Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
(Dated: June 2, 2018)
Insights from quantum information theory show that correlation measures based on quantum
entropy are fundamental tools that reveal the entanglement structure of multipartite states. In that
spirit, [Groisman et al., PRA 72, 032317 (2005)] showed that the quantum mutual information I ( A; B)
quantifies the minimal rate of noise needed to erase the correlations in a bipartite state AB. Here,
we investigate correlations in tripartite systems ABE. In particular, we are interested in the minimal
rate of noise needed to apply to the systems AE in order to erase the correlations between A and
B given the information in system E, in such a way that there is only negligible disturbance on
the marginal BE. We present two such models of conditional decoupling, called deconstruction
and conditional erasure cost of tripartite states ABE. Our main result is that both are equal to the
conditional quantum mutual information I ( A; B| E) – establishing it as an operational measure for
tripartite quantum correlations.
Introduction. Landauer’s principle states that the more efficient [8]. The main result of Groisman et al. [2,
amount of work needed for erasing a memory is pro- Thm. 1] is that the minimal rate of unitaries needed in
portional to the amount of information stored in the the limit of many copies ρ⊗ n
AB and vanishing error ε → 0
memory [1]. Motivated by this principle, the correla- is given by the quantum mutual information (QMI)
tions of a bipartite quantum state ρ AB shared between 1
two parties Alice and Bob can be quantified by the log M → I ( A; B)ρ := H ( A)ρ + H ( B)ρ − H ( AB)ρ ,
n
amount of noise that is required to erase the correla-
tions in ρ AB . This erasure cost is closely connected with the quantum entropy of a state ηX on system X
to the thermodynamical cost of erasing the correla- given by H ( X )η := − Tr ηX log ηX . Thus, we can con-
tions [2], which in turn is part of the larger context of clude that the QMI is equal to the amount of noise
the physics of erasure (see, e.g., [3–6]). In a model of needed for correlation destruction between systems A
Groisman et al. [2] [7], Alice is allowed to pick a free and B. This result gives information-theoretic justifica-
ancilla, in the form of an already decoupled state θ A0 , tion for the diverse use of the QMI as a correlation mea-
and then applies a unitary randomizing channel sure in quantum physics. For instance, it is a stepping
stone in a quantitative understanding of decoupling, a
M central concept both in quantum information theory
1 †
Λ AA0 (·) := ∑ UAA
i i
0 · U AA 0 , (1) and in physics in general, with implications ranging
M i =1
from the black-hole information paradox [9–11] to area
where the noise injected into the system comes from laws in quantum many-body systems [12].
averaging over the unitaries. The goal is for the result- Conditional measures of correlations. Here, we aim to
ing state to become close to a product state (or, in other quantify the correlations in a tripartite quantum state
words, decoupled) ρ ABE . A measure that is (informally) understood as
quantifying the correlations between A and B from the
F (Λ AA0 (ρ AB ⊗ θ A0 ), π A0 A ⊗ ρ B ) ≥ 1 − ε , (2)
perspective of system E is the conditional quantum mu-
where π AA0 is a maximally mixed state on a subspace of tual information (CQMI)
AA0 . Here, the action of the channel Λ AA0 on systems
I ( A; B| E)ρ := I ( AE; B)ρ − I ( E; B)ρ . (3)
AA0 B is understood as Λ AA0 ⊗ I B , where I B denotes
the identity channel, and the fidelity
p√ between states ξ The CQMI is always non-negative I ( A; B| E)ρ ≥ 0, an
√
and χ is given by F (ξ, χ) := Tr χξ χ . We note entropy inequality known as strong sub-additivity [13].
that the use of the ancilla is catalytic in the sense that The mentioned informal interpretation of the CQMI can
the system A0 has to stay decoupled from B (at least ap- be made precise, as it characterizes the resource re-
proximately), but potentially makes the erasure process quirements of the task of quantum state redistribution
2
Conditional decoupling. Our models for deconstruc- described as having the relatively indiscriminate goal
tion and conditional erasure extend the decoupling ap- of destruction [37]. That is, a straightforward applica-
proach to quantum information theory [30–33] to a con- tion of the decoupling method is too blunt of a tool to
ditional version. While first conceived in the context apply in a state deconstruction protocol. Applying it
of quantum source coding [30], the decoupling tech- naively would result in the annihilation of correlations
nique has numerous applications in areas as different as such that if correlations between systems B and E were
cryptography [34], quantum thermodynamics [35, 36], present beforehand, they would be destroyed.
