Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Information recycling in coherent-state discrimination

L. F. Melo1,*, János A. Bergou2, and Alexandre B. Tacla1,†

  • 1QuIIN - Quantum Industrial Innovation, Centro de Competência EMBRAPII CIMATEC, SENAI CIMATEC, Av. Orlando Gomes, 1845, Salvador, Bahia 41850-010, Brazil
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hunter College of the City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10021, USA

  • *Contact author: lucas.felipe@fbter.org.br
  • †Contact author: alexandre.tacla@fieb.org.br

Phys. Rev. A 113, 022407 – Published 6 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/c97m-3b5b

Abstract

The discrimination of coherent states is a crucial component in quantum communication with continuous variables, especially in quantum key distribution protocols (CV-QKD), which rely on the ability to distinguish among different coherent states to establish a shared secret key between two parties. Here, we propose and analyze a strategy for distinguishing among N phase-symmetric coherent states, which optimally takes unambiguous discrimination (UD) to the deterministic regime, at the inevitable cost of having nonzero probability of error. Despite the disturbance introduced by the separation map used in the UD process, we show that for N>2, the “failure” states of UD retain residual information about the original input states, which can be further used for discrimination. Rather than discarding inconclusive outcomes as in conventional UD, we show that the “failure” states of UD can be optimally recycled by performing a sequential minimum-error discrimination (MED). This strategy, which we call information recycling (IR), combines the benefits of both MED and optimal UD: It always provides conclusive results while allowing for a subset of those results to be error-free, which are identifiable by an ancillary system. We characterize the disturbance introduced by the state separation map by the infidelity between input and failure states, demonstrating that it lower bounds the error probability in the recycling stage. Furthermore, in the low-amplitude regime (relevant for long-distance CV-QKD applications) we show that the state separation achieves significant success while introducing relatively low disturbance to the input states after failed events. Our results open up additional possibilities for adaptive and sequential discrimination protocols in continuous-variable settings, and could potentially be used in the design of next-generation receivers in quantum communication.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (50)

  1. B. Huttner, N. Imoto, N. Gisin, and T. Mor, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1863 (1995).
  2. K. Banaszek, Phys. Lett. A 253, 12 (1999).
  3. A. Leverrier and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042312 (2011).
  4. J. Lin, T. Upadhyaya, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041064 (2019).
  5. Y. Zhang, Y. Bian, Z. Li, S. Yu, and H. Guo, Appl. Phys. Rev. 11, 011318 (2024).
  6. M. Dušek, M. Jahma, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022306 (2000).
  7. S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042313 (2002).
  8. S. Izumi, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, PRX Quantum 2, 020305 (2021).
  9. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
  10. R. Nair, B. J. Yen, S. Guha, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Pirandola, Phys. Rev. A 86, 022306 (2012).
  11. I. W. Primaatmaja, A. Ho, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052410 (2021).
  12. C. Wittmann, U. L. Andersen, M. Takeoka, D. Sych, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062338 (2010).
  13. Q. Liao, Y. Guo, D. Huang, P. Huang, and G. Zeng, New J. Phys. 20, 023015 (2018).
  14. M. N. Notarnicola, M. Jarzyna, S. Olivares, and K. Banaszek, New J. Phys. 25, 103014 (2023).
  15. C. W. Helstrom, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969).
  16. A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Lett. A 250, 223 (1998).
  17. M. Ban, K. Kurokawa, R. Momose, and O. Hirota, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 1269 (1997).
  18. I. Ivanovic, Phys. Lett. A 123, 257 (1987).
  19. D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 126, 303 (1988).
  20. A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A 128, 19 (1988).
  21. A. Chefles, Phys. Lett. A 239, 339 (1998).
  22. M. A. Solís-Prosser, A. Delgado, O. Jiménez, and L. Neves, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012337 (2016).
  23. A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, J. Phys. A 31, 10097 (1998).
  24. K. Nakahira, T. S. Usuda, and K. Kato, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032316 (2012).
  25. L. Roa, C. Hermann-Avigliano, R. Salazar, and A. B. Klimov, Phys. Rev. A 84, 014302 (2011).
  26. G. Zhang, L.-B. Yu, W.-H. Zhang, and Z.-L. Cao, Quantum Inf. Process. 13, 2619 (2014).
  27. L. F. Melo, O. Jiménez, and L. Neves, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012403 (2025).
  28. J. S. Sidhu, M. S. Bullock, S. Guha, and C. Lupo, Quantum 7, 1025 (2023).
  29. M. Takeoka and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022320 (2008).
  30. G. Cariolaro, Quantum Communications (Springer, New York, 2015).
  31. D. E. Roberson, S. Izumi, W. Roga, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, M. Takeoka, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022423 (2021).
  32. M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 040502 (2006).
  33. D. Sych and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 200501 (2016).
  34. M. T. DiMario and F. E. Becerra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 023603 (2018).
  35. G. S. Thekkadath, S. Sempere-Llagostera, B. A. Bell, R. B. Patel, M. S. Kim, and I. A. Walmsley, Opt. Lett. 46, 2565 (2021).
  36. M. N. Notarnicola, M. G. A. Paris, and S. Olivares, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40, 705 (2023).
  37. M. Sedlák, M. Ziman, O. Přibyla, V. Bužek, and M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 76, 022326 (2007).
  38. C. R. Müller, M. A. Usuga, C. Wittmann, M. Takeoka, C. Marquardt, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, New J. Phys. 14, 083009 (2012).
  39. S. Izumi, M. Takeoka, M. Fujiwara, N. D. Pozza, A. Assalini, K. Ema, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. A 86, 042328 (2012).
  40. F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, Nat. Commun. 4, 2028 (2013).
  41. F. Becerra, J. Fan, and G. E. A. Baumgartner, Nat. Photon. 7, 147 (2013).
  42. S. Pandey, Z. Jiang, J. Combes, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A 88, 033852 (2013).
  43. M. Rosati, A. Mari, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062315 (2016).
  44. R. Han, J. A. Bergou, and G. Leuchs, New J. Phys. 20, 043005 (2018).
  45. R. Han, G. Leuchs, and J. A. Bergou, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032103 (2020).
  46. K. Kato, M. Osaki, M. Sasaki, and O. Hirota, IEEE Trans. Commun. 47, 248 (1999).
  47. M. N. Notarnicola, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 23, 2550003 (2025),.
  48. J. A. Bergou, U. Futschik, and E. Feldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 250502 (2012).
  49. M. A. Solís-Prosser, O. Jiménez, A. Delgado, and L. Neves, Quant. Sci. Technol. 7, 015017 (2022).
  50. S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 1012 (2020).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation