Arxiv:0811.1221V3 [Quant-Ph] 12 May 2009 ‡ † ∗ Fteeprmn.W Alit Call Process We the Experiment

Home , Conditional entropy

arXiv:0811.1221v3 [quant-ph] 12 May 2009 ‡ † ∗ fteeprmn.W alit call process We the experiment. in of the obtained of properties information typical additional informa- side i.e., to some tion, to refers Our relative experiment then the of AEP description. to outcomes the quantum generalization of a the version require consider that we clas- experiments here with experiment outcomes, random a sical to the applies While AEP (AEP). classical property equipartition asymptotic the inadorpofo h ul unu E ilfollow will AEP ver- quantum classical fully the the lines. of of similar proof proof our quantum possible and fully a sion the sketch to We generalized be setting. then can that form a defined. entangled be conditional of cannot be analogue distributions quantum may probability a and information outcome the side quantum with fully the a in where possible not context, is This the one on information). (i.e., conditioned side distribution outcomes probability of experimental the specification described the considers the usually of in not distribution included of the is already versions information is classical but side quan- in explicitly, the that be here may AEP note information the We side the systems. as tum well as outcomes a nomto hoybcuei salse h Shannon the establishes entropy it because theory information cal 1 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] euelgt eoetebnr logarithm. binary the denote to log use We nti ae,w rv ul unu eso of version quantum fully a prove we paper, this In ewl rtdsustecasclAPadrwiei in it rewrite and AEP classical the discuss first will We h E c.Term311i 1)i eta oclassi- to central is [1]) in 3.1.1 Theorem (cf. AEP The 1 , odtoa nrpe,frwihtevnNuanetoyem entropy Neumann von con naturally the the This which on for information. entropies, bound side conditional explicit the an of equa both give dimensionality almost We where the is property, quantum. which this are of of information member generalization quantum each fully the set, a experiment, typical random the a from of come repetitions identical of number H h lsia smttceupriinpoet stesta the is property equipartition asymptotic classical The ( .INTRODUCTION I. X .CasclAEP Classical A. = ) 2 nttt fTertclCmue cec,EHZrc,809 Zurich, ETH Science, Computer Theoretical of Institute ul unu smttcEupriinProperty Equipartition Asymptotic Quantum Fully A − 1 nttt o hoeia hsc,EHZrc,89 Zurich 8093 Zurich, ETH Physics, Theoretical for Institute ac Tomamichel, Marco x X ∈X P ul quantum fully ( x log ) P ( x ) , 1, eas the because ∗ Dtd a 2 2009) 12, May (Dated: oe Colbeck, Roger eas nomlyitouesot i-admax- and min- smooth introduce denoted entropies informally also We scntutdb goigtems rbbeeet in events probability total probable to most min-entropy up the smooth ignoring The by constructed II. is Section in precisely defined etit)teotoeo igerno experiment, random single a (with store of to outcome order In the relations. certainty) these of second the clear h es rbbeeet n scoeyrltdto related closely is and events ignores probable max-entropy least the smooth the Similarly, distribution. entropies iinletois(o o-smttcvrin e [2]) see con- version, of non-asymptotic case a the (for to entropies generalized ditional been have relations These em fteeetois h E seuvln othe to equivalent is AEP the entropies, relations these of terms h hl eune i.e. sequence, whole the aea ro.W hsol need to only not thus We certain we if almost error. that are an us we have tells events, AEP non-typical The ignore a In failure. to tolerate of experiment. needed probability we random small bits applications, above theoretic of the information number of typical the outcome for the asks store one There, sion. ucm farno xeietgvnb niid se- i.i.d. an by given enough experiment of large law random quence weak for a the that, of of states outcome consequence and direct numbers a large random is It involving (i.i.d.) problems distributed variables. various identically for and quantity independent relevant the as rxmtl 2 proximately be itiue codn oapoaiiydistribution probability a P to according distributed ables rbblt ls o2 to close probability a eunn oteeapeo orecmrsinmakes compression source of example the to Returning hscnatraieyb omltdi em fthe of terms in formulated be alternatively can This osdr o xml,tepolmo orecompres- source of problem the example, for Consider, naset a on ,2, 1, ed oafml fRényi-like quantum of family a to leads † X h upto h xeietadside and experiment the of output the uptsqec svrulycranto certain virtually is sequence output n eaoRenner Renato and H eetta,i h ii falarge a of limit the in that, tement re saseilcase. special a as erges n H ∞ ε ε lim lim ( = 0 → → egne hc sidpnetof independent is which vergence, X l iey nti ae,w prove we paper, this In likely. lly ( ( nH 0 0 X X n n X ilams etil ei e fap- of set a in be certainly almost will =log := ) := ) lim lim →∞ →∞ uih Switzerland. Zurich, 2 ( 1 X H X , ) Switzerland. , min ε n n 1 1 yia vnsta ahocrwith occur each that events typical 2 − H H X , . . . , ε − ( X H max min n taking and o max log ε ε nH

{ and ) ( X ( ( x ( x X X X ∈X 1, isprelement. per bits ) n X ∈ ) n . ) n ‡ = ) = ) P X ∈ H : ( max ε x P nH H H H and ) × ( ∞ ( ( x ( n X X X ( ) X fteremaining the of frno vari- random of ,wihwl be will which ), n (1) and ) > ) ist store to bits ) . 0 }

