arXiv:1008.4135v2 [quant-ph] 26 Aug 2010 fqatmdsod swl h unu ectadthe context and deficit the quantum in the purity. gap well local as this discord, bridges quantum mathematically Letter of or Our intuitively not reconciled. are inde- which interpretations pendently, theoretic information thermo- funda- and both more have dynamic can a manipulations addresses their and where also resources science, information This pro- quantum now in dichotomy we Letter. mental and this discord, in quantum vide for lacking been has [ settings and tems vdne ntepeec fltl rn nageet[ entanglement no or little of presence the are advantages in quantum evidenced where known are instances ever, rcsigtss ti this is information It asymptotic tasks. appropriate processing an appear to it solution that the is as science a information as quantum quantity in some resource accepting for benchmark the spective, environ- and states pointer [ of decoherence context induced the ment in arose tion otepromnet unu n lsia Maxwell’s classical and [ quantum to demons performance the to cor- of quantumness of [ measure relations [ for- a taken as a suggested been towards originally have steps source first proof the and mal as enhancement this proposed was behind discord quantum Recently, [ others and communica- metrology like computation, tasks tion, important several in enhanced performance provides which entanglement, evidently [ is these theory information now quantum are governed is by ones interconvertibility whose classical resources, as as viewed well as frame- correlations, mechanics. novel quantum Quantum of a intricacies provided the unraveling has for work theory direction Information other but the well. decade, in as progress last substantial the been over has there success considerable with met inpoesn n optn ak [ tasks computing informa- and for nature processing of tion structure quantum the harnessing unu icr isa atrn l unu cor- quantum all capturing at aims discord Quantum nteramo ie-tt unu nomto,how- information, quantum mixed-state of realm the In unu nomto cec spiaiyamdat aimed primarily is science information Quantum 1 etrfrQatmIfrainadCnrl nvriyo N of University Control, and Information Quantum for Center 10 6 ,adhssnebe tde nvreyo sys- of variety in studied been since has and ], .Tog aifcoyfo hsclper- physical a from satisfactory Though ]. 2 ewrs unu icr,qatmsaemrig quantum interp merging, our state quantum where discord, quantum instances Keywords: some brief in scenario. discuss quantitie other we inf of Finally, prior interpretations quantu of relevant subadditivity operational of strong provide discards cost the to one the on if based in explanation merging, markup intuitive state the quantum is of discord Quantum protocol. lrno aoaoy eateto hsc,Uiest o University Physics, of Department Laboratory, Clarendon epeeta prtoa nepeaino unu discor quantum of interpretation operational an present We nepeigqatmdsodtruhqatmsaemergin state quantum through discord quantum Interpreting 7 , 8 .Iiilmtvto o t defini- its for motivation Initial ]. operational 9 .I a ic enrelated been since has It ]. 5 .Qatmdsodwas discord Quantum ]. 2 .Frms amongst Foremost ]. aba Madhok Vaibhav nepeainthat interpretation 1 .Ti us has quest This ]. 3 ]. Dtd coe 2 2018) 22, October (Dated: 4 ]. 1 n nms Datta Animesh and ain rsn in present lations hn unu icr sdfie s[ as defined is discord quantum Then, h xrm onso h e fPVs hc r rank are which POVMs, on of attained set [ is the 1 of of minimum points set the extreme the convex, the over is concave which is POVMs, entropy conditional the Since { u tt.SpoeAieadBbsaeaquantum a share Bob and Alice quan- Suppose a state in correlation state. classical tum of definition a motivates where atsae h bv uniydpnso h hsnset chosen the on measurements depends of quantity above The state. vant unu nlgeo h odtoa nrp a then can as entropy defined conditional be the of analogue quantum A ti endas defined is it { aievrino h unu uulifraincan information as mutual defined quantum be the now of version native { n Here ae’rl ed oa qiaetdfiiino h mu- the of definition as equivalent information an tual to distribution, leads probability rule classical Bayes’ a For distribution. ate systems, two For state. quan- quantum and classical a correlations, in total tum, of measure the be eain naqatmsae nldn nageet[ entanglement including state, quantum a in relations 11 Π Π p .Qatmmta nomto sgnrlytknto taken generally is information mutual Quantum ]. i 12 oiso h state the of copies i i ρ , } } ietelclprt n unu deficit. quantum and purity local the like s .I h smttclmt hnAieadBbshare Bob and Alice when limit, asymptotic the In ]. , , D A H wMxc,Abqeqe M81100,USA 87131-0001, NM Albuquerque, Mexico, ew ρ o