Quantum illumination networks

Entanglement is a unique feature of quantum physics that brings benefits in information processing tasks [1]. Quantum illumination (QI) is an example where entanglement provides advantages in sensing tasks even when it is eventually destroyed by noise and loss during the sensing process [2, 3]. The protocol sends out a signal to probe the target while storing the entangled idler for reference. Upon return of the noisy signal, a measurement is performed on both the return and the idler to determine the properties of the target.

QI came as a conceptual surprise, and much effort has been devoted towards making the quantum advantage practically relevant. To begin with, the original paper by Tan et al. [3] showed quantum advantage with performance bounds and left the measurement design problem open. The initial design based on off-the-shelf components of the parametric amplifier provides sub-optimal quantum advantages [4], which has been demonstrated in the optical domain [5, 6] and more recently in the microwave domain [7]. The optimal measurement has been subsequently proposed, with the sum-frequency generation process [8] and via the correlation-to-displacement (CtoD) conversion [9, 10]. With the development of the CtoD concept, simplified sub-optimal receivers based on heterodyne-homodyne is proposed to bring hope to practical microwave implementations [11].

While the challenges in the measurement design have been relaxed, many other issues plague the practical relevance of QI, as summarized in Refs. [12, 13]. One problem regards the fact that the original protocol only detects the presence and absence of a single target in a spatiotemporal bin, which is far away from real radar detection scenarios. Efforts in extending the applicability of QI have shown that advantage in ranging can be possible [14, 15], where the target can be at different locations along a single direction. However, the more important problem is that QI is considering an energy constraint that is far from realistic. As the brightness—the photon flux per bandwidth—needs to be less than unity to enable quantum advantage, the power of the transmitter is extremely low given the gigahertz bandwidth available at microwave frequency.

In this work, we propose a quantum illumination network to resolve the above low-power and single-target constraints of the original QI protocols. While a single transceiver can only detect a single target, in the QI network, multiple targets are simultaneously probed with a network of transmitters, and the return is detected by a single receiver antenna (see Fig. 1i). Due to multiple transmitters probing the same region, the total probing power can be large. As a result, for single target case, the advantage of QI network over the original single-transmitter QI protocol increases with the number of transmitters before saturation (see Fig. 1ii). The inevitable interference of different returning signals creates a challenge to the reception end. Surprisingly, we show that even with a single receiver, one is able to overcome the interference problem and achieve estimation precision advantages over the best classical strategies in the estimation of multiple phases or transmissivities. We also provide the measurement strategy to achieve quantum advantage based on parametric amplification [4] or the CtoD conversion [9, 10].

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we describe the framework of the QI network. Section III focuses on the practical relevance of our proposal. Then, we examine the classical benchmark of the QI network in Section IV and introduce the measurement protocols in Section V. The sensing superiority of the QI network is demonstrated in the analysis of multiple-phase sensing in Section VI and in the classification of reflectivity patterns in Section VII. Following that, we discuss a potential advantage of non-asymptotic parameter estimation in Section VIII. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section IX.

A shown in Figure 1, a quantum illumination network consists of an array of $m$ transmitters, each emits a signal-idler pair $\{{\rm S}_{j},{\rm I}_{j}\}$ in a two-mode squeezed vacuum (TMSV) state [16]

$\displaystyle|\Phi\rangle=\exp\left[\frac{1}{2}\,\text{arcsinh}\sqrt{N_{\rm S}}\left(a_{{\rm S}_{j}}a_{{\rm I}_{j}}-a_{{\rm S}_{j}}^{\dagger}a_{{\rm I}_{j}}^{\dagger}\right)\right]|0\rangle_{{\rm S}_{j}}|0\rangle_{{\rm I}_{j}},$

(1)

where $N_{\rm S}$ is the average photon number of $S_{j}$ or $I_{j}$, $a_{{\rm S}_{j}}(a_{{\rm I}_{j}})$ and $a_{{\rm S}_{j}}^{\dagger}(a_{{\rm I}_{j}}^{\dagger})$ denote the annihilation and creation operators of the signal (idler) mode, respectively, and $|0\rangle$ is the vacuum state. Then, the experimenter stores the idlers, $\{a_{{\rm I}_{j}}\}_{j=0}^{m-1}$, and sends the $m$ signal modes, $\{a_{{\rm S}_{j}}\}_{j=0}^{m-1}$, to the target. The experimental realization of the transmitter array can be potentially achieved by nano-antenna array [17, 18], in particular at the higher frequency end of radar detection.