. H n the , 0 In . (2) X . 2 one needs H0(X) bits. Furthermore, if one tolerates a result have also been found in the context of quantum ε small probability of failure, only roughly Hmax(X) bits hypothesis testing (e.g. [10, 11, 12]). are required. On the other hand, in the case of a large Theorem 1 . sequence of i.i.d. random variables, the AEP tells us that (AEP) Let A and B be finite- H H H (X) bits are needed for each element of the sequence, dimensional Hilbert spaces, ρAB a bipartite state on A N n H n⊗ and hence relation (2) follows. A similar argument can B and n s.t. ρ⊗ is an i.i.d. state on ( A B)⊗ , H ∈ AB H ⊗H be made to illustrate relation (1) using randomness ex- then traction [3]. We now sketch a proof of the AEP (1). We use the 1 ε n n lim lim Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n = H (A B)ρ and (6) ε 0 n Rényi entropies [4] → →∞ n | | 1 ε n n lim lim Hmax(A B )ρ⊗n = H (A B)ρ . (7) 1 α ε 0 n n | | H (X) := log P (x) , α (0, 1) (1, ), → →∞ α 1 α ∈ ∪ ∞ x − ∈X This relation is expressed in terms of quantum versions X (3) of the min- and max-entropies [9] and the conditional von for which H (α ), H0 (α 0) and the Shannon ∞ Neumann entropy which will be defined precisely below. entropy (α 1) are→ defined ∞ as limits.→ Furthermore, the The reader unfamiliar with quantum entropies is also re- entropies H→ are monotonically decreasing in α and, as α ferred to [13, 14] for many of their properties and appli- shown in [3], the Rényi entropies with α> 1 are close to cations. the smooth min-entropy in the sense that In this contribution, we prove a non-asymptotic version 1 1 of Theorem 1 that gives a lower bound on Hε (An Bn) Hε (X) H (X) log , α> 1 (4) min | min ≥ α − α 1 ε for finite n (cf. Theorem 9). The bound for finite n − has the property that the deviation from the asymptotic while those with α < 1 are close to the smooth max- bound (the term δ(ε, η) in Theorem 9) only depends on 1 entropy. Note that the error term α 1 log1/ε in (4) conditional min- and max-entropies evaluated for ρAB but diverges when we try to recover the Shannon− entropy. is otherwise independent of the dimension of the Hilbert

However, in the case of an i.i.d. sequence we find spaces A and B. More precisely, our bound is inde- H H pendent of the Hilbert space dimension of B. This is 1 ε n 1 particularly important for applications in theH context of Hmin(X ) Hα(X) log ε, (5) n ≥ − n(1 α) cryptography, where quantum systems may be controlled − n by an adversary. In this case, it is often difficult or impos- where we have used Hα(X ) = nHα(X). We proceed ε n sible to bound their dimension, whereas the conditional by bounding limε 0 limn Hmin(X ) from above and → →∞ entropies can nevertheless be estimated. below. To get the lower bound, we choose α =1+1/√n It is possible to obtain a statement similar to Theo- and take the limit n in (5). The upper bound rem 1 using typical subspaces. However, proofs of this essentially follows from→H ∞ (X) H (X). min ≤ type inevitably lead to bounds involving the dimensions 3 of both Hilbert spaces A and B and hence to a qual- itatively weaker resultH than theH one established here (in B. Fully Quantum AEP particular, no reasonable bound could be obtained for high-dimensional Hilbert spaces). We note that our proof The AEP was first generalized to situations where the technique is different from the one used in [9], where the outcomes A of the random experiment are quantum sys- result also explicitly depends on the dimension of the tems, while the side information remains classical. In Hilbert space A. H this case the side information does not need to be mod- Our proof is based on quantities that can be seen as a eled explicitly but can be included in the description of quantum generalization of Rényi entropies (Section II). the output states (see e.g. [5, 6, 7, 8]). In this paper A central ingredient is a family of inequalities that gener- we consider a generalization to a fully quantum AEP, alize (4) to the quantum domain (Section III). Together involving possibly quantum mechanical side information with a quantitative bound on the difference between the B.2 A preliminary version of the result has appeared in [9] (see the discussion below for a comparison). Similar

3 To our knowledge typical subspaces cannot be deﬁned in a fully quantum setting. Instead, it is necessary to ﬁrst bound the condi- 2 We consider this result an extension of the AEP in the sense tional entropies in terms of (unconditional) entropies of the joint that it takes the role of the classical AEP in a quantum informa- system AB and of system B separately. The typical subspace tion context. Namely, if an information theoretic problem can be arguments can then be applied individually to get an asymptotic solved in terms of min- and max-entropies in a single-shot sce- limit of H (AB) H (B) = H (A B). Bounds on the convergence nario, the asymptotic result for i.i.d. states follows via the AEP derived from this− argument will| depend on the convergence of (and, thus, can be expressed in terms of von Neumann entropies). the individual terms and thus in general on the Hilbert space The classical AEP follows as a special case of our result. dimensions of AB and B (see [3]). H H 3

generalized Rényi entropies and the von Neumann en- entropy is its dual with regards to a purification ρABC of 5 tropy (Section IV), this leads to the main claim (Theo- ρAB on an auxiliary Hilbert space C: rem 9 in Section V). H Definition 2. Let ρABC ( ABC) be pure, then the The technical tools used for the derivation of our re- ∈ S≤ H max-entropy of A conditioned on B of the state ρAB is sults (in particular Lemma 14 in Appendix A) may be of defined as independent use — for example, they allow for a simple proof of the strong sub-additivity of the von Neumann H (A B)ρ := H (A C)ρ . (10) max | − min | entropy (cf. Lemma 5 and [12]). The quantum entropies can be ordered as follows:

