Generalized State Discrimination for Tunable Quantum Key Distribution

Animesh Banik; Md. Shihab Khan; Quazi Muhammad Rashed Nizam; Rafid Masrur Khan; Syed Emad Uddin Shubha

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Generalized State Discrimination for Tunable Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a one-parameter family of tilted measurements, interpolating between unambiguous and minimum-error state discrimination, can be tuned to yield a composable secure key rate 16% above standard B92 for the same signal sta

desk verdict Tunable POVM idea is real but the security analysis post-selects without proof, so the 16% gain is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.06488 v2 pith:AGJKQ45A submitted 2025-11-09 quant-ph

Animesh Banik , Md. Shihab Khan , Rafid Masrur Khan , Syed Emad Uddin Shubha , Quazi Muhammad Rashed Nizam This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P9481P15 PACS 03.67.Dd03.65.Ta

keywords quantumkeydistributionB92protocolgeneralizedstatediscriminationPOVMtiltingangleentropicuncertaintyrelationcomposablesecurityfinite-keyanalysis

topics The Measurement Problem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that quantum state discrimination need not be a fixed operation: it introduces a one-parameter family of POVMs, indexed by a tilting angle φ, that continuously interpolates between unambiguous discrimination (zero error, many inconclusive results) and minimum-error discrimination (no inconclusive results, some errors). Embedding this tunable measurement into the two-state B92 QKD protocol yields a protocol the authors call phiQKD. For the standard signal pair |0⟩ and |+⟩, they claim a composable secure key rate of 0.181958 bits per signal, about 16% higher than the 0.156862 rate of standard B92 under the same finite-size parameters, with a lower quantum bit error rate and higher sifting efficiency. The broader claim is that treating measurement as a tunable design parameter enables protocols that adapt to noise and channel imperfections. The quantitative gain is modest; the paper's stated contribution is the framework and its adaptability.

What carries the argument

The GSD POVM. Given signal states |ψ1⟩,|ψ2⟩ with |⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩|=cosθ, one tilts them to |ψ'1⟩,|ψ'2⟩ whose overlap is cos(θ+2φ), and defines Π'_1 = |ψ'⊥2⟩⟨ψ'⊥2|/(1+cos(θ+2φ)), Π'_2 analogously, and Π'_0 = 2cos(θ+2φ)|γ'⟩⟨γ'|/(1+cos(θ+2φ)) with |γ'⟩ the normalized sum of the tilted states. This yields the probabilities Ps(φ)=sin²(θ+φ)/(1+|cos(θ+2φ)|), Pe(φ)=sin²φ/(1+|cos(θ+2φ)|), and Pq(φ) via eq. (10). The machinery converts the discrimination problem into a one-parameter trade-off, and the QKD analysis then uses the sifting efficiency η=Ps+Pe, QBER Q=Pe/η, the entropic uncertainty relation H_min(X|E)≥log₂(1/c)-H_max(X|Y) with c=|⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩|², and finite-size Hoeffding corrections to produce composabl

What would settle it

Take the actual three-outcome GSD POVM for θ=π/4, N=10^6 signals, n=10^5 parameter-estimation samples, and compute a direct upper bound on Eve's information (e.g., via a numerical collective-attack optimization over the post-selected states). If the resulting composable key rate is below 0.181958, or if the formula yields a rate above 1 bit per signal for any θ<π/2, the central claim collapses. Simpler: check whether the smooth min-entropy H_min(X|E) after conditioning on conclusive outcomes is actually ≥ log₂(1/c) - H(Q_worst) with c=1/2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a closed-form family of generalized state discrimination measurements. For two equiprobable pure states with overlap angle θ, the authors construct tilted measurement bases by rotating the states apart by φ, then applying the unambiguous-discrimination construction to the tilted states. This yields analytic expressions for the probabilities of correct, incorrect, and inconclusive outcomes (Eqs. 5, 6, 10). When used in place of the standard IDP measurement in the B92 protocol, the tilt angle becomes a tunable parameter. For |0⟩ and |+⟩ (θ=π/4), optimizing φ for the composable finite-key security model gives Ps=0.359635, Pe=0.003422, Pq=0.636946, a sifting efficiency η

