Question: Unambiguous discrimination between two non-orthogonal states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unambiguous discrimination between two non-orthogonal polarization states of photon pulses emitted by a VCSEL laser, particularly focusing on the upper bound of the probability of obtaining a conclusive result when measuring N photon pulses. The scope includes theoretical aspects of quantum measurement and its implications in quantum key distribution protocols.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario involving a VCSEL laser emitting photon pulses with a Poisson distribution and seeks to measure polarization states using generalized POVM measurements.
  • Another participant questions how VCSEL lasers can emit light at two specific polarizations and notes the challenges in specifying photon numbers when they are not fixed.
  • A participant suggests focusing on fixed N and emphasizes the probability of unambiguous measurement, referencing a specific paper on the topic.
  • Another participant reiterates the need to generalize the findings from single photon pulses to N photon pulses while providing a link to a non-paywalled version of the referenced paper.
  • A later reply introduces the context of the B92 quantum key distribution protocol, highlighting the security implications of multiple photon emissions and the necessity of understanding the probability of unambiguous discrimination for N photon pulses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the specifics of the VCSEL laser's operation and the implications of photon number variability. There is no consensus on how to generalize the single photon case to N photon pulses, indicating ongoing uncertainty and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of the connection between the VCSEL laser and the theoretical framework discussed, as well as the complexities introduced by varying photon numbers in measurements.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum measurement theory, quantum key distribution protocols, and the operational characteristics of VCSEL lasers in quantum applications.

PabloArteaga
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I want to know the upper bound for unambiguous discrimination probability between two non-orthogonal states in the particular case of two possible states of N photons with a particular state of polarization each one.
Consider a VCSEL laser that emits photon pulses with Poisson distribution for the number of photons per pulse. The power of the VCSEL has been set low so the mean photon number "u" is u<1. Consider this photon pulses can take two non-orthogonal states of polarization (for example: state 0 with 45º inear polarization and state 1 with 90º linear polarization) with equal probablility. I know the two possible states and its probabilities, but I don't know the state of polarization of each pulse, and I want to measure with generalized POVM measurements to unambiguously discriminate betweeen the two possible states. I know there are three possible results: 1, 0 or incoclusive result, and I want to know the upper bound of the probability of a conclusive result. I know this upper bound for the single photon pulses case, which depends on the two possible states of polarization. My doubt is: how can I obtain this upper bound for N photon pulses? Is it possible to generalize the sigle photon case for the N photon one?

Relevant information:
- I have very basic knowledge of quantum physics.

If you can help me with an answer or some bibliography I will be grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is more a question about VCSEL lasers: how do they emit light at 2 different specific polarizations?

Also: the photon characteristics are different when the photon number is not fixed (as in your example). You wouldn't be able to precisely specify N=1 versus N=2 for example. I assume you are familiar with Fock states (where photon number IS fixed)?
 
You can consider fixed N and that there are two possible polarization states, the question is more about the probability of the unambiguous measurement.

You can check "Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states", B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin. PHYSICAL REVIEW A, vol.54, no. 5, 1996. Where they consider the case for one photon pulses. What I want to know is how to generalize this for N photon pulses.
 
PabloArteaga said:
You can consider fixed N and that there are two possible polarization states, the question is more about the probability of the unambiguous measurement.

You can check "Unambiguous quantum measurement of nonorthogonal states", B. Huttner, A. Muller, J. D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin. PHYSICAL REVIEW A, vol.54, no. 5, 1996. Where they consider the case for one photon pulses. What I want to know is how to generalize this for N photon pulses.

I found a version of your citation which is not behind a paywall:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugo_Zbinden/publication/13375059_Unambiguous_quantum_measurement_of_nonorthogonal_states/links/0c960524a700289781000000.pdf

However, I don't exactly follow how it connects to your VCSEL laser, which I guess is supposed to yield the kind of states as described in the 1996 paper. Or perhaps that doesn't even matter to your question, you are just considering the problem in general.
 
The problem is a security problem in a B92 quantum key distribution protocol, in which you have this scenario. You can atenuate the laser signal in order to emit single photon pulses with high probability, but there is a little probability of multiple photon emision. An eavesdropper can use the multiphoton pulses to obtain information. To guarantee the security of the key, you must know the information an eavesdropper could have obtained. To do that you need to know the probability of unambiguous discrimination between polarization states for the N photon pulses, which is the doubt I have.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K