emn nrp.W s u result our use We entropy. Neumann von ρ h eutn tt sgvnb h hrdensemble shared the by given is state resulting the riiga esrmn needn quantity independent measurement a at arriving S deficit | ( AB A i ( ρ } ( · | ae nteqatmsaemerging state quantum the on based d xod X P,Uie Kingdom United 3PU, OX1 Oxford, f rain u nepeainhsan has interpretation Our ormation. · AB i eoe h hno nrp fteappropri- the of entropy Shannon the denotes ) , J eoe h o emn nrp fterele- the of entropy Neumann von the denotes ) eaini ai ntesnl copy single the in valid is retation Tr = where H ∈ ( = ) ρ omncto nteprocess the in communication m AB = S ˜ B A { I S max = ) I Π (Π ( H ⊗ { ( ( 2 i ρ ρ ρ A Π } AB i AB A ( J ρ i { A I } ) AB { : Π B ( , ) . Π | − ρ i A B B . emaximize we } ocpuealtecasclcorre- classical the all capture To J − i AB ) } ( fBbprom h OMset POVM the performs Bob If S ) = ) /p ( S : ρ ( ≡ , ( B ρ i AB ( ρ p , ecndfiearegularized a define can we AB ρ = ) A P H AB = ) ) min + ) i ( − i p A (2) ) Tr = H i S + ) S ˜ { S { ( Π ( Π A ( J ρ i ρ i 6 } A,B A ) H { } g A ] S Π | ( ˜ − i ) ( A { i ) B } (Π Π , − | H ( B i n nalter- an and ) ρ } i S ( AB ˜ )) ( − ρ A A { AB A . Π | H | vrall over ) B B i } ) and ( ) ( ) . ,B A, . A , This | B (1) B 6 ) ) . , , , 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. which B interacts coherently through a unitary U. Such Quantum state merging protocol is the extension of the a scheme does not change the cost of state merging, as classical Slepian-Wolf protocol into the quantum domain shown, but helps us in counting resources. Once we dis- ⊗n where Alice and Bob share the quantum state ρAB, with card system C, we get ⊗n each party having the marginal density operators ρA ⊗n ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ and ρB respectively. Let |ΨABCi be a purification of I(A : B ) ≤ I(A : B C )= I(A : BC)= I(A : B), (7) 3 or alternatively, entanglement, and most situations where discord is of in- terest, there is no entanglement [4]. Hence an interpre- S(A′|B′) ≥ S(A′|B′C′)= S(A|B). (8) tation based on quantum entanglement would falter in those cases. If we now compute the marked up price in the state merg- We can now use our quantum state merging perspec- ing as we discard information, we recover D = I(A : tive to derive the various properties of discord. Since B) − I(A′ : B′). We next show that the quantity D is measurements on system B will always result in either equal to quantum discord when our quantum operations discarding of some information or at best preserving the are quantum measurements, and we seek to maximize original correlations, we will always get a price hike in I(A′ : B′). Thus, discord is the minimum possible in- state merging or at best we can hope to just break even. crease in the cost of quantum communication in order to Hence, discord, which is the mark up, will always be perform state merging, when we perform a measurement greater than zero [6, 18]. on the party receiving the final state. This also addresses Quantum discord of a state is zero if and only if the asymmetry that is inherent is quantum discord. This the density matrix is block diagonal in its own eigen- is exhibited operationally in our interpretation since the basis, and the density matrix should be of the form state merging protocol is not invariant under exchanging ρAB = Pi piρA|i ⊗ |λiihλi|, in the basis which diago- the labels of the parties, as is the case for instance, in nalizes ρB. If one makes the measurements on B, with superdense coding, which provides an interpretation for M projectors |λiihλi|, one gets ρAB = Pi Pj ρABPj = ρAB. quantum entanglement. We provide one later based on Thus, we have a choice of measurement which causes no quantum discord for pure states. loss of information, and thus we retain all the correla- We now show that D reduces to quantum discord when tions between A and B. Thus there is no mark up in the we perform quantum measurements on B and maximize cost of merging a zero discord state. ′ ′ I(A : B ). The state ρAB, under measurement of sub- The converse can be seen through the application of ′ system B, changes to ρAB = Pj pj ρA|j ⊗ πj , where {πj } strong subadditivity in Eq. (5). The equality of mutual are orthogonal projectors resulting from a Neumark ex- information, I(A : B), of the initial state and that of the tension of the POVM elements. The unconditioned post state after quantum operations on B, I(A′ : B′) coincides measurement states of A and B are with the equality condition for strong subadditivity. But this is exactly the condition for the nullity of quantum ′ ′ ρA = X pjρA|j = ρA, ρB = X pj πj . discord [18]. Thus a zero mark up in the cost of state j j merging implies zero discord.

′ ′ An upper bound on discord is decided by an upper Computing the value of I(A : B ), we get bound on the mark up we can get. Or equivalently, it is the upper bound on the information that can be lost due I(A′ : B′)= S(A′)+ S(B′) − S(A′,B′), to a quantum operation on B. This is simply the entropy ′ = S(A )+ H(p) − H(p)+ X pj S(ρA|j ) , of the state at Bob’s end, S(B), since Bob cannot loose j more information that there is at his disposal. Thus an upper bound on discord is the von Neumann entropy of = S(A) − X pj S(ρA|j ). (9) j the measured subsystem. Finally, for pure states, quantum discord reduces to en- After maximization, it reduces to J (ρAB), as in Eq. (1). tanglement, and S(A|B) = S(A) − I(A : B)= −S(A) ≤ The reduction to rank 1 POVMs follows as stated earlier. 0. From our perspective, measurement destroys all the We can also rewrite the expression for D using Eq. entanglement present between A and B. Though the (8) instead of Eq. (7) as the increase of the conditional post measurement state merging of the state of A with entropy D = S(A′|B′) − S(A|B). The above expression that of B occurs at zero cost, they loose the −S(A|B) makes our interpretation even more transparent. Quan- potential Bell pairs, which could have been put to some tum measurements on B require us to discard quan- use. Thus, entanglement gets a novel operational inter- tum correlations between A and B. This increases the pretation as the markup in merging a pure state, when average cost of quantum communication needed by A, B is measured. to merge her post measurement state with B. Since, Other measures– We now use our result to provide ′ ′ S(A |B ) = Pj pj S(ρA|j) ≥ S(A|B), there is always a operational interpretations for a couple of other quan- mark up in the cost of state merging. Whatever infor- tities that were introduced to capture the quantumness mation Alice and Bob loose through the measurement, of correlations, with motivations different from those of results in making the quantum state merging more ex- discord. Since the entropy of a closed system cannot pensive by exactly the same amount. Note that our in- decrease, the total number of pure qubits in a closed sys- terpretation does not rely on the notion of entanglement. tem of state, measurement and observer cannot increase. This is crucial since quantum discord is more general than Thus thermodynamically, the purity of quantum states 4 is a resource, which needs quantification. The allowed and opens up the way for its manipulation as a resource set of operations in this paradigm are called closed lo- in quantum information processing. By exhibiting deep cal operations and classical communications (CLOCC), connections between measures of correlations that arose which is a modification of the local operations and the out of varied motivations such as thermodynamics and classical communications (LOCC) paradigm without free the theory of open quantum systems, we hope that our pure ancilla. The central task in this setup then is local work will serve as a stepping stone for a more compre- purity distillation. If one-way communication is allowed hensive and unified understanding of quantum physics, from Bob to Alice, the rate for this task is given by [19] thermodynamics and information theory.

