arXiv:quant-ph/0408115v2 16 Jun 2005 admresult random operational the of issues Theory[4]. Estimation basic Quantum the of statistically are viewpoint most of These the strategy be which efficient. adopted would and measurements task, be with specific repeated faced should a is measurement accomplishing one which for principle, of in problem performed the - be incompatible since can different single ments Then, mechanics a com- from quantum knowledge. system a in prior the recover of without to state measurement[3] impossible the harmonic of is single knowledge spin—it plete a 2], a theorem[1, or system—e.g. no-cloning elementary oscillator the an to for measured even the due re- of However, the ”state” as the system. regarded practical about always any information be For of trieval can mechanics. measurement quantum a of need, core become true they precisions the and sensitivities extreme At ence. ‡ † Electric of Evans60208 University, Northwestern Department Engineering, Computing, Computer and and Communication tonic ∗ ainl iFsc el aei ntad Pavia Unit`a di Materia della Fisica di Nazionale 1 ntestate the on lcrncades eiot@scvlauivi;Als perinotti@fisicavolta.unipv.it; address: Electronic [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades [email protected] loa etrfrP for Center at Also [email protected]; address: Electronic N . . . , esrmn naqatmsse 5 eun a returns [5] system quantum a on measurement A sci- experimental any of essence the are Measurements QUIT } ihpoaiiydistribution probability with , unu nomto hoyGop iatmnod Fisica di Dipartimento Group, Theory Information Quantum – ρ ASnmes 36.a 03.67.-a 03.65.Ta, numbers: PACS i border its POVM’s. determining corresponding by the characterized of fully is PO a POVM’s ar of of measurements decomposition complete” the ”informationally for condit algorithm application, sufficient general simple and a necessary with different providing by trum), rank-o necessarily st not of set are convex POVM’s ap the indecomposable in indecomposable however, states” the ”pure language of this analogous in points—the and out set, the convex of a statistics form the gives which (POVM), measure fovalued indecomposab also are but that foundations, apparatuses for optimal only give strategies not interesting is problem idnvral,wihpoue os fprl classical purely of noise are a apparatuses produces apparatuses. measuring which of variable, ensemble hidden an within choice random ftesse nawywihi distinctive is which way a in system the of e nti ae egv opeecasfiaino indecompos of classification complete a give we paper this In measur each describing posed is problem the Mathematically iial oqatmsae,as unu esrmnscan measurements quantum also states, quantum to Similarly rmasto osbeoutcomes possible of set a from .INTRODUCTION I. icm ar D’Ariano, Mauro Giacomo lsia admesi unu measurements quantum in randomness Classical indecomposable p ( e .e ontcrepn oayrno hieo apparatuses. of choice random any to correspond not do e. i. , | ρ depending ) Dtd coe 3 2018) 23, October (Dated: tIstituto at o E ∗ = alpaioL Presti, Lo Paoloplacido o,IL ton, { e ho- = al ftemauigaprtsacrigt h onrule Born the to according apparatus measuring the of nE.(1) Eq. In h esrn paau rmwihw ne informa- state infer p the we which on from tion apparatus measuring the space os,adi hscnettesto oiieoperators positive of set the context this { in space and probability set uous), infinite discrete an finite has of on case simple the ya paau 5 ,7 ,9 0 11]. 10, 9, 8, 7, principle 6, in [5, realized apparatus be an can by POVM POVM, a every by reversely, described and, is apparatus Every (POVM). sure hra omlzto sgaate ytecompleteness the by guaranteed is P normalization whereas and orsodn otemxdPV.I ste aua to natural then is It POVM. ensemble mixed by the the removed in to principle apparatus corresponding in indecomposable of be an source can a adopting itself which is noise, mixing such ”classical” Clearly, mixed interaction system. unitary the a a discard- after with of in apparatus result the a prepared out) as (tracing preparation, is ing pure for itself also but apparatus not state, the apparatus, measuring when single a only to correspond POVM’s also mixed can that Notice apparatuses. different among aeyteeaePV’ htgv rbblt distri- probability give ”mixed”, that be can POVM’s butions POVM’s are also there ”con- but namely in states, means This only reflects POVM’s. not apparatus and that states the both and for structures system knowledge vex” partial the our both which in of measurement, the of ture ( P e h iert fteBr ue()i oharguments both in (1) rule Born the of linearity The e e | ∈ } ρ E P .Pstvt of Positivity ). nlzdi hsrset h ovxset convex The respect. this in analyzed e eoe culyapstv prtrvle mea- valued operator positive a actually becomes e P le. H aue ti hnntrlt s which ask to natural then is It nature. plctos ic otoptimization most since applications, r oe o n nu tt.TePOVM’s The state. input any for comes ts ieetyfo h aeo states, of case the from Differently ates. e scnitn ihteitisclysaitclna- statistical intrinsically the with consistent is osfreteaiyo OMs along POVM’s, of extremality for ions p e .g o emn measurements. Neumann von g. e. ne, em fsml leri properties algebraic simple of terms n aaue r ersne yextremal by represented are paratuses = ftesse,rpeetn u nweg of knowledge our representing system, the of ( Mit xrml.A ninteresting an As extremals. into VM uhmxn seuvln oasr of sort a to equivalent is mixing Such n paau yapstv operator- positive a by apparatus ing e A ot” i as ,I210Pva Italy Pavia, I-27100 6, Bassi via Volta”, “A. beaprtss(o iceespec- discrete (for apparatuses able | I P ρ ntepeetpprw ilol consider only will we paper present the In . † htaeeuvln ornol choosing randomly to equivalent are that ) e e”ie” orsodn oa to corresponding ”mixed”, be n al Perinotti Paolo and eoepstv prtr nteHilbert the on operators positive denote ρ p P ( e e rmtepoaiiydistribution probability the from | ρ snee o oiiiyof positivity for needed is Tr[ = ) ρP e ‡ ] . E E gnrlycontin- (generally oegenerally, More . This p ( e | (1) ρ ), ρ 2 ask which apparatuses are indecomposable, i. e. ”pure” After summarizing the results in the concluding Section in the above sense, or, mathematically, which POVM’s VI, Appendix A reports the algorithm for decomposing correspond to extremal points of the . The a POVM into extremals. classification of such apparatuses is certainly very use- ful in applications, since most optimization strategies in quantum estimation theory[4, 5] correspond to minimize II. CONVEXITY AND EXTREMALITY OF a concave (actually linear) function on the POVM’s con- POVM’S vex set—so-called ”cost-function”—whence leading to an optimal POVM which is extremal. Let’s denote by PN the convex set of POVM’s on a Surprisingly, extremality for POVM’s generally doesn’t finite dimensional H, with a number N of mean to be rank-one, as for ”pure” states. In other outcomes E = {1,...,N}. We will represent a POVM words, indecomposable POVM’s are not necessarily re- in the set as the vector P ∈ PN P = {P1,...,PN } alized by von Neumann measurements. Indeed, as we of the N positive operators Pe. The fact that the set will see in this paper, there are rank-one POVM’s that PN is convex means that it is closed under convex lin- ′ ′′ are not extremal, whereas, on the opposite side, there ear combinations, namely for any P , P ∈ PN also ′ ′′ are higher-rank POVM’s which are extremal. Moreover, P = pP + (1 − p)P ∈ PN with 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 — i.e. p is whenever the optimization problems have additional lin- a probability. Then, P can be also equivalently achieved ear constraints—e. g. for covariant POVM’s, or for by randomly choosing between two different apparatuses fixed probability distribution on a given state—the cor- corresponding to P′ and P′′, respectively, with probabil- responding subset of POVM’s is a lower dimensional con- ity p and 1 − p, since, the overall statistical distribution vex set corresponding to a section by a hyperplane of the p(e|ρ) will be the convex combination of the statistics ′ ′′ complete POVM’s convex set, with boundary equal to coming from P and P . Notice that PN contains also the section of the original boundary, and whence with the set of POVM’s with a strictly smaller number of out- extremal points that belong to the boundary of the con- comes, i. e. with E′ ⊂ E. For such POVM’s the elements vex set of all POVM’s. For this reason, also the boundary corresponding to outcomes in E \ E′ will be zero, corre- of the POVM’s convex set is