black hole radiation [9–11], or many body quantum Previous Work. Our results are to be contrasted with
physics [12]. Our models for deconstruction and con- the previous works of del Rio et al. [35] and Wakakuwa
ditional erasure extend this paradigm in the following et al. [38]. In [35] the authors give a conditional ver-
sense. In conditional erasure, Alice does not want to sion of Landauer’s erasure principle by showing that
erase all her correlations with Bob’s system B but only the work cost of resetting the A-part of a tripartite pure
decouple her system A from B conditioned on the in- state ρ ABR to ψ A ⊗ ρ BR with ψ A pure, is given by the
formation she holds in system E, thereby not disturbing conditional entropy H ( A| B)ρ . There are various differ-
the correlations between E and B. This negligible dis- ences with our setting, but most importantly, we do not
turbance condition is critical: Alice and Bob might want demand for the final state to be pure on A, but only
to use their systems E and B, respectively, for some later that it is deconstructed as in (7) or decoupled and max-
quantum information processing task, so that keeping imally mixed as in (8). In [38] the authors give an ex-
the correlations intact is essential for the systems to be tension of the Groisman et al. model (1)–(2) to include
useful later on. The condition also highlights an essen- a third system E. Their model, called Markovianization
tial difference between a semi-classical and fully quan- cost, is conceptually different from our models (5)–(8)
tum state deconstruction protocol: in the case that the in various aspects: (i) their unitaries only act on A and
system E is classical, the negligible disturbance condi- not on AE (and hence there is no negligible disturbance
tion is not necessary because one could always observe condition on BE) (ii) the resulting state is asked to be
the value without causing any disturbance to it. How- close to an exact quantum Markov state [39] (however,
ever, in the quantum case, the uncertainty principle for- see also [40]) (iii) there is no catalytic ancilla register.
bids us from taking a similar action, so that it is neces- Whereas the converse from Proposition 2 holds for their
sary for a fully quantum state deconstruction protocol model as well [40], the CQMI cannot be achieved: the
to proceed with a greater sleight of hand. different condition (i) accounts for a strictly larger op-
Main result. It is the goal of this letter to show that timal rate function based on the Koashi-Imoto decom-
both the deconstruction cost as well as the conditional position [41] (at least for pure states). This proves that
erasure cost are given by the CQMI. the CQMI cannot be achieved without having access to
the E system (which is actually even true in the clas-
Theorem 1. For any tripartite quantum state ρ ABE :
sical case [42]). Wakakuwa et al.’s result is motivated
D( A; B| E)ρ = I ( A; B| E)ρ = C( A; B| E)ρ . from questions in distributed computation [43] but has
the disadvantage that the Koashi-Imoto decomposition
Thus, our result assigns a new physical meaning to is not continuous in the state. We consider our mod-
the CQMI, in terms of an erasure or thermodynami- els to be the most natural and refer to our companion
cal task that generalizes Landauer’s original scenario as paper [42] for an extended discussion.
well as the erasure of correlations scenario of Groisman Converse. We only need to prove that the decon-
et al. The CQMI has many properties that are useful for struction cost of tripartite states is lower bounded by its
a conditional measure of correlations. Amongst them CQMI since we have C( A; B| E)ρ ≥ D( A; B| E)ρ . For that
are the duality property I ( A; B| R)ρ = I ( A; B| E)ρ for a we make use of standard entropy inequalities and some
four party pure state ρ ABER and the chain rule properties of the FoR that are similar to the CQMI. In
n particular, the FoR is self-dual [25, Prop. 4],
I ( A1 · · · A n ; B | E ) ρ = ∑ I ( Ai ; B|EA1i−1 )ρ (9)
i =1 F ( A; B| E)ρ = F ( A; B| R)ρ for ρ ABER pure, (10)
for A1i−1 := A1 · · · Ai−1 . The latter means that we can and multiplicative on tensor-product states [44,
think of the correlations between A1 · · · An and B, as Prop. 2].
observed by E, being built up one system at a time.
We would like to emphasize again that deconstruc- Proposition 2. For any tripartite quantum state ρ ABE :
tion and conditional erasure protocols are more del-
icate than standard decoupling, the latter sometimes D( A; B| E)ρ ≥ I ( A; B| E)ρ .