At the common receiver, a single return mode is received, with interference between all return probes. The $m$ transmitters are able to excite more spatial modes of the target, which may have non-zero overlap with the receiver spatial mode. As a simplified model, we assume the maximum number of spatial modes of the target (or multiple targets) being excited is $m_{\rm re}$ and different transmitters excite different spatial modes. Therefore, the return mode is given by the input-output relation

$\displaystyle a_{\rm R}=\sum_{j=0}^{m_{\rm re}-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_{\rm re}}}a_{{\rm R}_{j}},$

(2)

which forms a multiple-access channel [19, 20] from $m_{\rm re}$ senders and a single receiver. Note that we assume that the other $m_{\rm re}-1$ output modes other than $\hat{a}_{R}$ are not accessible to the receiver end. When there are $m\leq m_{\rm re}$ transmitters, the rest $m_{\rm re}-m$ transmitter modes are in vacuum. Here we define each virtual individual return $a_{{\rm R}_{j}}$ to model the loss and noise in the channel [21, 3, 22],

$\displaystyle a_{{\rm R}_{j}}=e^{i\theta_{j}}\sqrt{\eta_{j}}\,{a}_{{\rm S}_{j}}+\sqrt{1-\eta_{j}}\,a_{{\rm B}_{j}},\,1\leq j\leq m,$

(3)

where $\eta_{j}\in[0,1]$ is the reflectivity, $\theta_{j}\in[0,2\pi)$ is the phase angle and the noise mode $a_{{\rm B}_{j}}$ has an average photon number $N_{\rm B}/(1-\eta_{j})\gg 1$. Typically, the actual number of transmitters $m\ll m_{\rm re}$, therefore we focus on the case where $m<m_{\rm re}$. Here, we adopt the premise of reflectivity-independent noise $N_{\rm B}$ as in the original approach [3], which may arise from realistic scenarios such as low reflectivity [3], bright thermal-noise bath [3, 23], Gaussian measurement [24], and Gaussian additive noise channels [16].

Here the targets are described by $m$ phase shifts $\{\theta_{j}\}_{j=0}^{m-1}$ and $m$ transmissivities $\{\eta_{j}\}_{j=0}^{m-1}$. These parameters can in general model different targets in the same region, or different parts of a single target. As a special case, the $m$ sets of parameters can also be equal, representing a degenerate case where only a single target is being considered. Such a degenerate case represents a spatial multiplexing at the transmitter. Due to multiple transmitters, the total transmitted average photon number is increased to $mN_{\rm S}$; at the same time, as we assume a single receiver, the received photon number

$\displaystyle\expectationvalue{a_{\rm R}^{\dagger}a_{\rm R}}=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{1}{m_{\rm re}}(\eta_{j}N_{\rm S}+N_{\rm B})$

(4)

increases linearly with $m$ before saturation at large $m=m_{\rm re}$ transmitters. As a result, the performance of the QI network increases with the number of transmitters $m$ before saturation at $m=m_{\rm re}$. As exemplified in Fig. 1ii, the root-mean-square estimation error in single parameter estimation of QI network improves as the number of transmitters increase. The performance evaluation utilizes Eq. (3) in the degenerate case, as we detail in Section VI.

