arXiv:2106.16110v1 [quant-ph] 30 Jun 2021
Zhi-Xiang Jin1,4, Long-Mei Yang2, Shao-Ming Fei 3,4,∗ Xianqing
Li-Jost4, Zhi-Xi Wang3, Gui-Lu Long2,5,6,7, and Cong-Feng Qiao1,8†
1
School of Physics, University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100049, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Low-Dimensional Quantum Physics and Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
3
School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
4
Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
5
Frontier Science Center for Quantum Information, Beijing 100084, China
6
Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, Beijing 100084, China
7
Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
8
CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics, Beijing 100049, China
Based on the resource theory for quantifying the coherence of quantum channels, we introduce a new coherence quantifier for quantum channels via maximum relative entropy. We prove that the maximum relative entropy for coherence of quantum channels is directly related to the maximally coherent channels under a particular class of superoperations, which results in an operational inter-pretation of the maximum relative entropy for coherence of quantum channels. We also introduce the conception of sub-superchannels and sub-superchannel discrimination. For any quantum chan-nels, we show that the advantage of quantum channels in sub-superchannel discrimination can be exactly characterized by the maximum relative entropy of coherence for quantum channels. Similar to the maximum relative entropy of coherence for channels, the robustness of coherence for quantum channels has also been investigated. We show that the maximum relative entropy of coherence for channels provides new operational interpretations of robustness of coherence for quantum channels and illustrates the equivalence of the dephasing-covariant superchannels, incoherent superchannels, and strictly incoherent superchannels in these two operational tasks.
Keywords: Maximum Relative Entropy, Quantum Channels, Quantum Coherence, Resource Theory
PACS:03.65.Ta, 03.65.Yz, 03.67.Lx
I. Introduction
Quantum coherence characterizes the quantumness of a quantum system, namely, the superposition of a state in a given reference basis. Recently, much attention has been paid to the resource theory of coherence [1– 10], entanglement [11], asymmetry [12–15] and non-uniformity [16, 17]. As a fundamental feature of quan-tum physics, quanquan-tum coherence plays significant roles in quantum metrology [18, 19], low-temperature thermody-namics [20–24], nanoscale physics [25–30], and quantum measurement [31–33]. The quantification of quantum co-herence of quantum states has been extensively investi-gated, see [34–37] and references therein. In particular, the operational characterization of quantum coherence for quantum states has been presented from the view of resource theory of coherence. It is shown that the max-relative entropy of coherence for any coherent states is directly related to the probability of successful subchan-nels discrimination [38].
With respect to the studies on quantum coherence of quantum states, the coherence of quantum channels has also attracted much attention [39–45]. As most quantum
∗Corresponding author: [email protected] †Corresponding author: [email protected]
Z. X. Jin and L. M. Yang contributed equally to this work.
information processes involve and depend on the quan-tum channels, it is the very act to study the coherence of channels. Similar to the resource theory of coherence for quantum states, the resource theory of coherence for quantum channels concerns incoherent channels and in-coherent superchannels. However, the general consensus on the set of free superoperations in the resource theory of coherence for quantum channels is still unclear.
In this letter, we introduce a new coherence measure Cmax of the coherence for quantum channels based on
maximum relative entropy and focus on its operational characterizations. We prove that the maximum relative entropy for the coherence of a given channel φ is achiev-able with a maximally coherent channel under incoherent superchannels, which gives rise to an operational inter-pretation of Cmax and shows the equivalence of the
in-coherent superchannels in an operational task. Besides, we show that the maximum relative entropy of coherence Cmaxcharacterizes the sub-superchannel discriminations.
In addition, the maximum relative entropy of coherence for channels also provides new operational interpretations of robustness of coherence for quantum channels and il-lustrates the equivalence of the dephasing-covariant su-perchannels, incoherent superchannels and strictly inco-herent superchannels in such operational tasks.
Let HA and HB be two Hilbert spaces, with
dimen-sions dimHA= |A| and dimHB = |B|, and orthonormal
bases {|ji}j and {|αi}α, respectively. Denote DA and
2
respectively, and CAB the set of all channels from DAto
DB. A channel φ ∈ CAB is an incoherent channel (IC) if
∆Bφ∆A= φ, (1)
where ∆Aand ∆B are resource destroying maps [45, 46].
The set of all ICs is denoted by ICAB. Similar notations
apply to systems A′ and B′.
A superchannel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ is an incoherent
super-channel (ISC) if it admits an expression of Kraus opera-tors Θ = {Mm}msuch that for each m [45],
Mm= X j,α Mmjα|f(jα)ihjα|, (2) where |f(jα)i ∈n|j′α′i|A′| j′=1, |B′| α′=1 o
, and SCABA′B′ is the
set of all superchannels Θ from CABto CA′B′. The set of
all ISCs is denoted by ISCABA′B′.
As a framework, any coherence measure C of quantum channels should satisfy [45]: (i) Faithfulness: C(φ) > 0 for any φ ∈ CAB, and C(φ) = 0 if and only if φ ∈ ICAB;
(ii) Nonincreasing under ISCABA′B′s: C(φ) > C[Θ(φ)]
for any Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′; (iii) Nonincreasing under
ISCABA′B′s on average: C(φ) > P
m
pmC(φm) for any
Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′, with {Mm}man incoherent expression
of Θ, pm = Tr(MmJφM † m) |A′| , and Jφm = |A ′| MmJφM†m Tr(MmJφM†m); (iv) Convexity: C P m pmφm 6 P m pmC(φm) for any
{φm}m∈ CABand probability {pm}m. Under this
frame-work, the coherence of quantum channels can be calcu-lated via the corresponding Choi matrices. Under this framework the incoherent channels’ Choi matrices are di-agonal.
For a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) operator φ ∈ CAB [47], the corresponding Choi
ma-trix is given by [48, 49]: Jφ = P
jk|jihk| ⊗ φ(|jihk|) =
P
jkαβ
φjk,αβ|jihk| ⊗ |αihβ|, where φjk,αβ= hα|φ(|jihk|)|βi
are complex numbers. It holds that Jφ > 0 and
P
α
φjk,αα = δjk. Note that P α
φjk,αα = δjk is
equiva-lent to TrBJφ = IA, with IA the identity on HA. In
Ref. [45], the relation between the coherence measures for quantum channels and for quantum states has been presented, C(φ) = C Jφ |A| , φ∈ CAB. (3)
A channel is called a channel with maximal coherence if it reaches the maximum for any coherence measure of channels. We also call such channel a maximally coherent channel.
From Eq. (3), one can see that if a channel φ is an incoherent channel in the resource theory for the coher-ence of quantum channels, Jφ
|A| is an incoherent sate in
HA ⊗ HB. However, an incoherent state does not
al-ways correspond to an incoherent channel, since if φ is
an incoherent channel, the corresponding Choi matrix Jφ
satisfiesP
a
φjj,αα= 1 for any j, while for the incoherent
state σ ∈ HA⊗ HB, |A|σ may not be a Choi matrix of
some channels. Namely, the set of the Choi matrices of all quantum channels φ ∈ CAB is a subset of the set of
all quantum states in HAB.
The corresponding Choi matrix of any superchan-nel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ is given by JΘ = P
jkαβ|jαihkβ| ⊗
Θ(|jαihkβ|) = P
jkαβ
Θjk,αβ,j′k′,α′β′|jαj′α′ihkβk′β′|, with
Θjk,αβ,j′k′,α′β′ = hj′α′|Θ(|jαihkβ|)|k′β′i. The
super-channel Θ also has its Kraus operators {Mm}m ∈
SCABA′B′ such that
JΘ(φ)= X m MmJφM†m, ∀φ ∈ CAB, (4) where Mm= P j,α,j′,α′Mmjαj
′α′|j′α′ihjα|. From Eq. (4),
one can reasonably assume that P
mM †
mMm = |A
′|
|A|IAB
since Tr Jφ = |A| and Tr JΘ(φ) = |A′|, where IAB is the
identity on HA⊗ HB.
We call a superchannel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ a
dephasing-covariant superchannel (DISC) if Θ satisfies ∆A′B′Θ =
Θ∆AB. Denote the set of all DISCs by DISC
ABA′B′.
Let {Mm}m be the Kraus operators of a
super-channel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′. Equivalently, a
superchan-nel Θ is called a DISC if ∆A′B′P
mM
m(Jφ)M†m =
P
mM
m ∆AB(Jφ)M†m holds for any φ ∈ CAB.
In the resource theory for coherence of quantum chan-nels, from Eq. (2) an incoherent superchannel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ has that Mm transforms the corresponding
Choi matrices of incoherent channels to diagonal ma-trices for each m. A superchannel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ is
called a strictly incoherent superchannel (SISCs) if for each m, the Kraus operators {Mm}m in Eq. (2)
sat-isfies ∆A′B′
Mm(Jφ)M†m = Mm ∆AB(Jφ)
M†
m [50],
where ∆ is the free operation defined in Eq. (1), i.e., hf(jα)|f(kβ)i = δjk,αβ. We can see that for each m,
there exists at most one nonzero element in each column (row) of Mm if {Mm}m are the Kraus operators of a
strictly incoherent superchannel. Moreover, a strictly in-coherent superchannel Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ can only be defined
for the case |A||B| = |A′||B′|.
II. Maximum relative entropy of coherence for quantum channels
Given two quantum channels φ, eφ ∈ CAB. The
max-imum relative entropy of φ with respect to eφ is defined by Dmax
φ|eφ = minnλ: Jφ62λJφe
o
. We define the measure of coherence, the maximum relative entropy of coherence Cmax, for a channel φ ∈ CAB by
Cmax(φ) = min e φ∈ICAB
where ICAB is the set of incoherent channels in CAB.
The maximum relative entropy of coherence Cmax(φ)
satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) for a well defined measure of coherence for quantum channels. Obviously Cmax(φ) > 0, and Dmax(φ|eφ) = 0 if and only if Jφ= Jφe
[52]. Hence, Cmax(φ) = 0 if and only if φ ∈ ICAB. For
the proof that Cmax(φ) satisfies the conditions (ii) and
(iii), see Section A in Supplemental Material. Thus, the maximum relative entropy of coherence Cmax is a bona
fide measure of coherence of quantum channels.
Cmax may be not convex since Dmax is not
jointly convex. However, for φ = Pmpmφm,
we have Cmax(φ) ≤ maxmCmax(φm).
Sup-pose φ∗
m is the optimal channel such that
Cmax(φm) = Dmax(φm|φ∗m). From the result that
Dmax(Pmpmφm|Pmpmφem) ≤ maxmDmax(φm|eφm)
[53], we have Cmax(φ) ≤ Dmax(Pmpmφm|Pmpmφ∗m) ≤
maxmDmax(φm|φm∗) = maxmCmax(φm). Moreover,
define by convex roof extension of Cmax,
e
Cmax(φ) = min
X
i
λiCmax(ψi),
wherePiλi= 1, the minimum is taken over all the pure
quantum channel decompositions of channel φ ∈ CAB,
φ=Piλiψi, ψi∈ CAB are pure quantum channels such
that Jψi
|A| are pure states. It can be shown that eCmax is
a proper coherence measure of quantum channels with the property of convexity, see Section B in the Supple-mental Material. We show next that Cmax(φ) has direct
operational meanings.
III. Maximum overlap with maximally coherent channels
At first we show that Cmaxcharacterizes the maximum
overlap with a maximally coherent channel that can be achieved by ISCABA′B′, see section C in the
Supplemen-tal Material.
Theorem 1. – Given a quantum channel φ ∈ CAB, we have 2Cmax(φ)= |B ′| |A′|Θ∈ISCmax ABA′B′ F(Θ(φ), Φ)2, (6) where F (φ, eφ) := TrhpJφ q
Jφei is the fidelity between the two quantum channels, Φ is a maximally coherent channel in CA′B′, |A||B| 6 |A′||B′|.
In fact, Theorem 1 holds also for DISCABA′B′ and
SISCABA′B′, see section D in the Supplemental
Mate-rial.
Remark– Although ISC, DISC and SISC are different types of free superchannels in the resource theory of co-herence for quantum channels, they have the same behav-ior in the maximum overlap with the maximally coherent channels. Specially, for |A| = |A′| = 1, a coherence
mea-sure for quantum channels degenerates to a coherence
measure for quantum states. Then from Eq. (6), given a quantum state ρ ∈ DBand φ ∈ CBB′, one gets 2Cmax(ρ) =
|B′| max
φ F[φ(ρ), |ΨihΨ|]
2, where F (ρ, σ) = Tr[√ρ√σ] is
the fidelity between states ρ and σ, |Ψi is an arbitrary maximally coherent state in DB′, and φ belongs to either
incoherent operation (IO), dephasing covariant operation (DIO), strictly incoherent operation (SIO), which are the set of incoherent operations, dephasing-covariant opera-tions and strictly incoherent operaopera-tions in the resource theory for the coherence of quantum states, respectively.
IV. Maximum advantage achievable in sub-superchannel discrimination
The subchannel and subchannel discrimination has been introduced in Ref. [54]. Similar to the construc-tion of subchannel discriminaconstruc-tion, we introduce the con-ception of sub-superchannels and sub-superchannel dis-crimination as follows. A linear completely positive Θ ∈ SCABA′B′ with its Kraus operators {Mm}m
satisfy-ingP
mM †
mMm6 |A
′|
|A|IAB is called a sub-superchannel.
If the Kraus operators {Mm}m satisfy P mM
†
mMm = |A′|
|A|IAB, then Θ is called a superchannel. An instrument
J = {Θk}k for a superchannel Θ is a collection of sub-superchannels Θk with Θ =P
k
Θk.
Give an instrument J = {Θk}k for a superchannel
Θ ∈ SCABA′B′. Consider the positive operator-valued
measure (POVM) {Mk′}k′ with P
k′
Mk′ = IA′B′. The
joint probability of Θk and Mk′ for a channel φ is
p(k, k′) = Tr Mk′ P m MmkJφM†mk |A′| = p(k′|k)p(k), where p(k) = Tr P m MmkJφM†mk
|A′| is the probability of the
sub-superchannel Θk for φ, p(k′|k) is the conditional
proba-bility of the outcome k′ given that the sub-superchannel
Θk takes place, and Θk = {Mmk}m are Kraus
opera-tors of Θk. Then the probability of successfully
discrimi-nating the sub-superchannels in instrument J by POVM {Mk′}k′ is given by psucc(J, {Mk′}k′, φ) = P k Tr Mk′ P mMmk JφM†mk |A′| for φ ∈ CAB.
The optimal probability of success in sub-superchannel discrimination of J over all POVMs is given by
psucc(J, φ) = max {Mk′}k′
psucc(J, {Mk′}k′, φ).
If we restrict φ to incoherent channels, the optimal prob-ability of success among all incoherent channels is given by
pISCOsucc (J) = max
e φ∈ICAB
4
Then we have the following theorem, see proof in section E in the Supplemental Material.
Theorem 2. –For any quantum channel φ ∈ CAB, 2Cmax(φ) is the maximal advantage achievable by φ
com-pared with all incoherent channels in sub-superchannel discriminations of incoherent superchannel instruments:
2Cmax(φ)= max J psucc(J, φ) pISCO succ (J) ,
where J denotes the incoherent instrument of superchan-nel Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′, |A||B| 6 |A′||B′|.
Theorem 2 also holds for Θ ∈ DISCABA′B′ and Θ ∈
SISCABA′B′. Theorem 2 shows that the advantage of
quantum channels in sub-superchannel discriminations can be exactly captured by Cmax, and provides another
operational interpretation of Cmax. One should note here
that although ˜Cmax is a proper coherence measure of
quantum channels by the convex roof extension of Cmax,
it can not characterize the advantage of quantum chan-nels in sub-superchannel discrimination task, since the optimal incoherent instrument Ji of ψi for the optimal
pure quantum channel decomposition of φ = Piλiψi
may be different and 2Cmax in Theorem 2 is not linear.
V. Cmax and robustness of coherence measure for
quantum channels
Similar to the robustness of coherence (ROC) of quan-tum states [32], we can define the ROC of a quanquan-tum channel φ ∈ CAB as CR(φ) = min e φ∈CAB s≥ 0 Jφ+ sJφe 1 + s = Jφ′, φ ′ ∈ ICAB , (7) namely, the minimum weight of another channel eφsuch that its convex mixture with φ yields an incoherent chan-nel φ′. We now prove that the ROC is a well defined
mea-sure of coherence for channels. By definition CR(φ) ≥ 0
and CR(φ) = 0 if and only if φ ∈ ICAB. For the fact
that CR satisfies the conditions (iii) and (iv), see Section
F in the Supplemental Material. Notice that conditions (iii) and (iv) automatically imply condition (ii). This can be seen as follows: CR[Θ(φ)] = CR
P m pmφm ≤ P m
pmCR(φm) ≤ CR(φ), where the first inequality is due
to the convexity of CR, and the second inequality is due
to the monotonicity under selective measurements on av-erage. Thus, the robustness of coherence CR is a bona
fide measure of coherence of quantum channels.