4
Proof. Given an ancilla state θ A0 and a set of unitaries and the reference party B. The goal is to use noise-
M
less quantum communication and entanglement assis-
i
U AA0 E i=1 leading to ω AA0 BE as in (6), we define an
extended ancilla state θ A0 A0 A0 := θ A0 ⊗ τA0 A0 with each tance to redistribute the systems such that the sender
1 2 √ 1 2
ends up with E, the receiver with AR, and the refer-
τA0 maximally mixed of dimension M [45], and apply
i ence keeps B. We will need the following key lemma
i
the unitaries U AA 0 E controlled on an orthonormal basis from the follow-up work [48], which shows that QSR is
of maximally entangled states of A10 A20 . When tracing asymptotically achievable for a quantum communica-
out over A20 , the resulting state is given by ω AA0 BE ⊗ τA0 tion rate of 21 I ( A; B| E)ρ , using entanglement assistance
1
with ω AA0 BE from (6). Now, by the multiplicativity of and a unitary encoder and decoder.
the FoR we have F ( AA0 A10 ; B| E)ω ⊗τ = F ( AA0 ; B| E)ω ,
and hence we find that any lower bound on the size Lemma 4. [48, Thm. 3] For every four party pure state
of the system A20 that has to be traced out in order to ρ ABER there exist unitary operations Enc : An A0 En →
fulfill the conditions (7) for ω AA0 BE , automatically gives A0 Ā0 En and Dec : Ā0 Rn R0 → An R0 Rn such that for
a lower bound on the number M√of unitaries needed. n → ∞ and maximally entangled states Φ A0 R0 and Φ A0 R0
To find a lower bound on | A20 | = M, we start with of appropriate dimension,
F Dec ◦ Enc ρ⊗ n
⊗n
ABER ⊗ Φ A0 R0 , ρ ABER ⊗ Φ A0 R0 → 1 ,
nI ( A; B| E)ρ = I ( An A0 A10 A20 En ; Bn )ρ⊗n ⊗θ − I ( Bn ; En )ρ⊗n
1
with quantum communication n log | Ā0 | → 21 I ( A; B| E)ρ .
which follows because the CQMI is additive with re-
spect to tensor-product states, invariant with respect to We can now prove Proposition 3 by using the QSR en-
tensoring in a product state, and because of the CQMI coder to construct the unitary randomizing channel (5).
chain rule (9). Now, we employ that the QMI is invari- Proof of Proposition 3. Let ρ ABER be a purification of
ant with respect to local unitaries and that the QMI is ρ ABE . We will show that there exists an ancilla regis-
continuous in the sense that ter θ A0 with purification θ A0 R0 and a unitary operation
V An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En with An A0 ∼ = A0 Ā0 such that for the
− I ( B n ; E n ) ρ⊗n . − I ( B n ; E n ) ω , resulting state
ω A0 Ā0 Bn En Rn R0 := V An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En ρ⊗ n
with . denoting√ an inequality that holds up to terms ABER ⊗ θ A0 R0
having order n ε. From a dimension upper bound on (11)
the QMI (see, e.g., [46]), we then get
we have in the limit n → ∞,
0
n
A10 En ; Bn )ω ⊗τ + 2 log A20 .
nI ( A; B| E)ρ . I ( A A
F (ω A0 Bn En , π A0 ⊗ ω Bn En ) → 1 and F ω Bn En , ρ⊗ n
BE → 1 ,
(12)
Again using the additivity of the CQMI with respect
to tensor-product states and the CQMI chain rule (9), for the choice n1 log Ā0 → 21 I ( A; B| E)ρ . From this we
we find that I ( An A0 A10 En ; Bn )ω ⊗τ = I ( An A0 ; Bn | En )ω . can pick the unitaries
The claim follows by the converse of (4), using,
i
e.g., [47, Prop. 35], F ( An A0 ; Bn | En )ω → 1 implies UA n A0 En → A n := WAi n VAn A0 En → A0 Ā0 En ,
0 Ā0 E 0 Ā0 E
I ( An A0 ; Bn | En )ω → 0) and by taking the limits n → ∞
| Ā |2
and ε → 0. with {WAi }i=01 a set of Heisenberg-Weyl uni-
n
0 Ā0 E
taries that realize the partial trace over Ā0 , and
Achievability. We only need to prove that the condi- VAn A0 En → A0 Ā0 En implementing V An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En . The set
tional erasure cost of tripartite states is upper bounded of unitaries
by its CQMI since we have D( A; B| E)ρ ≤ C( A; B| E)ρ . i M
2
{U A n A0 En → A Ā En }i =1 with M = Ā0
0 0
Proposition 3. For any tripartite quantum state ρ ABE :
then defines a unitary randomizing channel
C( A; B| E)ρ ≤ I ( A; B| E)ρ . Λ An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En as in (5), with the property
Λ An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En (ρ⊗ n
ABE ⊗ θ A0 ) = ω A0 Bn En ⊗ τĀ0 ,
We will make crucial use of a previously established
operational interpretation of the CQMI in terms of and ω A0 Bn En from (11). With (12), this implies the claim.
