In quantum information theory, strong subadditivity of quantum entropy (SSA) is the relation among the von Neumann entropies of various quantum subsystems of a larger quantum system consisting of three subsystems (or of one quantum system with three degrees of freedom). It is a basic theorem in modern quantum information theory. It was conjectured by D. W. Robinson and D. Ruelle[1] in 1966 and O. E. Lanford III and D. W. Robinson[2] in 1968 and proved in 1973 by E.H. Lieb and M.B. Ruskai,[3] building on results obtained by Lieb in his proof of the Wigner-Yanase-Dyson conjecture.[4]
The classical version of SSA was long known and appreciated in classical probability theory and information theory. The proof of this relation in the classical case is quite easy, but the quantum case is difficult because of the non-commutativity of the reduced density matrices describing the quantum subsystems.
Trace Inequalities and Quantum Entropy: An Introductory Course[7]
Definitions
We use the following notation throughout the following: A Hilbert space is denoted by , and denotes the bounded linear operators on .
Tensor products are denoted by superscripts, e.g., . The trace
is denoted by .
A function of two variables is said to be jointly concave if for any the following holds
Subadditivity of entropy
Ordinary subadditivity [9] concerns only two spaces and a density matrix . It states that
This inequality is true, of course, in classical probability theory, but the latter also contains the
theorem that the conditional entropies and are both non-negative. In the quantum case, however, both can be negative,
e.g.
can be zero while . Nevertheless, the subadditivity upper bound on continues to hold. The closest thing one has
to is the Araki–Lieb triangle inequality [9]
which is derived in [9] from subadditivity by a mathematical technique known as purification.
Strong subadditivity (SSA)
Suppose that the Hilbert space of the system is a tensor product of three spaces: . Physically, these three spaces can
be interpreted as the space of three different systems, or else as three parts or three degrees of freedom
of one physical system.
Given a density matrix on , we define a density matrix on as a partial trace:
. Similarly, we can define density matrices: , , , , .
Statement
For any tri-partite state the following holds
,
where , for example.
Equivalently, the statement can be recast in terms of conditional entropies to show that for tripartite state ,
These statements run parallel to classical intuition, except that quantum conditional entropies can be negative, and quantum mutual informations can exceed the classical bound of the marginal entropy.
The strong subadditivity inequality was improved in the following way by Carlen and Lieb [10]
,
with the optimal constant .
J. Kiefer[11][12] proved a peripherally related convexity result in 1959, which is a corollary of an operator Schwarz inequality proved by E.H.Lieb and M.B.Ruskai.[3] However, these results are comparatively simple, and the proofs do not use the results of Lieb's 1973 paper on convex and concave trace functionals.[4] It was this paper that provided the mathematical basis of the proof of SSA by Lieb and Ruskai. The extension from a Hilbert space setting to a von Neumann algebra setting, where states are not given by density matrices, was done by
Narnhofer and Thirring
.[13]
The theorem can also be obtained by proving numerous equivalent statements, some of which are summarized below.
Wigner–Yanase–Dyson conjecture
E. P. Wigner and M. M. Yanase [14] proposed a different definition of entropy, which was generalized by Freeman Dyson.
The Wigner–Yanase–Dyson p-skew information
The Wigner–Yanase–Dyson -skew information of a density matrix . with respect to an operator is
where is a commutator, is the
adjoint of and is fixed.
Concavity of p-skew information
It was conjectured by E. P. Wigner and M. M. Yanase in [15] that - skew information is concave as a function of a density matrix for a fixed .
Since the term is concave (it is linear), the conjecture reduces to the problem of concavity of . As noted in,[4] this conjecture (for all ) implies SSA, and was proved
for in,[15] and for all in [4]
in the following more general form: The function of
two matrix variables
1
is jointly concave in and
when and .
This theorem is an essential part of the proof of SSA in.[3]
In their paper [15] E. P. Wigner and M. M. Yanase also conjectured the subadditivity of -skew information for , which was disproved by Hansen[16] by giving a counterexample.
First two statements equivalent to SSA
It was pointed out in [9] that the first statement below is equivalent to SSA and A. Ulhmann in [17] showed the equivalence between the second statement below and SSA.
Note that the conditional entropies and do not have to be both non-negative.
The map is convex.
Both of these statements were proved directly in.[3]
Joint convexity of relative entropy
As noted by Lindblad[18] and Uhlmann,[19] if, in equation (1), one takes and and
and differentiates in at , one
obtains the joint convexity of relative entropy:
i.e., if , and , then
2
where with .
Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy
The relative entropy decreases monotonically under completely positivetrace preserving (CPTP) operations on density matrices,
.
This inequality is called Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy. Owing to the Stinespring factorization theorem, this inequality is a consequence of a particular choice of the CPTP map - a partial trace map described below.
The most important and basic class of CPTP maps is a partial trace operation , given by . Then
3
which is called Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy under partial trace.
To see how this follows from the joint convexity of relative entropy, observe that
can be written in Uhlmann's representation as
for some finite and some collection of unitary matrices on (alternatively, integrate over Haar measure). Since the trace (and hence the relative entropy) is unitarily invariant,
inequality (3) now follows from (2). This theorem is due to Lindblad [18]
and Uhlmann,[17] whose proof is the one given here.
SSA is obtained from (3)
with replaced by and
replaced . Take .