It can be shown that, see Section F in the Supplemental Material,
CR(φ) = min φ′∈IC
AB{s ≥ 0|J
φ≤ (1 + s)Jφ′}. (8)
Therefore, we have 2Cmax(φ) = 1 + C
R(φ). The
oper-ational interpretations of Cmax on the maximum
over-lap with maximally coherent channels and the subsu-perchannel discriminations also give rise to the oper-ational interpretations of CR. The ROC of quantum
states plays an important role in phase channel discrimi-nations [32], which corresponds in particular to the sub-superchannel discrimination in dephasing-covariant in-struments for |A| = |A′| = 1. As for a closed form
between Cmax and CR, let us consider a pure quantum
channel ψ and its Choi matrix Jψ = |A||ψihψ| with
|ψi = P|A|,|B|j,k λjk|ji|ki and Pk|λjk|2 = |A|1 . Then
Cmax(ψ) = 2 log(Pj,k|λjk|)2. In particular, for the
maximally coherent channel Ψ with the Choi matrix JΨ = |A||ΨihΨ| with |Ψi = √ 1
|A||B|
P|A|,|B|
j,k eiθjk|ji|ki,
we have Cmax(Ψ) = log |A||B|, which is the maximum
value of Cmax for channels ψ ∈ CAB. Above all, the
two coherence measures Cmax(φ) and CR(φ) of quantum
channels are ordered such that Cmax(φ1) 6 Cmax(φ2) if
and only if CR(φ1) 6 CR(φ2).
VI. Conclusion
We have presented a bona fide measure of coherence for quantum channels, the maximum relative entropy of coherence Cmax, which has explicit operational
interpre-tations. It characterizes the maximum overlap with the maximally coherent channels under DISC, ISC and SISC, as well as the maximum advantage achievable by coher-ent quantum channels compared with incohercoher-ent quan-tum channels in sub-superchannel discriminations for all dephasing-covariant superchannel instruments, incoher-ent superchannel instrumincoher-ents and strictly incoherincoher-ent su-perchannel instruments. Cmax also provides new
op-erational interpretations of robustness of coherence CR
for quantum channels and illustrates the equivalence of DISC, ISC and SISC under these two operational tasks. It has been found that Cmax and CR have the same
or-dering for quantum channels. In addition, a coherence measure for quantum channels degenerates to a coherence measure for quantum states for |A| = |A′| = 1. These
re-sults may highlight the understanding of the operational resource theory of coherence for quantum channels.
funded project No. 2019M650811 and the China Schol- arship Council No. 201904910005.
[1] T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).
[2] D. Girolami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 170401 (2014).
[3] A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 020403 (2015).
[4] M. L. Hu, X. Hu, J. C. Wang, Y. Peng, Y. R. Zhang, H. Fan, Phys. Rep. 762-764, 1 (2018).
[5] B. Yadin, J. Ma, D. Girolami, M. Gu, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041028 (2016).
[6] A. Winter and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016).
[7] A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
[8] N. Killoran, F. E. S. Steinhoff, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 080402 (2016).
[9] E. Chitambar, A. Streltsov, S. Rana, M.N. Bera, G. Adesso, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070402 (2016).
[10] E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 030401 (2016).
[11] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
[12] I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, New J. Phys. 15, 033001, (2013).
[13] I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Nat. Commun. 5, 3821 (2014).
[14] I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062110 (2014).
[15] G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, New J. Phys.10, 033023 (2008).
[16] M. Horodeki, K. Horodeki, P. Horodeki, R. Horodeki, J. Oppenheim, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100402 (2003).
[17] G. Gour, M. P. Mller, V. Narasimhachar, R. W. Spekkens, and N. Yunger Halpern, Physics Reports. 583, 1 (2015).
[18] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon-ics 5, 222 (2011).
[19] Gyongyosi. L, Quantum Eng. 30, 2 (2020).
[20] J. ˚Aberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150402 (2014).
[21] V.Narasimhachar, G.Gour, Nat. Commun. 6, 7689 (2015).
[22] P. ´Cwikli´nski, M. Studzi´nski, M. Horodecki, and J. Op-penheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210403 (2015).
[23] M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Nat. Com-mun. 6, 6383 (2015).
[24] M. Lostaglio, K. Korzekwa, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021001 (2015).
[25] M.B. Plenio, and S.F. Huelga, New J. Phys. 10, 113019 (2008).
[26] P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. Phys. Chem. B 113, 9942 (2009).
[27] S. Lloyd, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 302, 012037 (2011).
[28] C. M. Li, N. Lambert, Y. N. Chen, G. Y. Chen, and F. Nori, Sci. Rep. 2, 885 (2012).
[29] S. Huelga, and M. Plenio, Contemp. Phys. 54, 181 (2013).
[30] F. Levi, and F. Mintert, New J. Phys. 16, 033007 (2014).
[31] L. H. Shao, Z. Xi, H. Fan, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042120 (2015).
[32] C. Napoli, T.R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. Johnston, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett 116, 150502 (2016).
[33] T. Ma, M. J. Zhao, H. J. Zhang, S. M. Fei, and G. L. Long, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042328 (2017).
[34] L. Lami, B. Regula, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 150402 (2019).
[35] D. J. Zhang, C. L. Liu, X. D. Yu, and D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 170501, (2018).
[36] C. Radhakrishnan, I.Ermakov, and T.Byrnes, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012341 (2017).
[37] C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, S. Maniscalco, J. Schultz, and A. Toigo, New J. Phys. 20, 063038 (2018).
[38] K. F. Bu, U. Singh, S. M. Fei, A. K. Pati, and J. D. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150405 (2017).
[39] X. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012326 (2016).
[40] K. Ben Dana, M. Garc´ıa D´ıaz, M. Mejatty, and A. Win-ter, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062327 (2017).
[41] K. Bu, A. Kumar, L. Zhang, and J. Wu, Phys. Lett. A 381, 1670 (2017).
[42] K. Korzekwa, S. Czach´orski, Z. Pucha la, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, New J. Phys. 20, 043028 (2018).
[43] C. Datta, S. Sazim, A. K. Pati, and P. Agrawal, Ann. Phys. 397, 243 (2018).