quantum state redistribution (QSR) [14]. A QSR proto- Now, for V An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En we pick the QSR encoder for
col begins with a sender, a receiver, and a reference ρ ABER from Lemma 4,
party sharing many independent copies of a four party
pure state ρ ABER . The sender has AE, the receiver R, V An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En := Enc An A0 En → A0 Ā0 En ,
5
[16] T. Cooney, C. Hirche, C. Morgan, J. P. Olson, K. P. Se- [47] M. Berta, K. Seshadreesan, and M. M. Wilde, Journal of
shadreesan, J. Watrous, and M. M. Wilde, Physical Re- Mathematical Physics 56, 022205 (2015).
view A 94, 022310 (2016). [48] M.-Y. Ye, Y.-K. Bai, and Z. D. Wang, Physical Review A
[17] M. Berta, F. G. Brandao, and C. Hirche, arXiv:1709.07268 78, 030302 (2008).
(2017). [49] M. Berta, M. Christandl, and R. Renner, Communica-
[18] B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen, tions in Mathematical Physics 306, 579 (2011).
arXiv:1508.02595 (2015). [50] I. H. Kim, Conditional independence in quantum many-body
[19] I. H. Kim, Physical Review B 86, 245116 (2012). systems, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology
[20] F. Pastawski, J. Eisert, and H. Wilming, Physical Review (2013).
Letters 119, 020501 (2017). [51] M. Hayashi, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
[21] B. Czech, L. Lamprou, S. McCandlish, and J. Sully, Jour- 61, 5595 (2015).
nal of High Energy Physics 2015, 175 (2015). [52] M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory - Mathematical
[22] R. Mahajan, C. D. Freeman, S. Mumford, N. Tubman, Foundation (Springer, 2017).
and B. Swingle, arXiv:1608.05074 (2016). [53] M. Christandl and A. Winter, Journal of Mathematical
[23] L. M. Bettencourt, V. Gintautas, and M. I. Ham, Physical Physics 45, 829 (2004).
Review Letters 100, 238701 (2008). [54] H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Physical Review Letters 88,
[24] D. Petz, Communications in Mathematical Physics 105, 017901 (2001).
123 (1986).
[25] K. P. Seshadreesan and M. M. Wilde, Physical Review A
92, 042321 (2015).
[26] O. Fawzi and R. Renner, Communications in Mathemat-
ical Physics 340, 575 (2015).
[27] M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review Letters 96,
110405 (2006).
[28] A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Physical Review Letters 96,
110404 (2006).
[29] N. Lashkari, (2017), arXiv:1704.05077.
[30] M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Nature 436,
673 (2005).
[31] P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, A. Winter, and J. Yard, Open
Systems & Information Dynamics 15, 7 (2008).
[32] F. Dupuis, M. Berta, J. Wullschleger, and R. Ren-
ner, Communications in Mathematical Physics 328, 251
(2014).
[33] F. Dupuis, The Decoupling Approach to Quantum Informa-
tion Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montréal (2009).
[34] M. Berta, O. Fawzi, and S. Wehner, Information Theory,
IEEE Transactions on 60, 1168 (2014).
[35] L. del Rio, J. Åberg, R. Renner, O. Dahlsten, and V. Ve-
dral, Nature 474, 61 (2011).
[36] J. Aberg, Nature Communications 4, 1925 (2013).
[37] A. Abeyesinghe, I. Devetak, P. Hayden, and A. Winter,
Proceedings of the Royal Society A 465, 2537 (2009).
[38] E. Wakakuwa, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, IEEE Transac-
tions on Information Theory 63, 1280 (2017).
[39] L. Accardi and A. Frigerio, Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy. Section A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences
83A, 251 (1983).
[40] E. Wakakuwa, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, IEEE Transac-
tions on Information Theory 63, 5360 (2017).
[41] M. Koashi and N. Imoto, Physical Review A 66, 022318
(2002).
[42] M. Berta, C. Majenz, F. G. S. L. Brandao, and M. M.
Wilde, (2016), arXiv:1609.06994.
[43] E. Wakakuwa, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, IEEE Transac-
tions on Information Theory 63, 5372 (2017).
[44] M. Berta and M. Tomamichel, IEEE Transactions on In-
formation Theory
√ 62, 1758 (2016).
[45] Non-integer M can easily be taken care of as in [42].
[46] M. M. Wilde, (2016), arXiv:1106.1445v7.