Lemma 2. Let ρAB ( AB), then ∈ S H II. QUANTUM RENYI´ ENTROPIES H (A B) H (A B) H (A B) . (11) min | ρ ≤ | ρ ≤ max | ρ In order to define smooth versions, we consider the set In this section, we define the various entropies used and of states close to ρ in the following sense. For ε> 0, we explore some of their properties. Proofs of the lemmas define an ε-ball of states around ρ ( ) as can be found in Appendix B. Given a finite-dimensional ∈ S H ε Hilbert space , we use ( ) to denote the set of posi- (ρ) := ρ˜ ( ) : C(ρ, ρ˜) ε , (12) B { ∈ S≤ H ≤ } tive semi-definiteH operatorsP H on . The set of normalized H where C(ρ, ρ˜) := 1 F 2(ρ, ρ˜) as proposed in [15] is a quantum states ( ) := ρ ( ) : tr ρ = 1 and − S H { ∈ P H } distance measure (on normalized states) based on the fi- the set of sub-normalized states ( ) := ρ ( ) : p S≤ H { ∈ P H delity F (ρ, ρ˜) := tr √ρ√ρ˜ . We use this choice of measure tr ρ 1 can now be defined. Indices are used to denote | | ≤ } because it is invariant under purifications and is directly multi-partite Hilbert spaces, e.g. AB = A B. Let H H ⊗ H related to the trace distance for pure states.6 Smoothed ρAB ( AB) be a bipartite state and σB ( B), then ∈ S H ∈ S H versions of the min-entropy are then defined: 1 1 ε H (A B)ρ σ := lim tr (ρAB( A log(σB +ξ B) log ρAB)) , H (A B)ρ σ := max H (A B)ρ˜ σ , min ε min | | ξ 0 ⊗ − | | ρÃB (ρAB) | | → ∈B ε H (A B)ρ := max H (A B)ρ˜ . min ε min where 1A and 1B are the identity operators on A and | ρÃB (ρAB) | H ∈B B, respectively. The conditional von Neumann entropy Similarly, we define canH then be recovered by ε H (A B)ρ := min H (A B)ρ˜ . (13) max ε max | ρÃB (ρAB) | H (A B)ρ := max H (A B)ρ σ = H (A B)ρ ρ , ∈B | σB ( B) | | | | ∈S H The smoothed entropies maintain the duality relation ε ε where ρB = trA(ρAB) is obtained by taking the partial H (A B) = H (A C) . (14) max | ρ − min | ρ trace on A of ρAB. We use indices to denote the different marginal states of multi-partite systems and often do Both entropies are independent of the Hilbert spaces used not mention explicitly when a partial trace needs to be to represent the density operators locally; namely, given ρAB ( AB), τCD ( CD) and two isometries U and taken, since this information is contained implicitly in the ∈ S H ∈ S H 4 V s.t. τCD = (U V )ρAB(U † V †), we have notation of the entropies. We define the min-entropy: ⊗ ⊗ ε ε ε ε Hmin(A B)ρ = Hmin(C D)τ , Hmax(A B)ρ = Hmax(C D)τ . Definition 1. Let ρAB ( AB) and σB ( B), then | | | | ≤ ∈ S H ∈ S H Moreover, let σB ( B) and ωD := V σBV †, then the min-entropy of A conditioned on B of the state ρAB ∈ S H relative to σB is defined as ε ε Hmin(A B)ρ σ = Hmin(C D)τ ω . (15) | | | | R λ 1 For a more in-depth treatment of smooth conditional en- Hmin(A B)ρ σ := sup λ :2− A σB ρAB (8) | | { ∈ ⊗ ≥ } tropies and their basic properties, we refer to [16]. Furthermore, we define Next, we introduce a family of Rényi-like conditional entropies:

Hmin(A B)ρ := max Hmin(A B)ρ σ. (9) | σB ( B) | | ∈S H

5 Clearly, Hmin(A B)ρ σ is finite if and only if Note that this quantity is different from the Hmax used in earlier | | supp σB supp ρB and otherwise. The max- work (e.g. [9]). However, the definition used here (and introduced { } ⊇ { } −∞ in [14]) is chosen because it satisfies the duality relation (10). When B = C, we recover the classical Rényi entropy H1 . H ∼ /2 Note that the smooth versions of H1/2 (cf. eq. (13)) and H0 are equivalent up to additive terms logarithmic in the smoothing 4 For example, given a state ρABC, the entropy H (A B)ρ is meant parameter [3], which disappear in the asymptotic statements. | 6 to be taken with the marginal states ρAB = trC(ρABC) and ρB = In fact, C(ρ, ρ˜) corresponds to the minimal trace distance be- trAC(ρABC). tween purifications of ρ andρ ˜ if tr(ρ) = tr(˜ρ)=1. 4

Definition 3. Let ρAB ( AB), σB ( B) and α Lemma 5. Let α [0, 2], ρAB ( AB), σB ( B), ∈ S H ∈ S H ∈ ∈ ∈ S H ∈ S H (0, 1) (1, ), then the α-entropy of A conditioned on B τAC ( AC), ωC ( C) and a TP-CPM s.t. τAC = ∪ ∞ ∈ S H ∈ S H E of the state ρAB relative to σB is given by (ρAB) and ωC = (σB), where is the identity on I⊗E E I ( A), then 1 1 α S H α 1 − Hα(A B)ρ σ := log tr(ρAB A σB ) , (16) | | 1 α ⊗ − Hα(A B)ρ σ Hα(A C)τ ω . (20) | | ≤ | | when σB is invertible and limξ 0 Hα(A B)ρ σ+ξ1 other- → | | wise. When the partial trace over a subsystem takes the role of the TP-CPM, Lemma 5 is equivalent to strong sub- Note that for α > 1 the limit is finite if and only if additivity in the case of the von Neumann entropy. We supp σB supp ρB and otherwise. A similar find the following duality relation for α-entropies: quantity{ } appears ⊇ in{ quantum} −∞ hypothesis testing [11, 17] and as a quantum relative Rényi entropy in [12, 18, 19]. If Lemma 6. Let ρABC ( ABC) be pure and α [0, 2], B = C is trivial, we recover the classical Rényi entropies H ∼ then ∈ S H ∈ (3). The entropies H0 (α 0) and H (α ) can be defined as limits. Moreover,→ the von∞ Neumann→ ∞ entropy is recovered by continuous extension to α = 1 : Hα(A B)ρ ρ = H2 α(A C)ρ ρ . (21) | | − − | |

H1(A B)ρ σ := lim Hα(A B)ρ σ = H (A B)ρ σ . | α 1 | | The duality relation of the von Neumann entropy — | → | | H (A B)ρ = H (A C)ρ — follows in the limit α 1. Unlike their classical counterparts, the quantum condi- | − | → tional min- and max-entropies cannot be recovered as special cases of α-entropies. However, it can be shown