[44] T. Theurer, D. Egloff, L. Zhang, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190405 (2019).
[45] J. W. Xu, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052311 (2019).
[46] Z.-W. Liu, X. Hu, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060502 (2017).
[47] M. A. Nielsen, and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
[48] M. D. Choi, Linear Appl. 10, 285 (1975).
[49] A. Jamio lkowski, Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 275 (1972).
[50] G. Saxena, E. Chitambar, G. Gour, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023298 (2020).
[51] See Supplemental Material for the details of the proof.
[52] N. Datta, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 2816 (2009).
[53] N. Datta, Int. J. Quantum. Inform. 07, 475 (2009).
arXiv:2106.16110v1 [quant-ph] 30 Jun 2021
Maximum Relative Entropy for Coherence of Quantum Channels
Zhi-Xiang Jin1,4, Long-Mei Yang2, Shao-Ming Fei 3,4,∗ Xianqing Li-Jost4, Zhi-Xi Wang3, Gui-Lu Long2,5,6,7, and Cong-Feng Qiao1,8† 1
School of Physics, University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100049, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Low-Dimensional Quantum Physics and Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
3
School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
4
Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
5
Frontier Science Center for Quantum Information, Beijing 100084, China
6
Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, Beijing 100084, China
7
Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
8
CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics, Beijing 100049, China
A: PROPERTIES OF Cmax
ii): Nonincreasing under ISCABA′B′s
Note that Dmaxis monotone under completely positive
and trace preserving (CPTP) maps [1]. Denote Θ′ =
|A|
|A′|Θ with Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′. Thus, Θ′ is a CPTP map and JΘ′(φ)= |A|A|′|Jφ correspondingly. Then
Dmax Θ(φ)|Θ(eφ) = minnλ|JΘ(φ)62λJΘ( eφ) o = minnλ|JΘ′(φ)62λJ Θ′( eφ) o 6minnλ|Jφ 62λJφe o = Dmax(φ|eφ). (1) Therefore, Cmax(Θ(φ)) = min e φ∈ICAB Dmax Θ(φ)|eφ 6 min e φ∈ICAB Dmax Θ(φ)|Θ(eφ) 6 min e φ∈ICAB Dmax φ|eφ = Cmax(φ),
where the second line follows from that Θ( eφ) ∈ ICAB, and the third line follows from (1).
iii): Nonincreasing under ISCABA′B′s on average
Assume that eφ∗ ∈ ICAB be an optimal incoherent
channel such that Cmax(φ) = Dmax(φ|eφ∗). Due to
one to one correspondence between φ and Jφ, we
de-note Dmax Jφ|Jφe = Dmax
φ|eφ for convenience. Let
∗[email protected] †[email protected] Jφe∗ m = |A ′| MmJφ∗e M † m Tr(MmJφ∗e M†m). We have P m pmCmax(φm) = min e φm∈ICAB P m pmDmax φm|eφm 6P m pmDmax Jφm|Jφe∗ m 6P m Dmax MmJφM†m|MmJφe∗M†m 6P m
Dmax(TrE[I ⊗ |mihm|UJφ⊗ |αihα|U†I⊗ |mihm|]| TrE[I ⊗ |mihm|UJφe∗⊗ |αihα|U†I⊗ |mihm|])
6P
m
Dmax([I ⊗ |mihm|UJφ⊗ |αihα|U†I⊗ |mihm|]| [I ⊗ |mihm|UJφe∗ ⊗ |αihα|U†I⊗ |mihm|]) = Dmax(U Jφ⊗ |αihα|U†|UJφe∗⊗ |αihα|U†) = Dmax(Jφ⊗ |αihα||Jφe∗⊗ |αihα|)
= Dmax(Jφ|Jφe∗) = Cmax(φ),
where the second inequality is due to the proof of The-orem 1 in [1], the third inequality is due to the fact that there exist an extended Hilbert space HE, a pure |αi ∈ HEand a global unitary U on HAB⊗HEsuch that TrE[I ⊗ |mihm|UJφ⊗ |αihα|U†I⊗ |mihm|] = MmJφM
† m |A′| [2], the forth inequality is due to the fact that Dmax is monotone under partial trace [1], and the second equal-ity is due to the fact that for any set of mutually orthog-onal projectors {Pn}, Dmax
P n PnJφ1Pn|PnJφ2Pn = P n Dmax(PnJφ1Pn|PnJφ2Pn) [1].
B: COHERENCE MEASURE WITH CONVEXITY INDUCED FROM Cmax
Let φ = Piλiψi be the optimal pure quantum
channel decomposition of φ such that eCmax(φ) =
P
iλiCmax(ψi). Denote Θ′ = |A|A|′|Θ for any
incoher-ent superchannel Θ = {Mm}m ∈ ISCABA′B′ with
Mm = P
jαM
mjα|f(jα)ihjα|. Then Θ′ = {M′m}m = {q|A||A′Mm}m is a CPTP map. We have
Jφm=Mm JφM†m pm =X i λi pmMm JψiM†m =X i λiq(m)i pm Jφ(m) i , where pm = Tr(MmJφM† m) |A′| , and q (m) i = Tr(MmJψiM† m) |A′| . Thus we have e Cmax(φm) ≤ X i λiq (m) i pm Cmax(φ(m)i ). (2) Then we have the following
X m pmCemax(φm) ≤X i,m λiqi(m)Cmax(φ(m)i ) =X i,m λiqi(m)Cmax Jφ(m) i |A′| ! =X i λi X m qi(m)log 1 + Cl1 Jφ(m) i |A′| !! ≤X i λilog 1 + X m qi(m)Cl1 Jφ(m) i |A′| !! ≤X i λilog 1 + Cl1 X m M′m Jψi |A|M ′† m !! ≤X i λilog 1 + Cl1 Jψi |A| =X i λiCmax Jψi |A| = eCmax(φ),
where the first inequality comes from Eq. (2); one gets the first equality from the Eq. (3) in the main text; the second equality comes from the fact that for any pure state ρ = |ψihψ|, Cmax(ρ) = log(1 + Cl1(ρ)) [4] with Cl1(ρ) =Pi6=j|hi|ρ|ji| the l1-norm coherence of the state ρ; the second inequality comes from the concavity of logarithm; usingPmM′ m J ψi |A| M′† m= P mq (m) i J φ(m)i |A′| with {M′ m}m= { q |A| |A′Mm}ma incoherent CPTP map,
we get the third inequality; the fourth inequality due to the monotonicity of Cl1 under the incoherent operations.