interesting in practice, since sponding to zero probability of occurrence for all states. POVM’s that are optimal (for a concave cost function) Clearly, for N ≤ M one has PN ⊆ PM ⊆ P, where by with an additional linear constraint generally are non ex- P we denote the convex set of all POVM’s with any (gen- tremal, but still belong to the boundary. One can also erally infinite) discrete spectrum. The extremal points argue that POVM’s which lie inside faces of the convex, of PN represent the ”indecomposable” measurements, physically exhibit a different degree of ”classical” noise which cannot be achieved by mixing different measure- in relation with the dimensionality of the face. Notice ments. Obviously, a POVM which is extremal for PN is that one should not imagine the POVM’s set as a poly- also extremal for PM with M ≥ N, whence it is actu- tope, since, on the contrary the set is “strongly convex”, ally extremal for P, and we will simply name it extremal namely the extremal points are not isolated, but lie on without further specifications. continuous manifolds. Let’s start with a simple example. Consider the fol- In the present paper we address the problem of appa- lowing two-outcome POVM for a qubit ratus decomposability along three lines of attack: a) by 1 1 providing simple necessary and sufficient conditions for P = 2 |0ih0|, 2 |0ih0| + |1ih1| . (2) extremality of POVM’s; b) by establishing the complete 1 structure of the POVM’s convex set via the character- By defining D = 2 (|0ih0|, −|0ih0|), the two vectors P± = ization of its border in terms of algebraic properties of P ± D correspond to the following different POVM’s the POVM’s; c) by providing a simple general algorithm for the decomposition of POVM’s into extremals. For P+ = (|0ih0|, |1ih1|) , P− = (0, I) , (3) simplicity, the whole paper is restricted to the case of discrete spectrum. In Section II, after clarifying the gen- which, intuitively are extremal, whereas P is not, since 1 1 eral features of convex combinations of POVM’s, using P = 2 P+ + 2 P− (we will see in the following that P± the method of perturbations we derive three different if- are indeed extremal). and-only-if conditions for extremality, along with some Now the problem is how to assess when a POVM is corollaries giving easy useful conditions, only necessary extremal. Looking at the above example, one notices that or sufficient, that will be used in the following. Section the non extremality of P is equivalent to the existence III exemplifies the results of Section II in the case of a sin- of a vector of operators D 6= 0 such that P± = P ± D gle qubit. Section IV presents the characterization of the are POVM’s, because in this case P can be written as a border of the convex set in terms of algebraic properties convex combination of P+ and P−. The non existence of POVM’s. Section V shows that for every dimension of such vector of operators D 6= 0 is also a necessary d = dim(H) there is always an extremal POVM with condition for extremality of P, since for a non extremal 2 maximal number N of elements N = d , correspond- P there exist two POVM’s P1 6= P2 such that P = 1 1 ing to a so-called informationally complete POVM[12]. 2 P1 + 2 P2, whence D = P1 − P2 6= 0. 3

This leads to the method of perturbations for estab- Theorem 2 is the characterization of extremal POVM’s lishing extremality of a point in a convex set, which in given by Parthasaraty in Ref. [13] in a C∗-algebraic set- (e) the present context will be the following. ting. Notice that instead of the eigenvectors {|vn i} one Method of perturbations. We call a nonvanishing D a can more generally consider a non orthonormal basis, perturbation for the POVM P if there exists an ǫ > 0 which can be useful in numerical algorithms. such that P ± ǫD are both POVM’s. Then a POVM is Another interesting way to state Theorem 1 is in terms extremal if and only if it doesn’t admit perturbations. of weak independence of orthogonal projectors Ze on Supp(P ), where we call a generic set of orthogonal pro- From the definition it follows that perturbations for e jections {Z } E weakly independent [14] if for any set of POVM’s are represented by vectors D of Hermitian op- e e∈ operators {Te}e∈E on H one has erators De (for positivity of P ± ǫD) and with zero sum D = 0 (for