[14] that, for any σB ( B), III. LOWER BOUND ON SMOOTH ∈ S H MIN-ENTROPY 2 1 Hmax(A B)ρ = max log F (ρAB, A τB) H1/2(A B)ρ σ. | τB ( B) ⊗ ≥ | | ∈S H (17) Our main tool for proving the fully quantum AEP is a

Furthermore, using the eigenvalue decompositions ρAB = family of inequalities that relate the smooth conditional 1 ¯ ¯ min-entropy Hε (A B) to H (A B) for α (1, 2]. The i νi i i and A σB = j µj j j , we have min α | ih | ⊗ | ih | result is a quantum generalization| | of (4). ∈ P P νi H (A B)ρ σ = lim log max Hmin(A B)ρ σ. ∞ | | ξ 0 − i,j µj + ξ ≤ | | Theorem 7. → hi|¯ji6=0 Let ρAB ( AB), σB ( B), ε> 0 and α (1, 2], then the following∈ S H inequality∈ S holds:H Nevertheless, the α-entropies share some of the useful ∈ properties of their classical counterparts: ε 1 2 Hmin(A B)ρ σ Hα(A B)ρ σ log . (22) | | ≥ | | − α 1 ε2 Lemma 3. Let ρAB ( AB) and σB ( B), then the ∈ S H ∈ S H − entropies Hα(A B)ρ σ are monotonically decreasing in α. | | Proof. We consider two cases: (1) The α entropy di- Furthermore, the entropies are additive, e.g. evaluation verges and the inequality holds trivially. (2) We have n n for an i.i.d. state ρAB⊗ relative to another i.i.d. state σB⊗ supp ρB supp σB . In this case, we can find an { } ⊆ { } results in isometry ′ B that maps a σ′ to σB and ρ′ to ρAB HB → H B AB n n s.t. σB′ has full support. The min- and α-entropies are Hα(A B )ρ⊗n σ⊗n = nHα(A B)ρ σ . (18) | | | | invariant under this isometry due to (15) and Lemma 4, thus, we henceforth assume that σB is invertible in this The α-entropies are independent of the Hilbert spaces proof. used to represent the density operators locally: We use Appendix C to get a first bound on Hε (A B); Lemma 4. min | Let ρAB ( AB), σB ( B), τCD in particular, let λ be chosen s.t. Lemma 15 holds for ∈ S H ∈ S H ∈ ( CD), ωD ( D) and U, V isometries s.t. τCD = ε (cf. Remark 16). Next, we introduce the operator S H ∈ S H 1 (U V )ρAB(U † V †) and ωD = V σBV †. Then, X := ρAB λ A σB with eigenbasis ψi i S. The ⊗ ⊗ ∈ set S+ S−contains⊗ the indices i corresponding{| i} to pos- H (A B) = H (C D) . (19) ⊆ + α ρ σ α τ ω itive eigenvalues of X. Hence, P := + ψ ψ | | | | i S i i is the projector on the positive eigenspace∈ of |X ihand| Conditional entropies are measures of the uncertainty P +XP + = ∆ as defined in Lemma 15.P Furthermore, about A given B, hence we expect them to satisfy a data 1 let ri := ψi ρAB ψi 0 and si := ψi A σB ψi > 0. processing inequality, i.e. local processing by a trace- It followsh that| | i ≥ h | ⊗ | i preserving completely positive map (TP-CPM) on system B cannot decrease the conditional entropy. The α- ri entropies for α [0, 2] have this property. i S+ : ri λsi 0 and 1. ∈ ∀ ∈ − ≥ λsi ≥ 5

For any α (1, 2], we bound ε in Lemma 15 as follows: Let i be an orthonormal basis of AB and ′ = ∈ {| i}i H HAB ∼ AB a copy of AB. The state γ := i i i is ε2 H H | i | i ⊗ | i the (unnormalized) fully entangled state on AB AB′ . = tr(∆) = ri λsi ri PH1 ⊗ H 2 − ≤ We introduce a puriﬁcation φ := (√ρAB AB) γ of i S+ i S+ X∈ X∈ | i ⊗ | i α 1 ρAB. To simplify notation, we use β := α 1 as well as r − 1 1 T − i X := ρAB ( σB− ) . ri ⊗ ⊗ ≤ λsi Let us ﬁrst approximate H (A B) for small β > 0: i S+ α X∈ | 1 α α 1 α 1 1 λ − ri si − . (23) β β ≤ Hα(A B)ρ σ = log φ X φ (1 φ X φ ) , i S | | −β h | | i≥ β ln 2 − h | | i X∈

Next, we apply Lemma 14 to the functional Sgα , where we used ln x x 1 for all x > 0. We now α ≤ β− where gα : t t is operator convex for α (1, 2] expand the exponential t for each eigenvalue t > 0 of 7→ ∈ β (cf. Section V.2 of [20]). We use the TP-CPM A X as follows: t = 1+ β ln t + rβ (t), where rβ (t) := 7→ β i S ψi ψi A ψi ψi to obtain t β ln t 1. This leads to ∈ | ih | | ih | − − P 1 α 1 1 α α 1 α 1 Sgα (ρAB, A σB) = tr(ρAB( A σB) − ) ri si − . Hα(A B)ρ σ β φ ln X φ φ rβ (X) φ ⊗ ⊗ ≥ | | ≥ β ln 2 − h | | i − h | | i i S X∈ 1 = H (A B)ρ σ φ rβ (X) φ . (26) Substituting this into (23), we ﬁnd | | − β ln 2h | | i

