Arxiv:1008.4135V2 [Quant-Ph] 26 Aug 2010 Fqatmdsod Swl H Unu Ectadthe Context and Deficit the Quantum in the Purity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interpreting quantum discord through quantum state merging Vaibhav Madhok1 and Animesh Datta2 1Center for Quantum Information and Control, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA 2Clarendon Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, OX1 3PU, United Kingdom (Dated: October 22, 2018) We present an operational interpretation of quantum discord based on the quantum state merging protocol. Quantum discord is the markup in the cost of quantum communication in the process of quantum state merging, if one discards relevant prior information. Our interpretation has an intuitive explanation based on the strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy. We use our result to provide operational interpretations of other quantities like the local purity and quantum deficit. Finally, we discuss in brief some instances where our interpretation is valid in the single copy scenario. Keywords: quantum discord, quantum state merging, quantum deficit Quantum information science is primarily aimed at relations in a quantum state, including entanglement [6, harnessing the quantum structure of nature for informa- 11]. Quantum mutual information is generally taken to tion processing and computing tasks [1]. This quest has be the measure of total correlations, classical and quan- met with considerable success over the last decade, but tum, in a quantum state. For two systems, A and B, there has been substantial progress in the other direction it is defined as I(A : B) = H(A)+ H(B) − H(A, B). as well. Information theory has provided a novel frame- Here H(·) denotes the Shannon entropy of the appropri- work for unraveling the intricacies of quantum mechanics. ate distribution. For a classical probability distribution, Quantum correlations, as well as classical ones are now Bayes’ rule leads to an equivalent definition of the mu- viewed as resources, whose interconvertibility is governed tual information as I(A : B) = H(A) − H(A|B). This by quantum information theory [2]. Foremost amongst motivates a definition of classical correlation in a quan- these is evidently entanglement, which provides enhanced tum state. Suppose Alice and Bob share a quantum performance in several important tasks like communica- state ρAB ∈ HA ⊗ HB. If Bob performs the POVM set tion, computation, metrology and others [3]. {Πi}, the resulting state is given by the shared ensemble {p ,ρ }, where In the realm of mixed-state quantum information, how- i A|i ever, instances are known where quantum advantages are evidenced in the presence of little or no entanglement [4]. ρA|i = TrB(ΠiρAB)/pi, pi = TrA,B(ΠiρAB). Recently, quantum discord was proposed as the source behind this enhancement and first steps towards a for- A quantum analogue of the conditional entropy can then ˜ mal proof have been taken [5]. Quantum discord was be defined as S{Πi}(A|B) ≡ Pi piS(ρA|i), and an alter- originally suggested as a measure of quantumness of cor- native version of the quantum mutual information can ˜ relations [6], and has since been studied in variety of sys- now be defined as J{Πi}(ρAB ) = S(ρA) − S{Πi}(A|B), tems and settings [7, 8]. Initial motivation for its defini- where S(·) denotes the von Neumann entropy of the rele- tion arose in the context of pointer states and environ- vant state. The above quantity depends on the chosen set ment induced decoherence [9]. It has since been related of measurements {Πi}. To capture all the classical corre- to the performance to quantum and classical Maxwell’s lations present in ρAB, we maximize J{Πi}(ρAB) over all arXiv:1008.4135v2 [quant-ph] 26 Aug 2010 demons [10]. Though satisfactory from a physical per- {Πi}, arriving at a measurement independent quantity spective, the benchmark for accepting some quantity as a ˜ resource in quantum information science is that it appear J (ρAB) = max(S(ρA) − S{Πi}(A|B)). (1) {Πi} as the solution to an appropriate asymptotic information processing tasks. It is this operational interpretation that Then, quantum discord is defined as [6] has been lacking for quantum discord, and we now pro- vide in this Letter. This also addresses a more funda- mental dichotomy in quantum information science, where D(ρAB )= I(ρAB) − J (ρAB ) (2) ˜ resources and their manipulations can have both thermo- = S(ρA) − S(ρAB) + min S{Πi}(A|B), {Πi} dynamic and information theoretic interpretations inde- pendently, which are not intuitively or mathematically Since the conditional entropy is concave over the set of reconciled. Our Letter bridges this gap in the context POVMs, which is convex, the minimum is attained on of quantum discord, as well the quantum deficit and the the extreme points of the set of POVMs, which are rank local purity. 1 [12]. In the asymptotic limit, when Alice and Bob share Quantum discord aims at capturing all quantum cor- n copies of the state ρAB, we can define a regularized 2 version of quantum discord as ρAB. We will assume later, without loss of generality, ⊗n that Bob holds C. The quantum state merging protocol D(ρAB ) D(ρAB) = lim (3) quantifies the minimum amount of quantum information n→∞ n which Alice must send to Bob so that he ends up with a ≡ I(ρAB) − J (ρAB ), ⊗n ′ state close to |ΨiB′BC, B being a register at Bob’s end where to store the qubits received from Alice. It was shown that in the limit of n → ∞, and asymptotically van- ⊗n J (ρAB ) ishing errors, the answer is given by the quantum condi- J (ρAB) = lim . (4) n→∞ n tional entropy [16, 17]: S(A|B)= S(A, B)−S(B). When S(A|B) is negative, Bob can obtain the full state almost The quantity J (ρAB) has an operational interpretation perfectly with just local operations and classical commu- as a measure of classical correlations, as the distillable nication. In addition, Alice and Bob can distill −S(A|B) common randomness (DCR) with one-way classical com- ebits which can be used to transfer additional quantum munication [12], which is identical to the regularized ver- information in the future. sion of the measure of classical correlations as defined A heuristic but intuitive argument for our interpreta- by Henderson and Vedral [11]. Whether there exists a tion of quantum discord beings with strong subadditivity. ‘single-letter’ expression for discord depends on its addi- For a tripartite system, it states that [17] tivity, which is equivalent to that of the entanglement of formation since S(A|B, C) ≤ S(A|B). (5) D(ρAC)= EC (ρAB)+ S(ρC) − S(ρAC ), From the point of view of the state merging protocol, if ρABC is pure and EC (·) is the entanglement cost, the the above has a very clear interpretation: having more regularized version of the entanglement of formation [3]. prior information makes state merging cheaper. Or in This can be obtained using the monogamy between DCR other words, throwing away information will make state and EC [13]. Following the counterexample to the ad- merging more expensive. Thus, if Bob discards system ditivity of the minimum output entropy[14] and there- C, it will increase the cost of quantum communication fore the entanglement of formation, we can conclude that needed by Alice in order to merge her state with Bob. quantum discord is not additive either. In fact, the sub- Our intent here shall be to relate this increase in cost of additivity of minimum output entropy implies that in state merging to quantum discord between A and B. general, quantum discord is subadditive. Our endeavor In order to do so, we need to simulate an arbitrary here will be to provide an operational interpretation for quantum operation E (including measurements) on B. quantum discord D itself, without seeking recourse to its For that, we assume C to initially be in a pure state |0i, definition as the difference of total and classical correla- and a unitary interaction U between B and C. Letting tions. To that end, we will employ the process of quan- primes denote the state of the system after U has acted tum state merging, which we describe next. For brevity, we have S(A, B)= S(A, BC) as C starts out in a product in the remainder of the paper, we will suppress explicit state with AB. We also have I(A : BC)= I(A′ : B′C′). mention of the state ρAB in the argument of quanti- As discarding quantum systems cannot increase the mu- ties, and denote its von Neumann entropy as S(A, B), tual information, we get I(A′ : B′) ≤ I(A′ : B′C′). Now its quantum discord when measurements are made on B consider the state merging protocol between A and B in as D(A|B) etc. the presence of C. We have Consider a party Bob having access to some incom- plete information Y, and another party Alice having the S(A|B)= S(A) − I(A : B) missing the part X. We can think of X and Y as ran- = S(A) − I(A : BC)= S(A|BC). (6) dom variables. If Bob wishes to learn X fully, how much information must Alice send to him? Evidently, she can After the application of the unitary U, but before dis- send H(X) bits to satisfy Bob. However, Slepian and carding the subsystem C, the cost of merging is still given Wolf showed that she can do better, by merely sending by S(A′|B′C′) = S(A|B). In fact, this implies that one H(X|Y ) = H(X, Y ) − H(Y ), the conditional informa- can always view the cost of merging state of system A tion [15]. Since H(X|Y ) ≤ H(X), Alice can take ad- with B, as the cost of merging A with the system BC, vantage of correlations between X and Y to reduce the where C is some ancilla (initially in a pure state) with communication cost needed to accomplish the given task.