normalization of P ± ǫD). Specifi- Pe∈E e Z T Z =0 ⇒ Z T Z =0, ∀e ∈ E. (6) cally, D is a perturbation for P if for some ǫ > 0 one X e e e e e e e∈E has Pe ± ǫDe ≥ 0 ∀e ∈ E. Notice that the condition Pe ±ǫDe ≥ 0 is equivalent to ǫ|De|≤ Pe, and a necessary Notice that since the orthogonal projectors are in one-to- condition for ǫ|De| ≤ Pe is that Ker(Pe) ⊆ Ker(De), or one correspondence with their supporting spaces, the no- equivalently Supp(De) ⊆ Supp(Pe) [the support Supp(X) tion of weak independence can be equivalently attached of an operator X is defined as the orthogonal comple- to the supporting spaces Supp(Pe). This leads us to the ment of its kernel Ker(X)]. In fact Ker(De)= Ker(|De|), alternative characterization of extremal POVM’s and for a vector |ψi ∈ Ker(Pe) with |ψi 6∈ Ker(|De|), E one would have hψ|(Pe − ǫ|De|)|ψi = −ǫhψ||De||ψi ≤ 0, Theorem 3 A POVM P = {Pe}e∈ is extremal iff the contradicting the hypothesis. Clearly, the Hermitian op- supports Supp(Pe) are weakly independent for all e ∈ E. erators De can be taken simply as linearly dependent— The proof is straightforward if one considers that any instead of having zero sum—i.e. λeDe = 0 for non- Pe perturbation D for P can be written as De = ZeDeZe vanishing λe, and, moreover, one can consider more gen- with the constraint erally complex operators De with Supp(De) ∪ Rng(De) ⊆

Supp(Pe) ∀e ∈ E, and satisfying ǫ|De| ≤ Pe. In fact ZeDeZe =0 . (7) ′ X Pe ± ǫDe ≥ 0 is satisfied ∀e ∈ E by the set of Hermitian e ′ ∗ † ′ operators De = λeDe + λeDe, for which Pe De = 0. The above considerations show that what really mat- Then the theorem simply says that the only allowed per- ters in assessing the extremality of the POVM P = {Pe} turbation for an extremal POVM is the trivial one. is just a condition on the supports Supp(Pe), correspond- Some corollaries relevant for applications follow imme- ing to the following theorem. diately from the main Theorem 1 or its equivalent ver- sions. Theorem 1 The extremality of the POVM P is equiva- lent to the nonexistence of non trivial solutions D of the Corollary 1 2 2 For Pe∈E dim[Supp(Pe)] > d the POVM equation P is not extremal. This means that a POVM with more than d2 nonvanish- X De =0, Supp(De) ∪ Rng(De) ⊆ Supp(Pe) ∀e ∈ E. E ing elements is always decomposable into POVM’s with e∈ 2 2 (4) less than d elements. For the case of d elements Theo- rem 1 also implies that

The above condition can be made explicit on the Pe 2 (e) Corollary 2 An extremal POVM with d outcomes must eigenvectors {|vn i} corresponding to nonzero eigen- be necessarily rank-one. value, which therefore span Supp(Pe). Then, Eq. (4) becomes the linear homogeneous system of equations in In fact, for larger rank we would have more than d2 eigen- (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) the variables Dnm = hvn |De|vm i vectors |vn i, and the operators |vn ihvm | cannot be lin- early independent. From Theorem 1 it also follows that rank(Pe) if some elements of the POVM P have non-disjoint sup- (e) (e) (e) X X Dnm|vn ihvm | =0 ports, then P is not extremal, or, equivalently e∈E nm=1 (5) Corollary 3 An extremal POVM P = {Pe} must have ⇐⇒ D(e) =0 ∀n, m, ∀e ∈ E, nm all supports Supp(Pe) mutually disjoint. namely the following version of Theorem 1 Precisely, we call two linear spaces A and B disjoint when A ∩ B = {0} is the null vector. It is worth noticing Theorem 2 A POVM P = {Pe}e∈E is extremal iff the that two linear spaces that are disjoint are not necessar- (e) (e) operators |vn ihvm | made with the eigenvectors of Pe are ily orthogonal, whereas, reversely, two orthogonal spaces linearly independent ∀e ∈ E and ∀n,m =1,..., rank(Pe). are clearly disjoint. We emphasize that the condition of 4