α 1 2 α 1 α To simplify this further, we note that λ − tr(ρ (1A σB) − ) . ≤ ε2 AB ⊗ rβ(t) 2(cosh(β ln t) 1) =: sβ(t) . Finally, taking the logarithm on both sides, dividing by ≤ − 1 α< 0 and applying Lemma 15 results in (22). It is easy to verify that s is monotonically increasing − β for t 1 and concave in t for β 1/2 and t [3, ). ≥ 1≤ 2 ∈ ∞ Furthermore, we have sβ(t)= sβ( ) and sβ(t )= s2β(t). α t IV. LOWER BOUND ON -ENTROPIES We use this to write7 1 1 We will use Theorem 7 to get a lower bound on the sβ(t) sβ t + +2 = s2β √t + min-entropy in terms of α-entropies, hence, it remains to ≤ t √t find a lower bound on the α-entropies in terms of the von 1 s2β √t + +1 . (27) Neumann entropy. In turn, the bound on the convergence ≤ √t will depend on the smoothing parameter ε and a contribution Υ(A B) that describes how fast the α-entropies Next, we apply (27) to the matrix element in (26) and converge to| the von Neumann entropy. use the fact that the operator √X +1/√X + 1 has its log 3 1 eigenvalues in [3, ) and 2β < 2 log η 2 together with Definition 4. Let ρAB ( AB) and σB ( B), then ∞ ≤ Lemma 11 in Appendix A: we define the α-entropy∈ convergence S H parameter∈ S H 1 1 H (A B) 1 H (A B) √ 1 2 3/2 ρ|σ 2 1/2 ρ|σ φ rβ (X) φ φ s2β X + + φ s2β(η) , Υ(A B)ρ σ := 2− | +2 | +1 . (24) h | | i ≤ h | √ | i≤ | | X (28) When σB = ρB, one can use (17) and its dual relation where we substituted η = φ √X+1/√X+1 φ . Taylor’s H3 2(A B)ρ ρ Hmin(A B)ρ (cf. (10) and Lemma 6) to h | | i / | | ≥ | theorem and an expansion around β = 0 gives an upper write bound on s (t): s (t) β2(ln t)2 cosh(β ln t). Hence, β β ≤ H (A B)ρ H (A B) Υ(A B)ρ ρ 2− min | + 2 max | ρ +1 . 1 | | ≤ s (η) 4β(log η)2 ln 2 cosh(2β ln η) β ln 2 2β We can now statep a bound on the αp-entropies for α close ≤ 2 to 1 as follows: < 4β(log η) , (29)

Lemma 8. Let ρAB ( AB), σB ( B), η = where we simpliﬁed the expression (for convenience of ∈ S H log 3 ∈ S H Υ(A B)ρ σ and 1 <α< 1+ , then the following exposition) using ln 2 cosh(ln 3/2) < 1. The lemma now | | 4 log η inequality holds: follows after we substitute (29) and (28) into (26).

2 Hα(A B)ρ σ H (A B)ρ σ 4 (α 1)(log η) . (25) | | ≥ | | − −

Proof. We assume that σB is invertible in this proof. The 7 Adaptions of this step lead to diﬀerent bounds. Here, we are general result then follows by the arguments outlined at interested in a bound that can be expressed in terms of H1/2 and the beginning of the proof of Theorem 7. H3/2. 6

9 V. QUANTUM AEP where n and δ(ε, η) as in Theorem 9 and η = Υ(A B)ρ σ. | | The generalized asymptotic equipartition property One could use Theorem 7, together with the arguments stated in Theorem 1 follows as a corollary. given for the classical case in Section I A, to prove (6) directly. In many applications, it is useful to have an Proof of Theorem 1. We first show the min-entropy rela- ε explicit lower bound on Hmin(A B). We derive such a tion (6). Taking the n limit in Theorem 9 gives bound, from which the asymptotic| version (6) is a corol- → ∞ lary. 1 ε n n lim lim Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n H (A B)ρ. ε 0 n n | ≥ | Theorem 9. → →∞ Let ρAB ( AB), ε > 0, η = Υ(A B)ρ ρ N n ∈ S H n | | However, since, for ε 0, the min-entropy is smaller and n s.t. ρAB⊗ is an i.i.d. state on AB⊗ , then → ∈ H than the Shannon entropy (cf. Lemma 2), we get the desired result. To see this, note that there exists a 1 ε n n δ(ε, η) H (A B ) ⊗n H (A B) , ε n min ρ ρ ρÃnBn (ρ⊗ ) s.t. n | ≥ | − √n ∈B AB ε n n n n n n 8 2 Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n = Hmin(A B )ρ˜ H (A B )ρ˜ . (33) where, for n log 2 , the error term is given by ≥ 5 ε | | ≤ | We now use the continuity of the von Neumann entropy 2 under small perturbations of the state as expressed in δ(ε, η) := 4log η log 2 . (30) r ε Fannes’ inequality (cf. [22]). This ensures that, for finite- dimensional Hilbert spaces, the difference between the Proof. By definition, we have n n n Shannon entropies evaluated for ρAB⊗ andρ Ã B scales at 1 ε n n 1 ε n n most linearly in n (i.e. logarithmic in the Hilbert space Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n ρ⊗n . n | ≥ n | | dimension):