Load-bearing premise

The entire key-rate improvement rests on the unproven step that after Bob discards inconclusive outcomes, Eve's information is still governed by the entropic uncertainty relation with c=|⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩|² and Bob's error by the Shannon entropy of the conclusive-branch QBER; the paper asserts this mapping rather than deriving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the security bound holds, phiQKD's optimal operating point improves the composable secure key rate by ~16% over standard B92 for the |0⟩,|+⟩ signal pair, while cutting the QBER and raising sifting efficiency from 29.3% to ~36.3%.
For overlap angles θ ≳ 0.94 rad, phiQKD dominates B92 for every tilt angle in the allowed range, and it yields positive keys in some low-overlap regimes where B92 cannot.
The closed-form probability formulas let a QKD implementation choose φ on the fly from channel-noise estimates, enabling adaptive measurement rather than a fixed one.
The same GSD measurement interpolates between USD and MED for any pair of non-orthogonal pure states, so the framework transfers to other two-state information-processing tasks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the EUR-based security proof can be made rigorous for the three-outcome post-selected measurement, the tunable-POVM idea likely extends to biased two-state protocols and could yield a closed-form optimal tilt as a function of observed QBER; the paper does not derive that.
The paper's general-θ key-rate formula drives R_secure above 1 bit/signal as θ→π/2, which is impossible for a qubit protocol; that signals the security bound is too loose at high overlap, so the claimed coverage and improvement percentages for large θ should be treated with caution until a tighter analysis is done.
A natural experiment would implement the GSD POVM with an ancilla qubit and verify the predicted Ps, Pe, Pq histogram at φ≈0.074 rad; agreement would support the operational claims without settling the security-proof question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The headline result — a tunable POVM that interpolates between USD and MED, applied to B92 with a claimed 16% composable gain — is not yet established. The math inside the paper reproduces the quoted numbers, and the idea of tilting the discrimination basis is a reasonable thing to try. But the security analysis contains a load-bearing gap: the EUR bound is applied to a three-outcome measurement with inconclusive events discarded, and the paper never derives how that post-selection affects the min/max entropies or the overlap parameter c. That is exactly the kind of step that needs proof before you trust the key-rate lines. The fact that the same formula gives rates above 1 bit/signal as θ→π/2 is a symptom, not a harmless artifact.

What is good: the GSD POVM is given explicitly, the probability formulas (5), (6), (10) are correct in the stated regime, the completeness check works, and the asymptotic/finite/composable numbers are reproducible from the text. The Qiskit simulation is a nice sanity check for the probabilities. The paper is also honest in places — it notes that the asymptotic rate at ERP is negative and that low-θ cases do not yield positive keys. That is more transparent than many preprints.

The soft spots beyond the EUR gap: the tilted family is the same rank-1 interpolating family already characterized in the fixed-inconclusive-rate literature (refs [8,9]), and the paper neither states that overlap nor compares its (P_e,P_q) trade-off with the FRIO-optimal curve. So the 'new' measurement is a re-parameterization. The practical motivation — adaptability to noise — is asserted but never tested; there is no loss or channel model. And the mis-citation of B92 (ref [10] is Bennett-Wiesner, not B92) is sloppy.

Net: the θ=π/4 numbers are internally consistent, but because the EUR mapping is unproven, the central claim does not follow. The paper deserves a serious referee — it is not incoherent, and the GSD idea plus the explicit rate calculations are worth engaging with — but it needs a real fix, not a tune-up. I'd send it to review with a clear request to derive or fix the post-selection step, and to acknowledge the FRIO connection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a one-parameter family of positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs), called generalized state discrimination (GSD), that interpolates between unambiguous state discrimination (USD) and minimum-error discrimination (MED) via a tilting angle φ. The authors embed this POVM in a modified B92 protocol ('phiQKD') in which Bob uses the tunable measurement and discards inconclusive outcomes. They report asymptotic, finite-key, and composable key rates, and claim that for the signal pair |0⟩, |+⟩ the composable rate is 0.181958 bits/signal, about 16% above their corresponding B92 rate of 0.156862. They also study the optimal tilt angle and a 'coverage' measure as functions of the overlap angle θ. The algebraic POVM construction and the probability formulas (5), (6), (10) are internally consistent in the stated domain θ+2φ≤π/2, and the quoted numbers reproduce from those formulas. However, the advertised security result rests entirely on an asserted application of the entropic uncertainty relation to a post-selected three-outcome measurement, which is not derived and is shown to be problematic in the general-θ analysis.