Corollary 3 is only necessary. Indeed, it is easy to envis- disjoint). Now, upon writing the POVM elements in the age a POVM that satisfies the above condition without Bloch form being extremal, e. g. a rank-one POVM for d = 2 with five elements corresponding to the vertices of a pentagon Pe = αe (I + ~ne · ~σ) . (8) in the Bloch sphere (see Section III for extremal POVM’s the constraints for normalization and positivity read for qubits). Other obvious consequences of Theorem 2 are the fol- αe > 0 , X αe =1 , X αe~ne =0 . (9) lowing e e Corollary 4 Orthogonal POVM’s are extremal. The case of two outcomes corresponds simply to the usual observable Pe = |ei~n~nhe|, e =0, 1, with |ei~n eigenvector Corollary 5 A rank-one POVM is extremal if and only of ~n · ~σ corresponding to the eigenvalues +1, −1, respec- if its elements Pe are linearly independent. tively. In fact, for two outcomes one has α0~n0+α1~n1 = 0, . 1 namely ~n0 = −~n1 = ~n, and necessarily α0 = α1 = 2 . We Corollary 1 states that for dimension d an extremal now consider the case of 3 and 4 elements. By Theorem 2 POVM can have at most d non-null elements (in Sec- 2 a necessary and sufficient condition for extremality is tion V we will show that such an extremal POVM always exists). Here we can immediately conclude that X γeαe(I + ~ne · ~σ)=0 ⇐⇒ γe =0 ∀e ∈ E, (10) e∈E Corollary 6 A POVM with d2 elements is necessarily a rank-one ”informationally complete” POVM. or, equivalently,

By definition, an informationally complete POVM P = X γeαe =0, X γeαe~ne =0 ⇐⇒ γe =0 ∀e ∈ E. (11) {Pe} [12] has elements Pe which span the space of all e∈E e∈E operators on H, thus allowing the estimation of any en- semble average using the same fixed apparatus. The fact For three outcomes Eq. (9) implies that {αe~ne}e∈E rep- that a POVM with d2 elements necessarily is rank-one is resent the edges of a triangle, and thus the second condi- stated in Corollary 2, whereas Corollary 5 assures that tion in Eq. (11) is satisfied iff γe ≡ γ is independent of e. all POVM’s elements are linearly independent, whence Then the first condition is satisfied iff γ ≡ 0. Therefore, 2 all three outcomes rank-one POVM’s with pairwise non the set of d linearly independent operators Pe is obvi- ously complete for dimension d. In Section V we will give proportional elements are extremal. For four outcomes an explicit example of such an extremal informationally we can see that for an extremal POVM the correspond- complete POVM. ing unit vectors {~ne}e∈E cannot lie on a common plane. For rank greater than one we have only the necessary Indeed, divide the four vectors {αe~ne}e∈E into two cou- condition ples, which identify two intersecting planes. Then, the third condition in Eq. (9) implies that the sums of the Corollary 7 If the POVM is extremal, then its non- couples lie on the intersection of the planes and have vanishing elements are necessarily linearly independent. the same length and opposite direction. If we multiply by independent scalars γe the two elements of a couple, In fact, according to Theorem 2 the projectors on the their sum changes direction and lies no more in the in- eigenvectors must be linearly independent, whence also tersection of the two planes, and the second condition the operators Pe. Indeed, for linearly dependent ele- in Eq. (11) cannot be satisfied. Therefore, the two ele- ments there exist coefficients λe not all vanishing such ments of the same couple must be multiplied by the same that Pe∈E λePe = 0, and without loss of generality we scalar, which then just rescales their sum. Now, when the can take −1 ≤ λe ≤ 1. Therefore, the POVM can be rescaling factors are different for the two couples the two 1 − 1 + written as convex combination P = 2 P + 2 P , with partial sums don’t sum to the null vector anymore. Then P ± = (1 ± λ )P , and P− 6= P+ (since the λ ’s are not e e e e necessarily γe ≡ γ independently of e. In order to satisfy all vanishing). also the first condition in Eq. (11) we must have γ = 0. In appendix A we report an algorithm for decomposing On the other hand, if the four unit vectors lie in the a given POVM into extremal. same plane, a non-trivial linear combination can always be found that equals the null operator, hence the POVM is not extremal. By the first condition in Eq. (11) we III. EXTREMAL POVM’S FOR QUBITS have indeed

Using the above results we will give a classification γ0α0 = − X γeαe , (12) of extremal POVM’s for qubits. In this case, Corollary e=1,2,3 1 implies that the extremal POVM’s cannot have more then the second condition can be written than 4 elements, and that, apart from the trivial POVM P = I, they must be made of rank-one projectors (other- X γeαe(~ne − ~n0)=0 . (13) wise Supp(Pe) for different e ∈ E would not be mutually e=1,2,3 5