We use Theorem 7, the additivity property (18) of the 1 n n n n lim H (A B )ρ˜ H (A B )ρ⊗n O(ε) . α-entropy and Lemma 8 to get a bound on the rhs. Let n →∞ n | − | ≤ α := 1+ 1 for a parameter µ (to be optimized over), 2µ√n Together with (33), this leads to then 1 1 2 1 ε n n n n lim lim Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n H (A B)ρ. rhs. Hα(A B )ρ⊗n ρ⊗n log ε 0 n n | ≤ | ≥ n | | − n(α 1) ε2 → →∞ − 2µ 2 The max-entropy relation (7) follows after we substi- = Hα(A B)ρ ρ log | | − √n ε2 tute the duals of the smooth min-entropy (14) and the von Neumann entropy (21) into (6). 2 2 1 2 H (A B)ρ ρ µ log + (log η) . (31) ≥ | | − √n ε2 µ We want to choose µ such that it minimizes the ex- APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL RESULTS 2 1 2 pression µ log ε2 +µ− (log η) . However, the requirement α < 1+ log 3 in Lemma 8 restricts the choice of µ for 4 log η We discuss some properties of convex and operator 10 any fixed n, hence, the error term δ(ε, η) is in general convex functions. Let , ′ be Hilbert spaces and also a function of n. Nonetheless, for large enough n the φ . We start with aH straightforwardH application of optimum, µ , can be reached8 and we get | i ∈ H ∗ Jensen’s inequality: (log η)2 8 (log η)2 8 2 Lemma 11. Let f be a convex function on [a,b] and X µ = for n = log . (32) 1 1 ∗ 2 2 2 an operator on s.t. a X b . Then, s log 2 ≥ 5 µ 5 ε H ≤ ≤ ε ∗ φ f(X) φ f( φ X φ ) . Substitution of this expression into (31) leads to (30). h | | i≥ h | | i Remark 10. The proof of Theorem 9 can be generalized to Hmin(A B)ρ σ. The generalized theorem reads: For | | 9 ρAB ( AB) and σB ( B), we have Furthermore, note that all results of this paper can also be stated ∈ S H ∈ S H in terms of relative entropies instead of conditional entropies. For example, in the language of [21], Remark 10 reads: Let 1 ε n n δ(ε, η) Hmin(A B )ρ⊗n σ⊗n H (A B)ρ σ , ρ, σ and ε > 0. With n and δ as in Theorem 9, we have n | | ≥ | | − √n 1 ε∈ H ⊗n ⊗n n Dmax(ρ σ ) S(ρ σ)+ δ(ε, η)/√n, where the smoothing is over an ε-ballk around≤ kρ as defined in the present work and 1 1 η = 2 /2 S3/2(ρkσ) + 2− /2 S1/2(ρkσ) + 1. 10 1 A continuous function f on [0, ) is operator convex if f` 2 (A + 8 −1 1 ∞ To verify this, evaluate an upper bound to α = 1 + (2µ∗√n) B)´ `f(A)+ f(B)´ for all positive semi-definite matrices A ≤ 2 using the expression for n in (32) and note that p5/2 < log 3. and B. 7

A generalization of Jensen’s inequality to operator con- under isometries. To show monotonicity under partial vex functions was shown in [23]: trace, we let = with local bases i and H H1 ⊗ H2 {| i1}i i 2 i, respectively. We introduce ′ = 1, the (unnor- Lemma 12 (Operator Jensen’s Inequality). Let f be a {| i } H1 ∼ H malized) fully entangled state γ = i 1 j 2 i 1 continuous operator convex function on [0, ) and ν an | i i,j | i ⊗| i ⊗| i ⊗ ∞ j 2 and its marginal γ 1 = i i 1 i 1. It remains to isometry ′. Then, for all C 0 on ′ it holds | i | i | i P⊗ | i H → H ≥ H show that Sf (A, B) Sf (A1,B1), where A1 = tr2(A) that ≥ P and B1 = tr2(B). We will show this under the assump- tion that B is invertible and the result for general B ν†f(C)ν f(ν†Cν) . ≥ will follow from the continuity (by definition) of Sf when ξ 0. We will now discuss Lemma 14, originally proven by → Let us define a linear map ν : ′ ′ by Petz [24], which establishes the monotonicity of certain H1 ⊗ H1 →H⊗H functionals Sf under TP-CPMs and is of independent 1 ν := √B B − i 1 i . use in quantum information theory (see e.g. [11, 12]). 1 ⊗ | i2 ⊗ 1 ⊗ | i2 Let be a Hilbert space with orthonormal basis i , i H {| i}i X p ′ = be a copy of , and γ := i i be the 1 H ∼ H H | i i | i ⊗ | i The map ν is an isometry, i.e. ν†ν = 11 and satisfies (unnormalized) fully entangled state on ′. Then, for H⊗H any continuous function f : [0, ) PR with f(0) = 0, ν B1 11 γ 1 = √B 112 γ . (A2) ⊗ | i ⊗ | i and operators A 0,B > 0 on ∞, we→ define p T T ≥ H Moreover, we have tr2(A )= A1 , since the transpose is 1 T taken in the product basis. Hence, it follows that Sf (A, B) := γ (√B 1)f(B− A )(√B 1) γ , h | ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ | i 1 T 1 T T ν†(B− A )ν = B1− A1 . where ( ) denotes the transpose with respect to i i ⊗ ⊗ and 1 is· the identity operator on . More generally,{| i} for Next, we apply Lemma 12 to get H any B 0, we define 1 T 1 T 1 T ≥ ν†f(B− A )ν f ν†(B− A )ν)= f(B− A ) . ⊗ ≥ ⊗ 1 ⊗ 1 Sf (A, B) = lim Sf (A, B + ξ1) . (A1) ξ 0 Finally, using (A2), we recover Sf (A, B) Sf (A1,B1) → by taking the matrix element for (√B 1 ≥) γ on both 1 ⊗ 1 | i1 The functional Sf (A, B) is independent of the Hilbert sides of the inequality. space used to represent A and B in the following sense:

Lemma 13. Let U : ¯ be an isometry, then for all APPENDIX B: PROOFS OF CLAIMS IN operators A 0, B H0 →onH : SECTION II ≥ ≥ H Sf (A, B)= Sf (UAU †,UBU †) . For completeness, we prove various properties of the min-, max- and α-entropies presented in Section II. Proof. Let A = λ i i and B = µ ¯j ¯j with i i| ih | j j | ih | eigenvalues λi 0, µj 0 and orthonormal bases i i Proof of Lemma 2. It is sufficient to prove the first rela- ¯ ≥ P ≥ P 1 {| i} 11 and j j respectively. Now, using γ X γ = tr(X) tion , since Hmin(A B) H (A B) implies Hmax(A C) {| i} T h | ⊗ | i and (X 1) γ = (1 X ) γ for any operator X, we H (A C) by the duality| relations.≤ | | ≥ get ⊗ | i ⊗ | i | 1 H (A B)ρ = max tr ρAB(log( A σB) log ρAB) | σB ( B) ⊗ − λ ∈S H i ¯ 2 Sf (A, B) = lim (µj + ξ)f i j . tr (ρAB(log(λ1A σ′ ) log ρAB)) log λ ξ 0 µ + ξ |h | i| B → i,j j ≥ ⊗ − − X H (A B)ρ , ≥ min | The isometry U keeps the eigenvalues and the scalar where we chose λ > 0 and σB′ ( B) such that they product i ¯j invariant. Furthermore, any zero eigen- ∈ S H optimize (8) and (9). Hence, log λ = Hmin(A B)ρ. Fur- values introducedh | i do not contribute to the sum since − 1 | thermore, it follows from (8) that λ A σB′ ρAB. Then, they lie on a space orthogonal to the image of U, and using the operator monotonicity12 of t⊗ log≥t (cf. Chap- f(0) = 0. ter V in [20]), we find that the remaining7→ term is posi- Lemma 14. Let f be operator convex on [0, ) and let tive. be a TP-CPM, then for all operators A 0∞,B 0 on E : ≥ ≥ H 11 See also Lemma 10 in [21] for an alternative proof. There they Sf (A, B) Sf ( (A), (B)) . C ≥ E E define the relative entropy Dmax(ρB σB) which, for A ∼= trivial, is equal to H (A B) . k H − min | ρ|σ Proof. Every TP-CPM can be expressed as an isometry 12 A function f on (0, ) is operator monotone if A B implies followed by a partial trace (cf. [8], Section 8.2). We have f(A) f(B) for any∞ strictly positive Hermitian matrices≥ A and ≥ already established in Lemma 13 that Sf is invariant B. 8

Proof of Lemma 3. We prove this statement for invert- The equality now follows from α 1=1 (2 α). − − − ible σB and the general statement then follows by continuity. Using the (unnormalized) fully entangled state Hε γ as in Appendix A, we deﬁne a puriﬁcation φ := APPENDIX C: ESTIMATE OF min(A|B)ρ | i 1 | i (√ρAB AB) γ of ρAB. Furthermore, we set β := α 1 ⊗ | i 1 1 T − and X := ρAB ( σB− ) . It is easy to verify that, for The following lemma gives an estimate of the smooth f : t t log t, ⊗ ⊗ min-entropy Hε (A B) (see also [25]): 7→ min | ρ

1 β Lemma 15. Let ρAB ( AB), σB ( B) and λ> 0, Hα(A B)ρ σ = log φ X φ and ∈ S H ∈ S H | | −β h | | i then β ∂ 1 β 1 φ X log X φ ε Hα(A B)ρ σ = log φ X φ h | | i Hmin(A B)ρ σ log λ, ε = 2 tr(∆), (C1) ∂α | | β2 h | | i− β φ Xβ φ | | ≥− h | | i β β 1 p f( φ X φ ) φ f(X ) φ where ∆ := ρAB λ A σB + is the positive part of the = h | | i − h | | i . { 1− ⊗ } β2 φ Xβ φ operator ρAB λ A σB. h | | i − ⊗ The statement of the lemma then follows from the con- Proof. We first chooseρ ÃB, bound Hmin(A B)ρ˜ σ, and ε | | vexity of f together with Lemma 11. then show thatρ ÃB (ρAB). We use the abbreviated ∈ B notation Λ := λ1A σB and set Proof of Lemma 4. The α-entropies can be expressed in ⊗ 1 1 2 2 terms of the functionals of Appendix A. Given the con- ρÃB := GρABG†, G := Λ (Λ + ∆)− , α tinuous functions gα : t t and h : t t log t that satisfy g (0) = 0 for α 7→(0, ) and h(0)7→ =0, − we write where the inverse is taken on the support of Λ. From the α ∈ ∞ definition of ∆, we have ρAB Λ+∆; hence,ρ ÃB Λ 1 1 log Sg (ρAB, A σB) α (0, 1) ≤ ≤ 1 α α and Hmin(A B)ρ˜ σ log λ. − 1 ⊗ ∈ | | ≥− Hα(A B)ρ σ = Sh(ρAB, A σB) α =1 . Let ψ be a purification of ρAB, then (G 1AB) ψ is | |  1 ⊗ 1 | i ⊗ | i log Sgα (ρAB, A σB) α (1, ) a purification ofρ ÃB and, using Uhlmann’s theorem, we − α 1 ⊗ ∈ ∞ − (B1) find a bound on the fidelity: The proof is now a straightforward application of 1 ¯ Lemma 13 with isometry U V to the functionals Sh and F (ρAB, ρÃB) ψ G AB ψ tr(GρAB) = tr(GρAB) , 1 ⊗ ≥ |h | ⊗ | i|≥ℜ Sgα . Note that (U V )( A σB)(U † V †) = UU † ωD, 1 ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ¯ 1 where UU † and C are interchangeable in the definition where we introduced G := 2 (G + G†). Hence, of Hα(C D)τ ω, since τC has its support on UU †. The | | statements for α 0 and α follow by continu- C(ρAB, ρÃB) (1 + tr(Gρ¯ AB))(1 tr(Gρ¯ AB)) . ity. → → ∞ ≤ − q This can be simplified further after we note that G is a Proof of Lemma 5. The proof is a straightforward appli- contraction.13 To see this, we multiply Λ Λ + ∆ with cation of Lemma 14 with TP-CPM to the func- 1 ≤ (Λ + ∆) 2 from left and right to get tionals in (B1). In the von NeumannI⊗E limit α = 1, we − 1 1 write 2 2 G†G = (Λ + ∆)− Λ(Λ + ∆)− 1AB. 1 ≤ H (A B)ρ σ = Sh(ρAB, A σB) | | ⊗ ¯ 1 ¯ 1 Furthermore, G AB, since G 1 by the triangle Sh( (ρAB), ( A σB)) ≤ || || ≤ ¯ inequality and G = G† 1. Clearly, tr(GρAB) 1. ≤ I⊗E1 I⊗E ⊗ || || || || ≤ ≤ = Sh(τAC, A ωC) = H (A C)τ ω , Moreover, ⊗ | | where we used that h : t t log t is operator concave 1 tr(Gρ¯ AB) = tr((1AB G¯)ρAB) on [0, ) (cf. Chapter V in7→ [20]). − Similarly, we use that − − ∞ α tr(Λ + ∆) tr(G¯(Λ + ∆)) gα : t t on [0, ) is operator concave for α (0, 1) ≤ − 1 1 and operator7→ convex∞ for α (1, 2] (cf. Chapter V∈ in [20]) = tr(Λ + ∆) tr((Λ + ∆) /2Λ /2) ∈ − as well as continuity at α = 0 to prove the statement for tr(∆) , α [0, 2]. ≤ ∈ where we used ρAB Λ + ∆ and √Λ + ∆ √Λ. The Proof of Lemma 6. We write ρABC = ϑ ϑ and note that ≤ ≥ | ih | latter inequality follows from the operator monotonicity the marginal states ρAB and ρC satisfy (ρAB 1C) ϑ = 1 ⊗ | i of the square root function (Proposition V.1.8 in [20]). ( AB ρC) ϑ . The same applies to ρB and ρAC. Thus, ε ⊗ | i Finally, C(ρAB, ρÃB) 2tr(∆) = ε andρ ÃB (ρAB). ≤ ∈B (1 α)Hα(A B)ρ ρ − | | p α 1 1 α = log tr(ρAB( A ρB) − ) ⊗ α 1 1 α = log ϑ (ρAB 1C) − (1A ρB 1C) − ϑ h | ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ | i α 1 2 α 13 = log tr((1A ρC) − ρ − ) . A contraction G is an operator with operator norm G 1. ⊗ AC || || ≤ 9