Then (3) becomes
Therefore,
which is SSA. Thus,
the monotonicity of quantum relative entropy (which follows from (1) implies SSA.
Relationship among inequalities
All of the above important inequalities are equivalent to each other, and can also be proved directly. The following are equivalent:
Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy (MONO);
Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy under partial trace (MPT);
Strong subadditivity (SSA);
Joint convexity of quantum relative entropy (JC);
The following implications show the equivalence between these inequalities.
MONO MPT: follows since the MPT is a particular case of MONO;
MPT MONO: was shown by Lindblad,[20] using a representation of stochastic maps as a partial trace over an auxiliary system;
MPT SSA: follows by taking a particular choice of tri-partite states in MPT, described in the section above, "Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy";
SSA MPT: by choosing to be block diagonal, one can show that SSA implies that the map
is convex. In [3] it was observed that this convexity yields MPT;
MPT JC: as it was mentioned above, by choosing (and similarly, ) to be block diagonal matrix with blocks (and ), the partial trace is a sum over blocks so that , so from MPT one can obtain JC;
JC SSA: using the 'purification process', Araki and Lieb,[9][21] observed that one could obtain new useful inequalities from the known ones. By purifying to it can be shown that SSA is equivalent to
Moreover, if is pure, then and , so the equality holds in the above inequality. Since the extreme points of the convex set of density matrices are pure states, SSA follows from JC;
D. Petz also gave another condition [23] when the equality holds in Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy: the first statement below. Differentiating it at we have the second condition. Moreover, M.B. Ruskai gave another proof of the second statement.
For all states and on and all quantum operators ,
if and only if the following equivalent conditions are satisfied:
for all real .
where is the adjoint map of .
Equality in strong subadditivity inequality
P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz and A. Winter described the states for which the equality holds in SSA.[25]
A state on a Hilbert space satisfies strong subadditivity with equality if and only if there is a decomposition of second system as
into a direct sum of tensor products, such that
with states on and on , and a probability distribution .
If and , as is always the case for the classical Shannon entropy, this inequality has nothing to say. For the quantum entropy, on the other hand, it is quite possible that the conditional entropies satisfy or (but never both!). Then, in this "highly quantum" regime, this inequality provides additional information.
The constant 2 is optimal, in the sense that for any constant larger than 2, one can find a state for which the inequality is violated with that constant.
Operator extension of strong subadditivity
In his paper [26] I. Kim studied an operator extension of strong subadditivity, proving the following inequality:
For a tri-partite state (density matrix) on ,
The proof of this inequality is based on Effros's theorem,[27] for which particular functions and operators are chosen to derive the inequality above. M. B. Ruskai describes this work in details in [28] and discusses how to prove a large class of new matrix inequalities in the tri-partite and bi-partite cases by taking a partial trace over all but one of the spaces.
Extensions of strong subadditivity in terms of recoverability
A significant strengthening of strong subadditivity was proved in 2014,[29] which was subsequently improved in [30] and.[31] In 2017,[32] it was shown that the recovery channel can be taken to be the original Petz recovery map. These improvements of strong subadditivity have physical interpretations in terms of recoverability, meaning that if the conditional mutual information of a tripartite quantum state is nearly equal to zero, then it is possible to perform a recovery channel (from system E to AE) such that . These results thus generalize the exact equality conditions mentioned above.
^Ruskai, Mary Beth. "Evolution of a Fundemental [sic] Theorem on Quantum Entropy". youtube.com. World Scientific. Retrieved 20 August 2020. Invited talk at the Conference in Honour of the 90th Birthday of Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 26–29 August 2013. The note on Kiefer (1959) is at the 26:40 mark.
^Narnhofer, H. (1985). "From Relative Entropy to Entropy". Fizika. 17: 258–262.
^ abcWigner, Eugene P.; Yanase, Mutsuo M. (1964). "On the Positive Semidefinite Nature of a Certain Matrix Expression". Canadian Journal of Mathematics. 16. Canadian Mathematical Society: 397–406. doi:10.4153/cjm-1964-041-x. ISSN0008-414X.
^D. Petz, Sufficiency of Channels over von Neumann Algebras, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 35, 475–483 (1986).
^P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, A. Winter, Structure of States which Satisfy Strong Subadditivity of Quantum Entropy with Equality, Comm. Math. Phys. 246, 359–374 (2003).
^I. Kim, Operator Extension of Strong Subadditivity of Entropy, arXiv:1210.5190 (2012).
^M. B. Ruskai, Remarks on Kim’s Strong Subadditivity Matrix Inequality: Extensions and Equality Conditions, arXiv:1211.0049 (2012).
^O. Fawzi, R. Renner. Quantum conditional mutual information and approximate Markov chains. Communications in Mathematical Physics: 340, 2 (2015)
^M. M. Wilde. Recoverability in quantum information theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol. 471, no. 2182, page 20150338 October 2015
^Marius Junge, Renato Renner, David Sutter, Mark M. Wilde, Andreas Winter. Universal recovery maps and approximate sufficiency of quantum relative entropy. Annales Henri Poincare, vol. 19, no. 10, pages 2955--2978, October 2018 arXiv:1509.07127
^Carlen, Eric A.; Vershynina, Anna (2017-10-06). "Recovery map stability for the Data Processing Inequality". arXiv:1710.02409 [math.OA].
Strategi Solo vs Squad di Free Fire: Cara Menang Mudah!