Now, either we have a couple of equal vectors ~ne, or the is the number of linearly independent directions along three vectors ~ne − ~n0 in a two dimensional plane are lin- which any internal point can be symmetrically shifted. early dependent. However, in both cases the POVM is Clearly, also the faces of the convex set are themselves not extremal, because in the former case two elements convex. For example, moving from a point inside of a are proportional, while in the latter a non trivial triple cube one can explore three dimensions while remaining of coefficients γe satisfying Eq. (13) exists. inside, whereas, for the cube faces the number of inde- Notice that, the three and four-outcomes POVM’s are pendent symmetric perturbations is two, and for the sides necessarily unsharp, i.e. there is no state with probability this number reduces to one. We will keep in mind the distribution p(e|ρ)= δe,e¯ for a fixede ¯. They provide ex- above geometrical picture for the classification of the bor- amples of un-sharp POVM’s with purely intrinsical quan- der of the convex set of POVM’s using the perturbation tum noise. method. According to the results of Section II, a perturbation for a POVM P is a set of Hermitian operators D = {De} IV. THE BOUNDARY OF THE CONVEX SET with Pe∈E De = 0, and with Supp(De) ⊆ Supp(Pe). Ex- OF POVM’S pressed in the orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of the POVM elements as in Eq. (5), the operators De read In this section we generalize the results about ex- tremality, and give a full characterization of the elements rank(Pe) (e) (e) (e) on the boundary of the convex set of n-outcomes POVM’s De = X Dmn|vm ihvn |. (16) on the Hilbert space H. Let start from an intuitive geo- mn=1 metrical definition of the boundary of a convex set. Con- We remind that, according to Theorem 2, non triv- sider for example a point lying on some face of a polyhe- ial perturbations for P exist only if the outer prod- dron. Then there exists a direction (e. g. normal to the (e) (e) E face) such that any shift of the point along that direction ucts |vm ihvn | are linearly dependent with e ∈ and will bring it inside the convex set, while in the opposite 1 ≤ n,m ≤ rank(Pe). The total number of such outer direction it will bring the point outside of the convex. products is In mathematical terms, consider a convex set C and an . r(P) = rank(P )2. (17) element p ∈ C . Then, p belongs to the boundary ∂C of X e E C if and only if there exists q ∈ C such that e∈ C C The number of linearly independent elements in the set p + ǫ(q − p) ∈ , p − ǫ(q − p) 6∈ , ∀ǫ ∈ [0, 1]. (14) (e) (e) of outer products |vm ihvn | is given by This definition leads to the following characterization of . (e) (e) the boundary of the convex set of N-outcomes POVM’s l(P) = dim[Span({|vm ihvn |})]. (18)

Theorem 4 A POVM P ∈ PN belongs to the boundary Now, as in Theorem 4, we see that the number b(P) of of PN iff at least one element Pf of P has a non trivial independent perturbations for P is given by kernel. b(P)= r(P) − l(P). (19) Let’s first prove necessity. Consider two different POVM’s P and Q, and suppose that ∀ǫ ∈ [0, 1] P + ǫD P 2 In fact, in Eq. (5) we have r( )= Pe∈E rank(Pe) vari- is still a POVM while P − ǫD is not. This happens only (e) ables Dnm, whereas the number of linearly independent if ∀ǫ ∈ [0, 1] Pf − ǫDf 6≥ 0 for some f. Then some vector (e) (e) ψ must exist such that equations is l(P) = dim(Span({|vm ihvn |})), whence the number of variables which can be written as linear com- hψ|Pf |ψi <ǫhψ|Df |ψi, ∀ǫ ∈ [0, 1], (15) bination of a linearly independent set is r(P) − l(P). On the other hand, the dimension of the affine space 2 namely hψ|Pf |ψi = 0. Since by hypothesis Pf is positive of the convex set PN is given by d (N − 1), since the semidefinite, then necessarily ψ ∈ Ker(Pf ). To prove POVM normalization constraint corresponds to d2 inde- that the condition is also sufficient, consider a POVM el- pendent linear equations, with Nd2 variables. We have ement Pf with nontrivial kernel, and take ψ ∈ Ker(Pf ). then proved the following characterization of the border Then consider an event g such that hψ|Pg|ψi > 0 (such of PN event must exist for normalization of the POVM), and P take Df = κ|ψihψ|, Dg = −κ|ψihψ|, and De = 0 other- Theorem 5 A POVM P ∈ N belongs to the boundary P P 2 wise, with κ smaller than the minimum eigenvalue of Pg. ∂ N of N iff b(P) < d (N − 1), b(P) defined in Eqs. Clearly ∀ǫ ∈ [0, 1] P+ǫD is a POVM while P−ǫD is not, (17-19) being the dimension of the face in which P lies. since the element P − ǫD is not positive semidefinite. f f From the above theorem it also follows that a POVM We now proceed to study the structure of the faces of P ∈ PN on the boundary ∂PN of PN also belongs to PN . For such purpose it is convenient to regard a con- ∂PM with M ≥ N, whence it belongs to the boundary vex set as a subset of an affine space, whose dimension ∂P of P. This also implies that ∂PN ⊆ ∂PM ⊆ ∂P. 6