The final measurement is applied on the return mode R jointly with $m$ idler modes, $\{{\rm I}_{j}\}_{j=0}^{m-1}$. The resulting $(m+1)$-mode is in a zero-mean Gaussian state with quadrature covariance matrix (see basic definitions with natural units $\hbar=2$ in Ref. [16]):

$\displaystyle\bm{V}=\left(\begin{matrix}\left(2N_{\rm B}^{\prime}+1\right)\mathbb{I}_{2}&S_{0}^{\rm T}&\cdots&S_{m-1}^{\rm T}\\ S_{0}&(2N_{\rm S}+1)\mathbb{I}_{2}&\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ S_{m-1}&0&\cdots&(2N_{\rm S}+1)\mathbb{I}_{2}\\ \end{matrix}\right),$

(5)

where $N_{\rm B}^{\prime}:=N_{\rm B}+\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\eta_{j}N_{\rm S}/m$ refers to the adjusted background photon number, $\mathbb{I}_{\ell}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $\ell$, $\left\{S_{j}:=2\,\sqrt{\eta_{j}N_{\rm S}(N_{\rm S}+1)/m_{\rm re}}\,\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{R}_{j}^{\rm T}\right\}$ are $2\times 2$ matrices defined by $\mathbb{R}_{j}=\cos\theta_{j}\mathbb{I}_{2}-i\sin\theta_{j}\mathbb{Y}$ with $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Y}$ being the Pauli matrices.

To achieve the desired high precision in sensing, one sends out $\nu$ mode pairs, $\{{\rm S}_{j}^{(n)},{\rm I}_{j}^{(n)}\}_{n=0}^{\nu-1}$, at each transmitter $0\leq j\leq m-1$ and therefore receive modes $R^{(n)}$’s. Such a repetition is typically realized by broadband probes, where $\nu=BT$ is the time-bandwidth product for bandwith $B$ and pulse duration $T$. We can also introduce the virtual received modes $R_{j}^{(n)}$, similar to the single pair case in Eq. (3). The multiple mode pairs can come from the large time-bandwidth product of the spontaneous parametric down-conversion source that generates the TMSVs.

Finally, the performance of sensing is characterized by the square root of the weighted mean-square error (rWMSE)

$$\epsilon_{\bm{\phi}}:=\min_{\{M_{a}\}}\sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\sum_{a}\Tr[\rho_{\bm{\phi}}M_{a}]\left[\hat{\phi}_{j}(a)-{\phi}_{j}\right]^{2}/m}$$

(6)

where $\rho_{\bm{\phi}}$ refers to $\nu$ copies of output states from the QI process, the parameters of interest are $\bm{\phi}=(\theta_{0},\cdots,\theta_{m-1})^{T}$ for multiple-phase sensing or $\bm{\phi}=(\eta_{0},\cdots,\eta_{m-1})^{T}$ for reflectivity sensing, $\{M_{a}\}$ refer to the positive operator-valued measure (POVM) associated to $\nu$-rounds of measurement, the estimator $\{\hat{\phi}_{j}(a)\}$ are map** from the measurement data $a$ (which could be multidimensional) to the parameters.

Given the classical and quantum Cremér-Rao theorem [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31], the rWMSE of a measurement $\mathcal{M}$ can be bounded as follows:

$\displaystyle\epsilon_{\mathcal{M},\bm{\phi}}\geq\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\Tr\left[\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}\right]}\geq\epsilon_{\bm{\phi}}\geq\sqrt{\frac{1}{m}\Tr\left[\mathcal{F}^{-1}\right]},$

(7)

where $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M}}$ is the classical Fisher information matrix based on the measurement results $p(a)=\Tr[\rho_{\bm{\phi}}M_{a}]$: $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{M},\phi_{j},\phi_{k}}=\sum_{a}p(a)\left({\partial p(a)}/{\partial\phi_{j}}\right)\left({\partial p(a)}/{\partial\phi_{k}}\right),$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is the quantum Fisher information matrix based on the output state $\rho_{\bm{\phi}}$: $\mathcal{F}_{\phi_{j},\phi_{k}}=\Tr[(L_{i}L_{j}+L_{j}L_{i})\rho_{\bm{\phi}}]/2$ with $L_{i}$ being the symmetric logarithmic derivative (SLD) defined by $\partial\rho_{\bm{\phi}}/\partial\phi_{i}=(\rho_{\bm{\phi}}L_{i}+L_{i}\rho_{\bm{\phi}})/2$.

The interference among multiple returning modes, as shown in Eq. (2), will have distinct consequences in classical and quantum scenarios. For instance, in the trivial lossless and noiseless limit of $\eta_{j}=1,N_{\rm B}=0,\theta_{j}=0$, classical illumination (CI) with coherent probe states  [32, 12] will lead to the output coherent state with an amplitude $m\sqrt{N_{\rm S}/m_{\rm re}}$. In this scenario, the receiving photon number will have a scaling $\left\langle a^{\dagger}_{\rm R}a_{\rm R}\right\rangle_{\rm ci}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(m^{2}/m_{\rm re}\right)$. The photons of $m$ returning modes are regained in a single mode. In contrast, the receiving photon number in the QI network, given by Eq. (4), has a scaling $\left\langle a^{\dagger}_{\rm R}a_{\rm R}\right\rangle_{\rm ci}\sim\mathcal{O}(m/m_{\rm re})$ with a much higher level of photon loss. Nevertheless, we will show that the QI network can still achieve quantum advantages in multi-parameter estimation and hypothesis testing.

In contrast to previous QI protocols [2, 3, 12, 13], the present approach exhibits significantly enhanced power of probing as a result of an $m$ tramsmitter system, hence increasing its practical applicability. Here we provide modeling for different sensing scenarios in terms of the parameter choices. We will obtain thermal noise from Bose-Einstein distribution $N_{\rm B}\propto 1/[\exp{(hf_{p}/k_{B}T)}-1]$, where $f_{p}$ is the center frequency, $T$ is the effective temperature of the system, $h$ is the Planck constant and $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. The total power of the QI network will be $P:=mN_{\rm S}B\,h\,f_{p}$, where $B$ refers to the bandwidth.

One parameter region of interest is the traditional microwave radar being considered in quantum illumination [3, 15, 12]. We take W-band as an example, with $f_{p}=100$ GHz, bandwidth $B=10$ GHz and sky temperature $T=150$K, leading to thermal noise $N_{\rm B}\sim 32$. Another parameter region of interest is the THz-wave radar [33, 34]. At THz frequency (wavelength $\sim 100$um), with the implementation of nano-antenna array [17, 18], a large number of transmitters can be engineered, greatly enhancing the total power output over the single transmitter QI system [12]. We consider $N_{\rm B}=0.6$ for 300K as THz radar is in short range. In this case, the QI network has the potential to exhibit advantages robust to the presence of various forms of sky noise [35, 34].

On this ground, the QI networks can be applied to multi-parameter estimation and hypothesis testing, which feature circumstances when a macroscopic target cannot be effectively characterized by a single parameter due to its complexity. Moreover, the QI network may be taken into account when assessing the temporal evolution of the target. In the present work, the parameters of interest are phases and reflectivities imprinted on the returning state, each associated with the range or presence of the target. Finally, via the design of measurement protocols, these physical parameters and their statistical properties can be determined.

As a benchmark for quantum advantage, we examine the minimal estimation error achievable by classical strategies, under the constraint that probes are prepared via a statistical mixture of coherent states [32, 12] with the same total signal power as the quantum case. We shall use the rWMSE to characterize the performance of estimation. In the degenerate case where all the phases have the same value, or where only the global information in the form of weighted average phase $\overline{\theta}^{\prime}=\sum_{j}\sqrt{\eta_{j}/m_{\rm re}}\,\theta_{j}$ is unknown, we also adopt the root of the mean-square error (RMSE) directly to characterize the performance.

Based on this premise and the convexity of quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM) [36, 31, 37], we can obtain the following theorem.

A detailed proof of Theorem 1 is illustrated in Appendix A. Note that it is impossible to achieve the equality of Ineq. (8) by pure coherent states when the number of experiments is limited, particularly with the condition $\nu<\lceil m/2\rceil$. This is caused by the fact that only mixed input states can output states with full-rank QFIMs. However, mixed input states such as amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) source are not optimal due to the convexity of QFIM (see detailed proof in Appendix A). Nevertheless, one can resolve this issue by conducting more than $m/2$ experiments, by which a full-rank QFIM can be achieved by a summation of non-full-rank QFIMs. We can prove that the rWMSE $\epsilon_{{\bm{\theta}},{\rm c}}=\sqrt{m_{\rm re}(2N_{\rm B}+1)\sum_{j}\eta_{j}^{-1}/(4m\nu N_{\rm S})}$ is achievable with pure input states for the favorable condition $\nu=\ell m/2,\,$ for any positive integer $\ell$ and any positive even integer $m$. Specifically, the experimenter estimates two parameters $\theta_{j}$ and $\theta_{k}$ in each experiment, with an effective concentration of energy [16, 38] and fine-tuned phases. Therefore, a diagonal QFIM $F_{\rm c}^{\{j,k\}}=2mN_{\rm S}/[m_{\rm re}(2N_{\rm B}+1)]\textbf{diag}(\eta_{j},\eta_{k})$ can be achieved [39, 29]. By repeating this experiment yet with different pairs of parameters, the experimenter is able to obtain the minimum rWMSE.

We propose two designs of measurement to achieve the quantum advantage of a QI network.

With the receivers in hand, now we examine the performance of the QI network in multiple-phase sensing. We begin with the PA receiver in Section V.1. Denote the PA gain of the pPCR as $g$; For sPCR, we also choose uniform PA gains and denote it as $g$, while the actual value of $g$ is optimized separately in sPCR and pPCR. Thanks to the Gaussian nature of the quantum states and operations involved (see Appendix C), we obtain the following theorem.

A detailed proof of Theorem 2 can be found in Appendix C. In the above result, the PA gain is not specified. Indeed, one can optimize the sensing performance by tuning the values of gain. We observe that the ideal amplification rate $g$ varies between pPCR and sPCR. In pPCR, the best value of $g$ is close to two, while in sPCR, it is close to one.

For the CtoD measurement approach, exact expression of the Fisher information matrix is complicated. On the other hand, we can obtain the rWMSE expression asymptotically.

A concrete proof of Theorem 3 is shown in Appendix D. To thoroughly understand the trend of the precise rWMSE obtained by the QI network in terms of the signal and noise brightness, we consider the two application scenarios introduced in Section III, where the noise $N_{\rm B}=32$ for a W-band radar and $N_{\rm B}=0.6$ for a THZ radar. Then we tune the signal brightness $N_{\rm S}$ and evaluate the phase sensing rWMSE error $\epsilon_{\theta}$ for pPCR, sPCR and CtoD in QI network. In Fig. 4, we plot the ratio of the quantum rWMSE (Eqs. (12) and (3)) over the classical rWMSE (Eq. (8)) versus the ratio $N_{\rm S}/N_{\rm B}$. It is shown that, as the input signal brightness grows, the quantum advantage tends to vanish as expected. On the other hand, given the low-brightness limit $(N_{\rm S}\ll 1)$, the ratio between the rWMSEs will converge to a constant factor [41, 10]—a factor of two advantage in terms of the variance.

Remarkably, Theorems 2 and 3 extend upon earlier approaches of quantum illumination [2, 3, 41, 12, 13] by introducing an efficient measurement design for the QI network in the typical parameter region of $N_{\rm S}<N_{\rm B}$. In particular, the errors shown in Eqs. (11) and (3) converge to the same value in the weak signal limit of $N_{\rm S}\ll N_{\rm B}$ (see Figure 4). Further, Eq. (3) achieves the quantum limit for single parameter estimation [42, 9], thus being tight in the scenario when only one phase is unknown. In addition, it is shown in Appendix D that the second and third steps of the CtoD method are optimal, conditionally on the choice of heterodyne measurement in its first step.

Note that Eqs. (12) and (3) approach a scaling of $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m_{\rm re}/\nu})$. This is caused by the fact that information about each phase is vanishing as its corresponding quantum amplitude decreases. To resolve this issue, we can alternate the parameter of interest to the average phase $\overline{\theta}$, which induces an error of scaling $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{1/(m\nu)})$. Thus, it is possible to achieve a finite error with an arbitrarily high number of transmitters, even when the number of transmitters $m$ far exceeds the number of experiments $\nu$.

