0
$\begingroup$

A quantum channel is defined as a completely positive, trace-preserving (CPTP) linear map between spaces of operators.

Suppose we have the following operation $$\mathcal{E}(\rho) = \sum_{j=1}^n K_j \rho K_j^{\dagger}, \tag{1}$$ where $\rho$ is a density matrix.

From what I know, since $\mathcal{E}(\cdot)$ has the Kraus operator representation, this operation is completely positive.

However, this operation is not trace-preserving because $$ \sum_{j=1}^n K_j^{\dagger}K_j = \begin{pmatrix} 1 + 2k^2dt && - 2 k \alpha dt\\ - 2 k \alpha dt && 1 + 2k^2dt \end{pmatrix} = I + O(dt).\tag{2} $$ In the above, $dt \rightarrow 0$, $k \in (0,1)$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$. Here, we have $dt$ infinitesimally small but non-zero.

The eigenvalues of this matrix are very close to being $1$ given that $\alpha$ is not too large: \begin{align} \lambda_1 &= 1 + 2(-\alpha k + k^2)dt \\ \lambda_2 &= 1 + 2(\alpha k + k^2)dt \end{align}

For example, for a fixed small $dt$, a numerical representation of these eigenvalues could be $\lambda_1 = 1.0002$ and $\lambda_2 = 0.9998$. Analytically, since $dt$ tends to zero, eigenvalues should be tending to $1$.

My questions are:

  1. Could $\mathcal{E}(\cdot)$ be viewed as a quantum channel for $dt>0$ and $dt \rightarrow 0$?
  2. What if I normalize $\mathcal{E}(\rho)$ by $Tr(\mathcal{E}(\rho))$? Would that be a channel, albeit non-linear, in $\rho$.
  3. Perhaps, more generally, what is the meaning of an operation that is CP but not TP?
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Violating TP means that you cannot immediately interpret measurements on the object $\mathcal{E}(\rho)$ as having various outcomes with probabilities. For whatever $dt$ you choose (perhaps with limiting behavior), would you expect $\mathcal{E} \circ \cdots \circ \mathcal{E}(\rho)$ (repeating $\mathcal{E}$ for $n$ times) to be trace 1, for every choice of $n$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 29, 2024 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ @forky40, thanks for the explanation. I think I expect that $\mathcal{E} \circ \cdots \circ \mathcal{E}(\rho)$ would be written in a Kraus representation, and the $dt$ will pop up again as in Eq (2). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2024 at 3:00
  • $\begingroup$ What is a "channel, albeit non-linear"? Quantum channels must, by definition, be linear. Otherwise, they are incompatible with a tensor product structure. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 31, 2024 at 13:15

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

As the third questions seems to have been addressed in the comments already let me focus on the other two:

  1. Because of trace preservation your $\mathcal E$ is not a channel for any $dt>0$, only for $dt\to 0$.

  2. If you normalize by dividing $\mathcal E(\rho)$ by ${\rm tr}(\mathcal E(\rho))$, then—as you correctly pointed out—$\mathcal E$ is not linear anymore. Hence $\mathcal E$ is not a channel, it is merely a map; a channel is defined as linear, completely positive, trace preserving.

However, there is a way of turning (almost) any CP map into a channel and it is to skew the input before applying $\mathcal E$: If $\sum_jK_j^\dagger K_j$ is positive definite (i.e. has no zero eigenvalues), then $X:= (\sum_jK_j^\dagger K_j)^{-1/2}$ (inverse of square root) is well-defined. With this the modified map $\mathcal E'(\rho):=\mathcal E(X\rho X^\dagger)$ is linear, completely positive (with Kraus operators $\{K_jX\}_j$), and trace preserving because \begin{align*} {\rm tr}(\mathcal E(\rho))&=\sum_j{\rm tr}(K_jX\rho X^\dagger K_j^\dagger)\\ &=\sum_j{\rm tr}(X^\dagger K_j^\dagger K_jX\rho)\\ &={\rm tr}\Big(X^\dagger\Big(\sum_j K_j^\dagger K_j\Big)X\rho \Big)\\ &={\rm tr}\Big(\Big(\sum_j K_j^\dagger K_j\Big)^{-1/2}\Big(\sum_j K_j^\dagger K_j\Big)\Big(\sum_j K_j^\dagger K_j\Big)^{-1/2}\rho \Big)={\rm tr}(\rho)\,. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer, Frederik. This is very interesting. Does the "skew the input" method change the physical meaning of the operation $\mathcal{E}$? Could you also expand on the intuitive interpretation of this method? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2024 at 5:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To my knowledge this is more of a mathematical tool than anything else, usually employed for the Petz recovery map which reverses the action of a channel on a given input. Beyond that I do not know of any physical interpretation, although somebody else on this site may. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 30, 2024 at 9:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think this is then just an entirely different map. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 31, 2024 at 13:19

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.