Significance. If the security analysis were correct, phiQKD would be a useful engineering contribution: a tunable measurement family interpolating between USD and MED, with a modest but real composable key-rate improvement over B92 and a simple parameter for adapting to channel noise. The transparent probability algebra and the Qiskit simulation are positive aspects, and the paper correctly points out that measurement design can be treated as an optimization resource. The central quantitative claim, however, is not yet supported: the composable bound of Eq. (21) is invoked without a derivation for the post-selected branch, and the same bound produces physically impossible key rates for near-orthogonal signal states. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on a rigorous security proof for the GSD POVM with inconclusive outcomes discarded; that proof is the missing load-bearing element.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, Eq. (21)] The central inequality H_min(X|E) ≥ log2(1/c) − H_max(X|Y) is asserted for the three-outcome GSD POVM after discarding inconclusive outcomes. The entropic uncertainty relation is a statement about a measurement record on every signal, whereas here the raw key is defined only on the conclusive branch. The relation between the post-selected min/max entropies and the overlap parameter c is not derived. This is the only security argument behind the asymptotic 0.310, finite 0.188, and composable 0.182 rates, and therefore behind the claimed 16% improvement. Without a derivation, the central claim is not established.
[§5.2, Figs. 11–13] The same bound, with c=|⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩|²=cos²θ, gives log2(1/c)→∞ as θ→π/2. This yields secure key rates above 1 bit/signal, e.g. the difference 0.781 at θ=1.341750 rad in Fig. 12. A qubit protocol can generate at most one bit per signal, and in the limit θ→π/2 the two signal states are orthogonal, so Eve can perfectly distinguish them and the protocol is insecure. Thus the c-identification / EUR mapping is not merely unproved; it is false in the general-θ setting. A revised security proof must eliminate these unphysical rates.
[§5.1, Eq. (21)] The key-length inequality direction is reversed. A composable lower bound on achievable key length should read ℓ ≥ RHS, but Eq. (21) is written as ℓ ≤ RHS. The paper then compares 'R_secure ≤ 0.181958' with 'R_B92 ≤ 0.156862'. Two upper bounds do not demonstrate a guaranteed improvement. The intended meaning is clear, but the direction must be corrected and the comparison reformulated using lower bounds.

minor comments (5)

[References [10]] Reference [10] is cited for the B92 protocol, but the entry is Bennett and Wiesner's dense-coding paper (PRL 69, 2881 (1992)). The original B92 protocol is C. H. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992).
[Eq. (5)] In the displayed derivation of P_s, the second term is written with ⟨ψ1|ψ'⊥_2⟩⟨ψ'⊥_2|ψ1⟩, repeating the first term; the second term should involve ψ2 and ψ'⊥_1. The final closed form is correct, but the intermediate line is confusing.
[§3.2 vs §5] The Helstrom/MED tilt angle is inconsistent: §3.2 uses φ_MED=π/4−θ/2 (π/8 for θ=π/4), while §5 defines φ_H=π/2−θ/2 (3π/8 for θ=π/4). The GSD range in Figs. 4 and 7 uses the former; please reconcile the definitions.
[§5.1, Eq. (17)] The text says 'we consider sampling without replacement for the Hoeffding bound,' but Eq. (17) is the with-replacement Hoeffding bound. If the Serfling bound is intended, it should be stated explicitly, since the finite-key numbers depend on δ.
[General] Typos and notation: 'nsif ted', 'qubis', 'Covereage' in §5.2; the variable q=log2(1/c) is defined in §5.1 but never used; 'IDP' is used interchangeably with USD. These points are cosmetic but should be cleaned in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed rates are computed consequences of the stated POVM model and standard security formulas, not retrofitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The GSD probabilities Ps, Pe, Pq (Eqs. 5, 6, 10) are derived from the explicitly constructed tilted POVM elements in Eq. (4), using the geometry of the signal states and the tilting angle phi. The asymptotic, finite-key, and composable rates (Eqs. 15, 19, 21) are then evaluated by substituting these probabilities into standard Devetak-Winter and entropic-uncertainty formulas, with c = |<psi1|psi2>|^2 = 0.5 fixed by the chosen states |0> and |+>. The reported improvement over B92 is an arithmetic consequence of the same security formula applied to phiQKD and to B92 (with Q=0 and eta=0.292893); the optimal angle phi is chosen by maximizing the resulting model rate, not by fitting the final number. The paper contains no self-citations used as load-bearing evidence, and the comparison to B92 does not rely on any prior result by the authors. The main caveat—whether post-selecting on conclusive outcomes preserves the EUR bound and the interpretation of H(X|Y) as H(Q)—is a substantive correctness or security-modeling concern, but it is not circular: the claim does not assume the conclusion it purports to derive. Thus no step reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing input is the EUR-to-GSD mapping (axiom 4) plus the noiseless-channel assumption; the free parameters are the per-regime optimal tilts and the standardly chosen f, ε, N, n. The probability formulas themselves require only standard POVM math, which I verified to be internally consistent. No invented entities.

free parameters (5)

Tilting angle φ_OPT (asymptotic) = 0.050389 rad
Numerically maximized R∞(φ) over the GSD family (§4).
Tilting angle φ_OPT (finite-key) = 0.083261 rad
Maximizes the finite-key rate (§5.1).
Tilting angle φ_OPT (composable) = 0.073953 rad
Maximizes the composable key length; the headline 16% is quoted at this tilt (§5.1).
Error-correction efficiency f = 1.15
Chosen 'as standard'; enters leak_EC and hence the composable rate of both phiQKD and B92.
Sample size n and total signals N = n=10^5, N=10^6
Chosen; sets δ=0.010890 via Hoeffding and the 'remaining bits' (n_sifted−n); changing them changes the 16% figure.

assumptions (6)

standard math Born rule and POVM formalism of quantum mechanics
Underpins the probability calculations in §3.1 (Eqs. 5–10).
domain assumption Devetak–Winter bound R ≥ η(H(X|E) − H(X|Y))
Imported from ref [11] in §4; standard but unproved here.
domain assumption Entropic uncertainty relation with quantum memory (Berta et al.): H_min(X|E) ≥ log₂(1/c) − H_max(X|Y)
Imported from refs [12,13] in §4–§5.1; its hypotheses are not re-verified.
ad hoc to paper The EUR applies to the three-outcome GSD POVM with c=|⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩|² and H(X|Y)=H(Q_worst)
Assumed without derivation in §5.1; the EUR presumes a complementary-measurement structure on every signal while GSD discards inconclusive events. Weakest point of the analysis.
domain assumption Noiseless channel model
All computed QBER is the protocol's intrinsic P_e (plus estimation slack δ); no channel loss, dark counts, or misalignment appear despite the stated 'adaptability to noise' motivation.
domain assumption Composable security framework with ε_pe=ε_cor=ε_sec=10⁻¹⁰ and Hoeffding sampling bound
Imported from refs [13–16]; the per-branch security-parameter accounting in Eq. (21) is taken as given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized State Discrimination for Tunable Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGJKQ45A

@misc{pith2026251106488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized State Discrimination for Tunable Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGJKQ45A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.06488}
}

abstract

We introduce a tunable framework for generalized quantum state discrimination (GSD) and apply it to quantum key distribution (QKD) through a protocol we call phiQKD. Building upon the two-state B92 protocol, phiQKD replaces the traditional unambiguous state discrimination (USD) measurement with a one-parameter family of hybrid POVMs characterized by a tilting angle $\phi$. This allows for continuous control over the trade-off among correct, incorrect, and inconclusive outcomes. While offering improvement in key rate over B92, the primary practical advantage of phiQKD lies in its adaptability to noise and channel imperfections via measurement tunability. By evaluating the protocol under asymptotic, finite-key, and composable security models, we show that, treating quantum measurement as a tunable design parameter, rather than a fixed operation, enables flexible protocol optimization and improved performance under realistic constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06488 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Bloch Sphere representation of the basis for Helstrom method of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Bloch Sphere representation of the generalized approach to state discrimination: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Probabilities vs. Tilting Angle (ϕ): Correct detection probability (Ps) [Green], incorrect discrimination probability (Pe) [Red], and probability of inconclusive result (Pq) [Blue] vary smoothly and continuously in the discrimination range [IDP, MED]. 3.3 Special Cases…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Quantum circuit in Qiskit for implementing generalised state discrimination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Histogram of 100,000,000 shots. The bars 00, 01, 10 respectively correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Plot showing the estimated asymptotic key rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Expected asymptotic, finite and composable secure key rates for phiQKD and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Coverage i.e. the percentage range of values of the tiling angle for which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Optimal tilting angle, ϕOP T (The tilting angle for which the highest composable secure key rate is found in phiQKD) as a function of the overlap angle Θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Highest positive composable secure key rates for phiQKD and B92 protocols [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Difference between the highest possible composable secure key rates between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Improvement (%) in the highest composable secure key rate in the phiQKD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[10]

In:Physical review letters69.20 (1992), p

Charles H Bennett and Stephen J Wiesner.Communication via one-and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. In:Physical review letters69.20 (1992), p. 2881

1992
[1]

In:Contemporary Physics41.6 (2000), pp

Anthony Chefles.Quantum state discrimination. In:Contemporary Physics41.6 (2000), pp. 401–424

2000
[2]

In:Quantum state estimation(2004), pp

J´ anos A Bergou, Ulrike Herzog, and Mark Hillery.11 discrimination of quantum states. In:Quantum state estimation(2004), pp. 417–465

2004
[3]

Wootters and Wojciech H

William K. Wootters and Wojciech H. Zurek.A single quantum cannot be cloned. In:Nature299 (1982), pp. 802–803

1982
[4]