C: PROOF OF THEOREM 1
Restatement of Theorem 1. – Given a quantum
chan-nel φ ∈ CAB, we have 2Cmax(φ)=|B ′| |A′|Θ∈ISCmax ABA′ B′ F (Θ(φ), Φ)2, (3) where F (φ, eφ) := TrhpJφ q
Jφei is the fidelity between the two quantum channels, Φ is a maximally coherent channel in CA′B′, |A||B| 6 |A′||B′|.
Proof. An outline of the proof of Theorem 1 is as fol-lows. First of all, let’s consider the right side of Eq. (3), we have |B′| |A′|F (Θ(φ), Φ) 2=|B| |A|Tr JΘ(φ) |A||B′| |A′||B|JΦ =|B| |A|Tr Jφ J|A||B′| |A′||B|Θ †(Φ) = Tr Jφ |A|(|B|Jφ′) , (4) where φ′=|A||B′| |A′||B|Θ†(Φ) is a channel in CAB.
Our task now is to prove the one to one correspon-dence between the set of the incoherent superchannel {Θ|Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′} and the set of the channel {φ′|Jφ′ > 0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB, φ′∈ CAB}.
On the one hand, for any Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′, by the definition of the incoherent superchannel, there exists a set of Kraus operators {Mm}m such that for each m,
Mm= X jα Mmjα|f(jα)ihjα|, where |f(jα)i ∈n|j′α′i|A′| j′=1, |B′| α′=1 o . Then we have P mhjα|M † m(JΦ)Mm|jαi =|B1′| P m,j′,α′ k′,β′ ei(θj′ α′−θk′β′)hjα|M† m|j′α′ihk′β′|Mm|jαi =|B1′| P mj′α′hjα|M † m|j′α′ihj′α′|Mm|jαi = 1 |B′| P mhjα|M † mMm|jαi =|A||B|A′|′|,
where the first equation is because for any maximally coherent channel Φ ∈ CA′B′, there exists a set of {θj′α′}|A
′| j′=1,
|B′|
α′=1 such that |AJΦ′| = |ΦihΦ|, with |Φi = 1 √ |A′||B′| |A′| P j′=1 |B′| P α′=1
3 most one nonzero term in each column which implies
that hjα|M†
m|j′α′ihk′β′|Mm|jαi 6= 0 only if j′α′ = k′β′, and the last equation comes from the relation P mM † mMm = |A ′ |
|A|IAB. Then each diagonal element of the Jφ′ := J|A||B′ | |A′ ||B|Θ†(Φ) is X m |A||B′| |A′||B|hjα|M † m(JΦ)Mm|jαi = 1 |B|. Thus we obtain ∆AB(|B|J
φ′) = IAB, i.e., for any Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′, we can always find a channel φ′ ∈ CAB such that Jφ′ >0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB corresponding to it.
On the other hand, for any φ′ ∈ C
AB, consider the spectral decomposition of Jφ′ |A| = |A| X j=1 |B| X α=1 λj,α|ψj,αihψj,α|, (5) with |A| P j=1 |B| P α=1
λj,α = 1, and λj,α >0 for all j and α. For each |ψj,αi, it can be written as
|ψj,αi = |A| X k=1 |B| X β=1 cj,αk,β|kβi, (6) with |A| P k=1 |B|P β=1|c j,α k,β|
2 = 1. For any maximally coherent
channel Φ ∈ CA′B′, there exists {θj′α′}j′α′ such that JΦ
|A′| = |ΦihΦ|, with |Φi = √ 1 |A′||B′| |A′| P j′=1 |B′| P α′=1 eiθj′ ,α′|j′α′i. We define a map Kjα† m (·)Kjαm from DA′B′ to DAB as Kjαm = |A| X k=1 |B| X β=1 Kjαmkβ|f(kβ)ihkβ|, m = 1, · · · , M, (7) where Kjαmkβ = q |A′||B| M c j,α
k,βeiθf(kβ) and hf(jα)|f(kβ)i = δjk,αβ. Then we get |A||B′| |A′||B|K jα† m (JΦ) Kjαm = Jψj,α M ,
where Jψj,α= |A||ψj,αihψj,α| is a desity operator of DAB. Here, we should note that we can always find f such that hf(jα)|f(kβ)i = δjk,αβ holds since |A||B| 6 |A′||B′|. Then we define the set of Kraus operators of the ISC
Θ by {Mmjα|Mmjα:=
p
λj,αKjαm}. We check that this is a well-defined set of Kraus operators of the incoherent
superchannel Θ as follows P mjαM † mjαMmjα = P mjα P kβlγ λjαKjα∗mkβK jα mlγ|kβihf(kβ)|f(lγ)ihlγ| = P mjα P kβ λjα|Kjαmkβ|2|kβihkβ| =P jα P kβ |A′||B|λ jα|cj,αk,β|2|kβihkβ| =P jα λjα|cj,αk,β|2P kβ|A ′||B||kβihkβ| =P kβ |A′||B| 1 |A||B||kβihkβ| = |A|A|′|IAB,
where the first equality is due to Mmjα := pλj,αKjαm and Eq. (7). Combining the Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), and using the trace of |A|Jφ is equal to 1, we get the fifth equality. Thus, a superchannel Θ with its Kraus opera-tors {Mmjα} is an incoherent superchannel. Moreover, |A||B′| |A′||B| P mjαM † mjα(JΦ) Mmjα = P jα λj,αJψj,α = Jφ′, i.e., |A||B′|
|A′||B|Θ†(Φ) = φ′, with ∆AB(|B|Jφ′) = IAB. Thus, for any operator φ′∈ C
AB with Jφ′ >0 and ∆AB(|B|Jφ′) = IAB, there exists an ISC Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′ such that φ′ =|A||B|A′||B|′|Θ†(Φ).
Thus, using Eq. (4) and the one to one correspon-dence between {Θ|Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′} and {φ′|Jφ′ > 0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB, φ′ ∈ CAB}, the right side of Eq. (3) can be written as |B′| |A′|Θ∈ISCmax ABA′B′ F (Θ(φ), Φ)2 = max Jφ′>0, ∆(|B|Jφ′)=IAB Tr J φ |A|(|B|Jφ′) . (8)
The left side of Eq. (3) can be written as 2Cmax(φ)= min e φ∈ICmin{λ : J φ6λJφe} = min Jφe>0 Tr Jφe |A| |Jφ6∆AB(Jφe), Jφe∈ MAB = min Jφ6∆AB(J e φ) Jφe∈MAB,Jφe>0 Tr Jφe |A| , (9)
where MAB is the set of matrices that satisfies {MAB:= kJφ, k > 0, φ ∈ CAB}.
First, the right side of Eq. (10) can be written as max Jφ′>0 ∆AB(|B|J φ′)=IAB Trh|A|Jφ(|B|Jφ′) i = max Jφ′>0,Jφ′∈MAB ∆AB(|B|J φ′)6IAB Trh|A|Jφ(|B|Jφ′) i . (11)
For Jφ′ >0 with ∆AB(|B|Jφ′) 6 IAB, define Jφ′′= Jφ′+ IAB |B| − ∆AB(Jφ′), then Jφ′′∈ MAB, ∆AB(|B|Jφ′′) = IAB, and Trh|A|Jφ(|B|Jφ′′) i >Trh|A|Jφ(|B|Jφ′) i . Thus, Eq. (11) holds. Now we only need to prove
min Jφ6∆AB(J e φ) Jφe>0,Jφe∈MAB Tr Jφe |A| = max Jφ′>0,Jφ′∈MAB ∆AB(|B|J φ′)6IAB Tr Jφ |A|(|B|Jφ′) . (12) The left side of Eq.(12) can be expressed as the following semidefinite programming
min TrhCJφei, s.t. ΛJφe>D, Jφe>0, Jφe∈ MAB,
where C = IAB, D = Jφ, and Λ = ∆AB. Then the dual semidefinite programming is given by
max Tr [D (|B|Jφ′)] , s.t. Λ†(|B|J φ′) 6 C, Jφ′>0 Jφ′ ∈ MAB. That is, max Tr [Jφ(|B|Jφ′)] , s.t. ∆AB(|B|J φ′) 6 IAB, Jφ′ >0 Jφ′ ∈ MAB.
Note that the dual is strictly feasible as we only need to choose Jφe= 2λmax(Jφ)IAB ∈ MAB, where λmax(Jφ) is the maximum eigenvalue of Jφ. Thus, strong duality holds, and the Eq. (10) and Eq. (12) are proved.
D: PROOF OF THAT THEOREM 1 HOLDS FOR THE SET OF DISC AND SISC
In this section, we will prove Theorem 1 also estab-lished for the set of DISC and SISC. From the deriva-tion of Theorem 1, we just need to get the one to one corresponding relation for the set of DISCABA′B′ and the set {φ′|J
φ′ >0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB}. So as the SISC and {φ′|J
φ′ >0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB}.
For any Θ ∈ DISCABA′B′, from the definition of Θ ∈ DISCABA′B′, one has ∆A
′B′
Θ = Θ∆AB, then
one can get that ∆ABΘ† = Θ†∆A′B′, which implies ∆AB P mM † m(·)Mm =P mM † m ∆A′B′(·)M m, with Θ = {Mm}m. Thus, we have ∆AB(|B|J φ′) = |B||A||B ′ | |A′||B|∆AB P mM † mJΦMm = |A||B|A′|′| P mM † m ∆A′B′(J Φ) Mm = |A||B|A′|′| P mM † m 1 |B′|IA′B′ Mm = IAB,
where the second equation obtained by using the prop-erty ∆ABΘ† = Θ†∆A′B′. The last equation comes from the relationP mM † mMm= |A ′| |A|IAB.
Similar to the proof for the part of Theorem 1: for any operator φ′ ∈ C
AB with Jφ′ > 0 and ∆AB(|B|Jφ′) = IAB, there exists an ISC Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′ such that φ′ = |A||B′|
|A′||B|Θ†(Φ). Here we just change the expres-sion of Eq. (7) Kjα m as Kmjα= |A| P k=1 |B| P β=1K jα mkβ|kβihkβ| with Kjαmkβ= q |A′||B| M c j,α
k,β. One can get the desired result: for any operator φ′∈ C
AB with Jφ′ >0 and ∆AB(|B|Jφ′) = IAB, there exists an DISC Θ ∈ DISCABA′B′ such that φ′ = |A||B′|
|A′||B|Θ†(Φ). As for SISC, similar to the proof of incoherent superchannels SIC, one can also obtain the one to one corresponding relation between the set of SISCABA′B′ and the set {φ′|Jφ′ >0, ∆(|B|Jφ′) = IAB}. Therefore, Theorem 1 can also be established for the set of DISC and SISC.
E: PROOF OF THEOREM 2.
Restatement of Theorem 2. –For any quantum
chan-nel φ ∈ CAB, 2Cmax(φ) is the maximal advantage achiev-able by φ compared with all incoherent channels in sub-superchannel discriminations of incoherent sub-superchannel instruments: 2Cmax(φ)= max J psucc(J, φ) pISCO succ (J) ,
where J denotes the incoherent instrument of superchan-nel Θ ∈ ISCABA′B′, |A||B| 6 |A′||B′|.