Remark 16. For a fixed ε [0, 1] and supp ρB ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∈ { } ⊆ supp σB , we can always find a finite λ s.t. Lemma 15 holds.{ To} see this, note that

1 ε(λ)= 2 tr ρAB λ A σB + We thank Johan Aberg,˚ Nilanjana Datta, Mil´an { − ⊗ } Mosonyi and J¨urg Wullschleger for comments. We is continuous inp λ with ε(0) = √2 and acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science H (A B) ε(2− min | ρ|σ )=0. Foundation (grant No. 200021-119868).

[1] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403133 Theory. Wiley Series in Telecommunications, 1991. [14] R. König, R. Renner, and C. Schaffner, “The operational [2] T. Holenstein and R. Renner, “On the randomness meaning of min- and max-entropy,” Jul. 2008. [Online]. of independent experiments,” 2006. [Online]. Available: Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1338 http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0608007 [15] A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, [3] R. Renner and S. Wolf, “Smooth Rényi entropy and ap- “Distance measures to compare real and ideal plications,” in Proc. ISIT, 2004. quantum processes,” Aug. 2004. [Online]. Available: [4] A. Rényi, “On measures of information and entropy,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408063 in Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. on Math., Stat. and Prob., [16] M. Tomamichel, R. Colbeck, and R. Renner, “On the 1961, pp. 547–561. smoothing of conditional min- and max-entropies,” Un- [5] R. Jozsa and B. Schumacher, “A new proof of the quan- published Notes, 2009. tum noiseless coding theorem,” J. Mod. Opt., vol. 41, pp. [17] K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Munoz-Tapia, 2343–2349, 1994. E. Bagan, L. Masanes, A. Acin, and F. Verstraete, “Dis- [6] H. Barnum, E. Knill, and M. Nielsen, “On quantum fi- criminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,” Phys. delities and channel capacities,” IEEE Trans. Inf. The- Rev. Lett., vol. 98, no. 16, p. 160501, 2007. ory, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1317–1329, Jul. 2000. [18] M. Ohya and D. Petz, Quantum Entropy and Its Use. [7] B. Schoenmakers, J. Tjoelker, P. Tuyls, and E. Verbit- Springer, 1993. skiy, “Smooth Rényi entropy of ergodic quantum infor- [19] M. Mosony and N. Datta, “Generalized relative entropies mation sources,” in Proc. ISIT, 2007, pp. 256–260. and the capacity of classical-quantum channels,” 2008. [8] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3478 and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, [20] R. Bhatia, Matrix Analysis, ser. Graduate Texts in Math- 2000. ematics. Springer, 1997. [9] R. Renner, “Security of quantum key distribu- [21] N. Datta, “Min- and max- relative entropies and a tion,” Ph.D. dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute new entanglement monotone,” Mar. 2008. [Online]. of Technology, Zurich, 2005. [Online]. Available: Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2770v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512258 [22] R. Alicki and M. Fannes, “Continuity of quantum [10] F. Hiai and D. Petz, “The proper formula for relative en- mutual information,” Dec. 2003. [Online]. Available: tropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability,” Com- http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312081v1 mun. Math. Phys., vol. 143, pp. 99–114, 1991. [23] F. Hansen and G. K. Pedersen, “Jensen’s operator in- [11] T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, “Strong converse and Stein’s equality,” Bull. London Math. Soc., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. 553–564, Jul. 2003. Theory, vol. 46, pp. 2428–2433, Nov. 2000. [24] D. Petz, “Quasi-entropies for finite quantum systems,” [12] M. Hayashi, Quantum Information — An Introduction. Rep. Math. Phys., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 57–65, Sep. 1984. Springer, 2006. [25] N. Datta and R. Renner, “Smooth Rényi entropies [13] R. Renner and R. König, “Universally composable and the quantum information spectrum,” Jan. 2008. privacy amplification against quantum adversaries,” in [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0282 Proc. TCC, 2005, pp. 407–425. [Online]. Available: