Scribd
Upload
26 views2 pages

Open Quantum Systems PS5

This document contains two exercises related to open quantum systems. Exercise 14 involves discrimination tasks using the trace norm and optimal state discrimination. Exercise 15 discusses entanglement-breaking channels and proves that a channel is entanglement-breaking if and only if it is a measure-and-prepare channel. The exercises involve properties of the trace norm, optimal state discrimination, separable states, positive operators, and the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism.

Uploaded by

Sam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views2 pages

Open Quantum Systems PS5

This document contains two exercises related to open quantum systems. Exercise 14 involves discrimination tasks using the trace norm and optimal state discrimination. Exercise 15 discusses entanglement-breaking channels and proves that a channel is entanglement-breaking if and only if it is a measure-and-prepare channel. The exercises involve properties of the trace norm, optimal state discrimination, separable states, positive operators, and the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism.

Uploaded by

Sam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Open Quantum Systems 2023/2024

Problem Sheet 5
(Deadline for Moodle Submission: 18:00, Tuesday 28.11.2021)

Exercise 14 (Discrimination tasks [60p]). The trace norm of a matrix M ∈ L(CN ) is defined as
√
∥M ∥1 := Tr M † M . (1)

Remember
√ the polar decomposition theorem: M can be written as M = U P , where U is unitary and
P := M † M ≥ 0 is positive semidefinite.1 Clearly, ∥M ∥1 = Tr P . Using the spectral theorem on P ,
it is possible to show that ∥M ∥1 can be also written as

∥M ∥1 = max |Tr V M | , (2)


V

where the maximisation is over all N × N unitary matrices, and is achieved for V = U † .

(a) Deduce that M is indeed a norm, i.e. it satisfies the triangle inequality:

∥M1 + M2 ∥1 ≤ ∥M1 ∥1 + ∥M2 ∥1 . (3)

(b) Show that if M is Hermitian then X


∥M ∥1 = |λi | , (4)
i

where λi are the eigenvalues of M . Deduce that


q
2
|ψ⟩⟨ψ| − |ϕ⟩⟨ϕ| 1
=2 1 − |⟨ψ|ϕ⟩| (5)

for any two (normalised) pure states.

We now consider a simple state discrimination experiment. You are handed over a single copy of
one of two states ρ and σ of dimension d, with a priori probabilities p and 1 − p, respectively. The
detailed description of the two states is known to you. Assuming that you also have the freedom to
implement any measurement that you like. The goal is to guess which state was given to you with
the largest average success probability.

(c) Write down the probability of error for an arbitrary strategy, as parametrised by a measurement
on an orthonormal basis {|ei ⟩}i=1,...,d and by a decision rule that assigns to each outcome i a
guess (either ρ or σ).
(d) Can you optimise the success probability over all such strategies? Noticing that such an error
probability can never increase under simultaneous application of the same quantum channel to
ρ and σ, what mathematical property of the trace norm can you deduce?

Discrimination problems are possible not only with states, but also with channels. Let us assume
that we have a black box that implements an unknown quantum operation on a single quibit, which
can be either the identity of the unitary rotation U = √12 11 −1
1 , with equal a priori probabilities.
Our goal is to discriminate between these two options with the largest success probability.
1 Incidentally, if you write M = U P and then diagonalise P using the spectral theorem you obtain the singular value

decomposition of M .

1
√ √
(e) Consider the following strategy: we prepare a given pure state |ψ⟩ = p |0⟩ + eiφ 1 − p |1⟩ and
let our unknown operation act on it. We then apply a state discrimination protocol to try to
distinguish between the two options. What is the maximal success probability that this strategy
can yield?
Exercise 15 (Entanglement breaking channels [40p]). Remember that a generalised quantum mea-
surement (POVM)
P is identified by a finite collection of positive operators {Ei }i that add up to the
identity, i.e. i Ei = 1. The probability of obtaining the outcome i when measuring the state ρ is
given by pρ (i) := Tr[ρEi ]. A measure-and-prepare channel is an operation that can be implemented
by first performing a POVM and by subsequently re-preparing the system in a state σi that depends
on the outcome i. Its action is
X
Λ : ρ 7−→ Λ(ρ) := σi Tr[ρEi ] . (6)
i

Another interesting class of channels is that of entanglement-breaking channels. These are channels Γ
such that whenever you apply them on one half of a bipartite state, the resulting state (1A ⊗ΓB )(ρAB )
is separable (remember the definition of separable density matrices in Exercise 3). By definition, this
has to hold for all states ρAB , even for the highly entangled ones.

(a) Show that measure-and-prepare channels are always entanglement breaking.


Hint: remember that whenever
 EiB ≥ 0 is
 a positive operator on B, and ρAB is a state on AB,
the reduced operator TrB 1A ⊗ EiB ρAB ≥ 0 is again positive.
(b) Vice versa, let us consider an arbitrary entanglement breaking channel ΓB acting on B. Argue
that its Choi state RΓAB on AB must be separable. Using the formula2

ΓB (ρB ) = d TrA ρ⊺A ⊗ 1B RΓAB ,


 
(7)

where d is the dimension of A and B, show that ΓB is in fact measure-and-prepare. Therefore,


we obtain the following Horodecki–Shor–Ruskai theorem: a channel is entanglement-breaking if
and only if it is measure-and-prepare.
Hint: use the fact that M ⊺ ⊗ 1 |Φ⟩ = 1 ⊗ M |Φ⟩ when |Φ⟩ is the maximally entangled state.

2 Here the state ρ is fixed, and ρA and ρB mean just ‘the same state ρ written in the system A or B’.

You might also like