In addition to estimating the phase of each mode, the QI network can also be used to estimate the reflectivity (assuming knowledge of the phases). Given that the PA and CtoD have the same leading order of rWMSE, by changing parameters of interest, we have the following Corollary:

Corollary 1 can be quickly verified by substituting parameters of interest by reflectivity ratios when computing QFIMs (see Appendix D).

Besides multi-parameter estimation, hypothesis testing between different targets is one of the first applications of QI, particularly in determining the presence or absence of a target [2, 3]. In the setting with a QI network, the hypotheses can be described by the change of possible values of reflectivity: $\text{(I)\ \ \ }\bm{\eta}=\bm{\eta}^{(0)}$, and $\text{(II)\ \ }\bm{\eta}=\bm{\eta}^{(1)}$, where $\bm{\eta}^{(h)}=(\eta_{0}^{(h)},\cdots,\eta_{m-1}^{(h)})^{\rm T}$ for $h=0,1$. Given multiple copies of the $(m+1)$-mode signal-idler state, the CtoD scheme will generate conditional states at $j$-th mode, whose displacement depends on the reflectivity $\eta_{j}$ and the heterodyne measurement results $\{{\bm{x}_{n}}\}$. By conducting passive operations on the $\nu$ copies of each mode, it is possible to produce $\nu$ identical $m$-mode states only based on the knowledge of the heterodyne measurement results (see detailed proof in Appendices D.2 and E): $\rho_{\bm{\eta}^{(h)},{\rm hp},\{\bm{x}_{n}\}}=\rho_{\bm{\eta}^{(h)},\overline{\bm{x}}}^{\otimes\nu}.$ Therefore, if we quantify the performance of pattern classification by the error probability: $p_{\rm hp}\left(\rho_{\bm{\eta}^{(0)},{\rm hp}},\rho_{\bm{\eta}^{(1)},{\rm hp}}\right)=1-\max_{\{\hat{\Pi}_{h}\}}\Tr\left[\hat{\Pi}_{h,\overline{\bm{x}}}\rho_{\bm{\eta}^{(h)},{\rm hp}}\right]/2$ with ${\{\hat{\Pi}_{h}\}}$ being an arbitrary $(m\nu)$-mode measurement, the following two theorems are given:

A concrete proof of Theorem 4 can be found in Appendix E. It is shown that the benchmark can be achieved by preparing a statistic mixture of coherent states as input [16, 12].

On the other hand, we have the following theorem if entangled probes are allowed:

A concrete proof of Theorem 5 can be found in Appendix E.

Finally, Eq. (5) achieves the optimal error probability for hypothesis testing with a single parameter [9]. The error exponent of the QI network has an overhead as follows:

	$\displaystyle\frac{\ln(2\,p_{\rm qi})}{\ln(2\,p_{\rm ci})}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{\left(\sqrt{N_{\rm B}+1}+\sqrt{N_{\rm B}}\right)^{2}(N_{\rm S}+1)}{\left(\sqrt{N_{\rm S}+1}+\sqrt{N_{\rm S}}\right)^{2}(N_{\rm B}^{\prime}+1)}$
		$\displaystyle\times\frac{\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\left(\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(0)}}-\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(1)}}\right)^{2}}{\left|\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\left(\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(0)}}-\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(1)}}\right)\right|^{2}}$		(17)
		$\displaystyle\simeq 4\frac{\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\left(\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(0)}}-\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(1)}}\right)^{2}}{\left|\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\left(\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(0)}}-\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(1)}}\right)\right|^{2}},$		(18)

where in the second approximation we have considered the $N_{\rm B}\gg 1$ and $N_{\rm S}\ll 1$ limit. When the number of transmitters $m=1$, the above results recovers the general hypothesis testing result in Ref. [10] and provides a factor of ${\ln(2\,p_{\rm qi})}/{\ln(2\,p_{\rm ci})}\simeq 4$ advantage in error exponent (6 dB). In typical cases where the differences $\left\{\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(0)}}-\sqrt{\eta_{j}^{(1)}}\right\}$ has values $\pm c$ with equal probabilities (representing absent or present), there will be an exact 6-dB advantage in error exponent as the denominator of Eq. (18) will be proportional to $m$ [43].