κ(A|B) = log(dAB ) − S(A, B) − D(A|B), (10) AD thanks C. M. Caves, A. Shaji, K. Modi and G. Adesso for early discussions on an operational interpre- where dAB = dim(HA ⊗ HB). This immediately provides tation of quantum discord. This work was supported in an operational interpretation for local purity. part by the EPSRC (Grant No. EP/H03031X/1) and Another measure of quantumness of correlations in the EU Integrated Project (QESSENCE). VM acknowl- the CLOCC framework is the quantum deficit, which edges the Center for Quantum Information and Control is also thermodynamically motivated, and can be intu- (CQuIC) where this work was done, and NSF Grant Nos. itively thought of as a form of nonlocality without en- 0903953 and 0903692. tanglement, but with distinguishability [20]. Like quan- Note added - After the completion of this study, dur- tum discord, unlike entanglement, it can be nonzero for ing the writing of the present paper, another work ap- separable states. The corresponding measure of classical peared [24] where an operational interpretation for quan- correlations, the classical deficit is known to be equiv- tum discord was provided using the entanglement con- alent to the DCR [19] in the asymptotic limit. So, the sumption in an extended quantum state merging proto- quantum deficit actually coincides with the quantum dis- col. cord in this regime, and has the same operational inter- pretation as discord. For a finite number of copies, the quantum deficit is always a lower bound on the quantum discord [20], provided the measurements are restricted to von Neumann projections instead of POVMs, because [1] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- free pure ancilla are not allowed. For a state of two tion and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, qubits, this restriction collapses, since all rank 1 POVMs 2000). are indeed projectors. Finally, operational interpreta- [2] I. Devetak and A. W. Harrow and A. Winter, IEEE 54 tions can easily be provided for other discord like mea- Trans. Inf. Theory, , 4587 (2008). [3] M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comp., 7, 1 sures, for instance, measurement induced disturbance (2007); R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and (MID) [21] using quantum state merging, by simple vari- K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 865, (2009). ations of our argument. There is however a caveat for [4] A. Datta, S. T. Flammia and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. two sided measures, since the properties of DCR with A, 72, 042316, (2005); A. Datta and G. Vidal, ibid., 75, two-way communications are unknown, and the additiv- 042310 (2007). ity of the corresponding measures is consequently open. [5] A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett, 100 The end product of our information theoretic task is , 050502 (2008); B. Eastin, arxiv:1006.4402; F. F. Fanchini, M. F. Cornelio, M. C. de Oliveira, and A. O. the regularized form of quantum discord. This was neces- Caldeira, arxiv:1006.2460. sitated since the single-copy version of state merging does [6] H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 017901 not lead to the conditional von Neumann entropy [22]. (2002). There are however, several interesting cases in which the [7] S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A, 77, 042303 (2008); L. Mazzola, J. rate of asymptotic state merging can be identified with Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 200401 the quantum discord of a single copy. Evidently, pure (2010); Id., arxiv:1006.1805; M. D. Lang and C. M. states are one such class, since in that case quantum dis- Caves, arxiv:1006.2775. [8] J. Maziero, L. C. Celeri, R. M. Serra, and V. Ve- cord reduces to entanglement. Since the DCR is additive dral, Phys. Rev. A,80, 044102 (2009); F. F. Fanchini, for separable states [12], we have a ‘single-letter’ defi- T.Werlang, C. A. Brasil, L. G. E. Arruda, and A. O. nition of discord for such states as well. A more inter- Caldeira, ibid., 81, 052107 (2010); A. Datta, ibid., 80, esting set of states for which discord is additive are the 052304 (2009); T. Werlang and G. Rigolin, ibid. , 81, Bell-diagonal states, since their DCR is additive too [23]. 044101 (2010); M. Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, ibid., Quantum discord of Bell diagonal states of two qubits is 81, 042105 (2010); K. Br´adler, M. M. Wilde, S. Vin- among the best understood [7], and we have now shown janampathy, and D. B.Uskov, arxiv:0912.5112; G. Adesso and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 030501 (2010); K. that this understanding can be exported to the asymp- Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral and M. Williamson, totic regime without further effort. ibid., 104, 080501, (2010); L. Chen, E. Chitambar, K. In conclusion, this Letter places quantum discord Modi and G. Vacanti, arxiv:1005.4348. Al-Qasimi and squarely in the midst of quantum informational concepts, D. F. V. James, arxiv:1007.1814. 5

[9] W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 715, (2003). Math. Phys., 268, 107 (2007). [10] W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A, 67, 012320 (2003); A. Bro- [18] A. Datta, arxiv:1003.5256. dutch and D. R. Terno, ibid., 81, 062103 (2010). [19] I. Devetak, Phys. Rev. A, 71, 062303 (2005). [11] L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 34, [20] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, J. Oppen- 6899 (2001). heim, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and B. Synak-Radtke, Phys. [12] I. Devetak and A. Winter, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 50, Rev. A, 71, 062307 (2005). 3183 (2004). [21] S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A., 77, 022301, (2008); A. Datta and [13] M. Koashi and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A, 69, 022309 S. Gharibian, ibid., 79, 042305, (2009). (2004). [22] M. Berta, arxiv:0912.4495. [14] M. B. Hastings, Nat. Phys., 5, 255 (2009). [23] B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. [15] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information The- DiVincenzo, J. Math. Phys., 43, 4286 (2002). ory, (Wiley & Sons, New York, 2006). [24] D. Cavalcanti, L. Aolita, S. Boixo, K. Modi, M. Piani [16] M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Nature, and A. Winter, arxiv:1008.3205. 436, 673 (2005). [17] M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Comm.