In:Journal of Statistical Physics1 (1969), pp

Carl W Helstrom.Quantum detection and estimation theory. In:Journal of Statistical Physics1 (1969), pp. 231–252

1969
[5]

In:Physics Letters A123.6 (1987), pp

Igor D Ivanovic.How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. In:Physics Letters A123.6 (1987), pp. 257–259

1987
[6]

In:Physics Letters A126.5-6 (1988), pp

Dennis Dieks.Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states. In:Physics Letters A126.5-6 (1988), pp. 303–306

1988
[7]

In:Physics Letters A128.1-2 (1988), p

Asher Peres.How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. In:Physics Letters A128.1-2 (1988), p. 19

1988

Show all 20 references

[8]

In: Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86.3 (2012), p

Ulrike Herzog.Optimal state discrimination with a fixed rate of inconclusive results: Analytical solutions and relation to state discrimination with a fixed error rate. In: Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86.3 (2012), p. 032314

2012
[9]

In:Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86.4 (2012), p

E Bagan et al.Optimal discrimination of quantum states with a fixed rate of inconclusive outcomes. In:Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86.4 (2012), p. 040303. 22

2012
[11]

In:Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences461.2053 (2005), pp

Igor Devetak and Andreas Winter.Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states. In:Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences461.2053 (2005), pp. 207–235
[12]

In:Nature Physics6.9 (2010), pp

Mario Berta et al.The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory. In:Nature Physics6.9 (2010), pp. 659–662

2010
[13]

In:International Journal of Quantum Information6.1 (2008), pp

Renato Renner.Security of Quantum Key Distribution. In:International Journal of Quantum Information6.1 (2008), pp. 1–127

2008
[14]

In:Journal of the American statistical association58.301 (1963), pp

Wassily Hoeffding.Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. In:Journal of the American statistical association58.301 (1963), pp. 13–30

1963
[15]

In:The Annals of Statistics(1974), pp

Robert J Serfling.Probability inequalities for the sum in sampling without replacement. In:The Annals of Statistics(1974), pp. 39–48

1974
[16]

In: Nature Communications3 (2012), p

Marco Tomamichel et al.Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography. In: Nature Communications3 (2012), p. 634

2012
[17]

In:IEEE Transactions on information theory 49.2 (2003), pp

Yonina C Eldar.A semidefinite programming approach to optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantum states. In:IEEE Transactions on information theory 49.2 (2003), pp. 446–456

2003
[18]

In:Scientific Reports10.1 (2020), p

Min Namkung and Younghun Kwon.Generalized sequential state discrimination for multiparty QKD and its optical implementation. In:Scientific Reports10.1 (2020), p. 8247

2020
[19]

In:Nature communications4.1 (2013), p

FE Becerra, Jingyun Fan, and Alan Migdall.Implementation of generalized quantum measurements for unambiguous discrimination of multiple non-orthogonal coherent states. In:Nature communications4.1 (2013), p. 2028

2013
[20]

In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04023(2023)

Ankith Mohan, Jamie Sikora, and Sarvagya Upadhyay.A generalized framework for quantum state discrimination, hybrid algorithms, and the quantum change point problem. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04023(2023). 23

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

In:Physical review letters69.20 (1992), p

Charles H Bennett and Stephen J Wiesner.Communication via one-and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. In:Physical review letters69.20 (1992), p. 2881

1992

[2] [1]

In:Contemporary Physics41.6 (2000), pp

Anthony Chefles.Quantum state discrimination. In:Contemporary Physics41.6 (2000), pp. 401–424

2000

[3] [2]

In:Quantum state estimation(2004), pp

J´ anos A Bergou, Ulrike Herzog, and Mark Hillery.11 discrimination of quantum states. In:Quantum state estimation(2004), pp. 417–465

2004

[4] [3]

Wootters and Wojciech H

William K. Wootters and Wojciech H. Zurek.A single quantum cannot be cloned. In:Nature299 (1982), pp. 802–803

1982

[5] [4]

In:Journal of Statistical Physics1 (1969), pp

Carl W Helstrom.Quantum detection and estimation theory. In:Journal of Statistical Physics1 (1969), pp. 231–252

1969

[6] [5]

In:Physics Letters A123.6 (1987), pp

Igor D Ivanovic.How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. In:Physics Letters A123.6 (1987), pp. 257–259

1987

[7] [6]

In:Physics Letters A126.5-6 (1988), pp

Dennis Dieks.Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states. In:Physics Letters A126.5-6 (1988), pp. 303–306

1988

[8] [7]

In:Physics Letters A128.1-2 (1988), p

Asher Peres.How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. In:Physics Letters A128.1-2 (1988), p. 19

1988