V. EXTREMAL INFORMATIONALLY of the chosen orthonormal basis {|ji}. By expanding ν = COMPLETE POVM’S |ψihψ| over the basis {Upq} and using the multiplication rules of the group, one obtains In this section we will give an explicit construction of 1 2πi a rank-one informationally complete POVM as in Corol- P = e d (qr−ps) Tr[U † ν]U , (27) pq d2 X rs rs lary 6, in this way also proving the existence of extremal rs POVM’s with d2 elements. Consider the shift-and-multiply finite group of unitary which allows us to rewrite Eq. (26) as follows operators 1 F = | Tr[U † ν]|2|U iihhU |. (28) U = ZpW q, p,q ∈ Z (20) d2 X rs rs rs pq d rs where Zd = {0, 1,...,d − 1}, and Z and W are defined ⊗2 Since {Upqii} is an orthogonal basis in H , the invertibil- as follows ity of F is equivalent to condition (23), which is clearly satisfied by most density operators ν = |ψihψ| (condition Z = |j ⊕ 1ihj|, W = ωj |jihj|, (21) X X (23) is satisfied by a set of states |ψi that is dense in H). j j As an example of state satisfying the condition (23), one j d−1 can consider |ψi∝ j α |ji for 0 <α< 1. with ⊕ denoting the sum modulo d, {|ji}0 an orthonor- P 2πi mal basis, ω = e d , and the sums are extended to Zd. We now prove that the following POVM with d2 out- VI. CONCLUSIONS comes is extremal

. 1 † In this paper we have completely characterized the con- Ppq = UpqνU , (22) d pq vex set of POVM’s with discrete spectrum. Using the method of perturbations, we have determined the ex- for any pure state ν = |ψihψ| on H satisfying the con- tremal points—the ”indecomposable apparatuses”—by straints three alternative characterizations corresponding to The- † orems 1-3, and with easier necessary or sufficient condi- Tr[U ν] 6=0, ∀p, q ∈ Zd. (23) pq tions in Corollaries 1-7. In particular, we have shown In order to prove the statement, first we notice that the that for finite dimension d an extremal POVM’s can have − 1 2 2 operators d 2 Upq form a complete orthonormal set of at most d outcomes, and an extremal POVM with d unitary operators, i. e. they satisfy outcomes always exists and is necessarily informationally complete. An explicit realization of such extremal infor- Tr[UpqUp′,q′ ] = dδpp′ δqq′ , (24) mationally complete POVM has been given in Section † III. X UpqΞUpq = d Tr[Ξ], (25) The characterization of the convex set PN of POVM’s pq with N outcomes has been obtained by determining its P for any operator Ξ. From Eq. (25) it immediately fol- boundary ∂ N , which, in turn, has been characterized in terms of the number b(P) of independent perturbations lows that Ppq Ppq = I, whence {Ppq} is a POVM. Then, in order to prove extremality, according to Corollary 5 for the POVM P in Eq. (19). This has lead to a sim- it is sufficient to prove that the d2 operators P are lin- ple characterization of the boundary in terms of simple pq P early independent, which in turn can be proved by show- algebraic properties of a POVM lying on it. Since ∂ N P ing that {P } is itself a complete set in the space of is also a subset of the boundary ∂ of the full convex pq P operators (completeness along with the fact that the el- set of POVM’s with discrete spectrum, our result also 2 P ements Ppq are d implies indeed that they are linearly provides a complete characterization of . independent). As mentioned after Corollary 6, such a Finally, in Appendix A we reported an algorithm for kind of completeness for the POVM corresponds to a so- decomposing a point in a convex set into a minimum called informationally complete measurement[12]. The number of extremal elements, specializing the algorithm P completeness of the set {Ppq} is equivalent to the invert- to the case of the convex set N of POVM’s with N ibility of the following operator on H⊗2 outcomes.

