1,
$$

The problem is that I want more control of the shape of the probability ##Pr(M|C)##, which is not allowed when using the standard Poisson Distribution. The Beta function as you proposed does allow freedom to manipulate the shape of the distribution but I am having difficulty seeing how we can define ##A_C## in the way above ##(*)## so that the completeness condition is satisified. Is it at all clear to you how this can be done in some way?
 
If you want discrete outcomes then one could divide the x-range into intervals ##i_n## and write ##P(x\in i_n) =B \int_n^{n+1}\beta(x;a,b)dx## from which your *completeness condition* follows if ##B^{-1}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\beta(x;a,b)dx ##
 
Thanks for your response but I'm not really following your reasoning as to how you would define the measurement operators ##A_C = \sum_{m}\sqrt{Pr(M|C)}|M \rangle \langle M|## using the Beta functions. In my scheme above using the Poisson distribution, I used the mean ##C## as the index for the measurement operators ##\{A_C\}_C## and then used the fact that ##\int_{0}^{\infty}Pr(M|C)dC = 1## to show that the *completenes relation* ##\int A_{C}A_{C}^{\dagger}dC = I## is satisfied.. Explicitly how are you proposing to define measurement operators with the Beta function?
 
@Mentz114
Is the idea you are referring to something like this:
Define $$A_{C} := \sum_{x}\sqrt{\text{Pr} (x|n)}|x \rangle \langle x |$$ where $$\text{Pr}(x|n) :=
\begin{align}
\begin{cases}\text{Pr}(x \in i_n) = \frac{\int_{n}^{n+1}\beta(x: \alpha, \beta)}{\int_{0}^{\infty}\beta(x:\alpha, \beta)}~~~~~~\text{if }x \in i_n\\ 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\text{if } x \notin i_n
\end{cases}
\end{align}$$

Hence ##\sum_n A_n^{\dagger}A_n = \sum_{x}\bigg[\sum_n \text{Pr(x|n)} \bigg]|x \rangle \langle x | = I##
 
Danny Boy said:
@Mentz114
Is the idea you are referring to something like this:

[]

Hence ##\sum_n A_n^{\dagger}A_n = \sum_{x}\bigg[\sum_n \text{Pr(x|n)} \bigg]|x \rangle \langle x | = I##
I don't know. I don't understand what you've written. I would write
<br /> \text{Pr}(i=n) = \frac{\int_{x_n}^{x_{n+1}}dx\beta(x: \alpha, \beta)}{\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\beta(x:\alpha, \beta)}<br />
where the ##x_n## are the boundaries of your your discrete regions. ##i## is a discrete random variable that depends on ##x## and the ##x_n##. It can betailored to suit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K