4.6 Article

Quantum Readout of Imperfect Classical Data

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22062266

关键词

quantum channel discrimination; quantum hypothesis testing; quantum enhanced measurement

资金

  1. European Union [862644]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article analyzes the optimized quantum sensing protocol for enhancing the readout accuracy of optical memories in the presence of imprecise writing. The study shows that quantum entanglement technology can effectively improve the reading performance of ideal optical memories and the proposed strategy is feasible with current technology and relatively robust to detection and optical losses. Furthermore, the research has implications for pattern identification in biological systems, spectrophotometry, and optical measurements for extracting information.
The encoding of classical data in a physical support can be done up to some level of accuracy due to errors and the imperfection of the writing process. Moreover, some degradation of the stored data can happen over time because of physical or chemical instability of the system. Any readout strategy should take into account this natural degree of uncertainty and minimize its effect. An example are optical digital memories, where the information is encoded in two values of reflectance of a collection of cells. Quantum reading using entanglement, has been shown to enhances the readout of an ideal optical memory, where the two level are perfectly characterized. In this work, we analyse the case of imperfect construction of the memory and propose an optimized quantum sensing protocol to maximize the readout accuracy in presence of imprecise writing. The proposed strategy is feasible with current technology and is relatively robust to detection and optical losses. Beside optical memories, this work have implications for identification of pattern in biological system, in spectrophotometry, and whenever the information can be extracted from a transmission/reflection optical measurement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据