F = X |Ppq iihhPpq |, (26) pq APPENDIX A: ALGORITHM FOR DECOMPOSITION OF INTERNAL POINTS where the double-ket notation[15] is used to remind the INTO EXTREMALS equivalence between (Hilbert-Schmidt) operators A on H and vectors |Aii = A ⊗ I|Iii of H⊗2, |Iii ∈ H⊗2 denoting In this appendix we provide an algorithm to decompose the reference vector |Iii = |ji⊗|ji defined in terms P P Pj∈Zd a POVM ∈ N into extremal ones. We first present 7 the algorithm in the general case of an abstract convex In order to specialize the algorithm to the case of the set, and then we specialize it to the case of POVM’s. POVM’s convex set PN , we need to specify both the A Consider a convex set C and a point p inside it. We corresponding affine space N and the indicator ι of the 2 want to decompose p into extremal points. We first need border. The affine space is the real d (N −1)-dimensional two ingredients, which depend on the specific convex set linear space of vectors D = {De} of N Hermitian opera- C under consideration: the affine space A in which C tors De, with Pe∈E De = 0. This can be obtained as the is embedded (this is just the space of legitimate ”per- real span of projectors |n,eihn,e| along with ℜ|n,eihm,e| turbations”), and an ”indicator” ι(p) which is positive and ℑ|n,eihm,e| for n = 1,...,d and n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS work. This work has been co-founded by the EC under the program ATESIT (Contract No. IST-2000-29681) We are grateful to R. Mecozzi for his participation at and the MIUR cofinanziamento 2002. P.P. acknowledges the preliminary stage of this research during his thesis support from the INFM under project PRA-2002-CLON.

[1] W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, Nature 299, 802 (1982). lem, and for a literature on modern measurement theory In this reference it is shown that the cloning machine we suggest the reviews [5, 9, 10, 11]. violates the superposition principle, which applies to a [7] M. A. Naimark, Iza. Akad. Nauk USSR, Ser. Mat. 4 277 minimum total number of three states, and hence does (1940). not rule out the possibility of cloning two nonorthogonal [8] M. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys. 25 79 (1984). states. It is violation of unitarity that makes cloning any [9] E. B. Davies, Quantum Theory of Open Systems (Aca- two nonorthogonal states impossible [2]. demic Press, London, 1976). [2] H. P. Yuen, Phys. Lett. A113 405 (1986). [10] K. Kraus, States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental [3] G. M. D’Ariano and H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 Notions of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics 2832 (1996) Vol. 190 (Springer, Berlin, 1983). [4] C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation [11] P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt, The Quantum Theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976). Theory of Measurement, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 2 [5] A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of (Springer, Berlin, 1991). Quantum Theory, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, New [12] G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi, J. Opt. York, Oxford, 1982). B: Quantum and Semicl. Opt. 6 S487 (2004). [6] The first proof of realizability of POVM’s in terms of [13] K. R. Parthasaraty, Inf. Dim. Anal. 2 557 (1999). usual projection valued measurements (PVM) is the [14] E. Størmer, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Naimark extension theorem [7], which, however, remains Ordered Linear Spaces, A. Hartk¨amper and H. Neumann at an abstract level. The problem of actual realizability eds. (Springer, Berlin 1974) pag. 85 of POVM’s cannot be disconnected from that of realizing [15] G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, M. Sacchi, Phys. Lett. A instruments, which provide a more thorough description 272 32 (2000) of the apparatus in terms also of the state-transformation [16] R. T. Rockafellar, (Princeton Univ. that it affects. In this sense, the most general realization Press, 1972). theorem is due to Ozawa [8]. The history of this subject is also complicated by many other aspects of the prob-