Proof. Due to the definition of Cmax(φ), there ex-ists an incoherent channel eφ such that Jφ 62Cmax(φ)Jφe. Thus, for any incoherent instrument of superchannel J and POVM {Mk}k on φ, eφ ∈ CAB,
psucc(J, {Mk}k, Jφ) 6 2Cmax(φ)psucc(J, {Mk}k, Jφe). Then
5 where pISCO
succ (J) the optimal probability of success among all incoherent channels.
Our task now is to acheve upper bound for discrimi-nation. From Theorem 1, there exists an incoherent su-perchannel Θ = {Mm}m∈ ISCABA′B′ such that
2Cmax(φ)=|B ′|
|A′|F (Θ(φ), Φ) 2
, (13)
with Φ a maximally coherent channel. Consider unitaries {Uk}, k = 1, 2, . . . , |A′||B′|, with Uk= |A′| X j′=1 |B′| X α′=1 ei|A′||B′ |j′ α′ 2kπ|j′α′ihj′α′|.
Define the sub-superchannel Θk = {Mmk}m with
Mmk= √ 1 |A′||B′|UkMm. Then we have JΘk(φ)= 1 |A′||B′|UkJΘ(φ)U † k.
Thus, the superchannel eΘ =P k
Θk is also an ISC. That is, the instrument eJ= {Θk}kis an incoherent instrument of eΘ.
For any POVM {Mk}k and any incoherent channel eφ, one has psucc(eJ, {Mk}k, eφ) = 1 |A′| P k Tr P mM mkJφeM † mk Mk = |A′|12|B′|Tr P mMm JφeM† m P k U † kMkUk = 1 |A′|2|B′|Tr P mM mJφeM † m P k Uk†∆(Mk)Uk = |A′|12|B′|Tr P mMm JφeM† m P k ∆(Mk) = |A′|12|B′|Tr P mM mJφeM†m ∆(P k Mk) = 1 |A′|2|B′|Tr P mMm JφeM† m = |A′||B1 ′|.
That is to say, pISCO
succ (eJ) = |A′||B1 ′|. Taking another POVM {Nk}k on φ ∈ CAB as
Nk = Uk|ΦihΦ|Uk†,
where JΦ = |A′||ΦihΦ| is the Choi matrix of the maxi-mally coherent channel in Eq. (13).
Then we have psucc(eJ, {Nk}k, φ) =|A1′| P k Tr P mMmk JφM†mk Nk =|A′|12|B′|Tr P mM mJφM†m P k U † kNkUk = 1 |A′|2|B′|Tr P mMm JφM†m P k |ΦihΦ| =|A1′|Tr JΘ(φ)|ΦihΦ| = 1 |A′|2Tr JΘ(φ)JΦ =|A′||B1 ′| |B′| |A′|Tr JΘ(φ)JΦ = 1 |A′||B′| |B′| |A′|F (Θ(φ), Φ) 2 =2Cmax(φ) |A′||B′| = 2Cmax(φ)pISCO succ (eJ).
Thus, for this incoherent instrument eJ = {Θk}k, psucc(eJ, φ) ≥ 2Cmax(φ)psucc(eJ). We have thus proved the Theorem 2. With a similar consideration, one can see the result holds for DISCABA′B′ and SISCABA′B′.
F: PROOF OF PROPERTIES OF CR
I: Proof of conditions (iii) and (iv)
We define the robustness of coherence (ROC) of a quantum channel φ ∈ CAB as CR(φ) = min e φ∈CAB n s ≥ 0 Jφ1 + s+ sJφe = Jφ′, φ′ ∈ ICAB o , (14) that is, the minimum weight of another channel eφ such that its convex mixture with φ yields an incoherent chan-nel φ′. We now prove that the ROC is a bona fide mea-sure of coherence for channels. First of all, it is seen by definition that CR(φ) ≥ 0 and CR(φ) = 0 if and only if φ ∈ ICAB.
Second, the ROC is convex. Let φ1 and φ2 be two
channels, and write for each the optimal pseudomixture Jφk= [1 + CR(φk)]Jφ′∗
k − CR(φk)Jφe∗k,
with k = 1, 2. Taking the convex combination φ = pφ1+ (1 − p)φ2 with 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, notice that
Jφ= (1 + s)Jφ′− sJe φ can be written with
Jφ′ = p[(1 + CR(φ1)]Jφ′∗ 1 + (1 − p)[(1 + CR(φ2)]Jφ′∗2 1 + s , then φ′∈ IC AB, Jφe= [pCR(φ1)Jφe∗ 1+(1−p)CR(φ2)Jφe∗2]/s and s = pCR(φ1)+(1−p)CR(φ2). By definition, CR(φ) ≤ s, which proves convexity,
Third, the ROC is nonincreasing on average under in-coherent superchannels. Let Θ = {Mm}m∈ ISCABA′B′. For any channel φ, let eφ∗ and φ′∗ denote the channels in the optimal pseudomixture for CR(φ) as in Eq. (14), and apply Mmon both sides, we get
MmJφM†m = [1 + CR(φ)]MmJφ′∗M† m− CR(φ)MmJφe∗M † m. By defining Jφ′∗ m = 1 1 + sm 1 pm [1 + CR(φ)]MmJφ′∗M† m, Jφe∗ m = 1 sm 1 pm CR(φ)MmJφe∗M†m, sm= 1 pm CR(φ) Tr(MmJφe∗M†m) |A′| , with pm= Tr(MmJφM† m) |A′| , we can write Jφm = (1 + sm)Jφ′∗ m− smJφe∗ m,
where Jφm = MmJφM†m/pm. Since the latter
pseu-domixture for each φm is not necessarily optimal,
it follows by Eq. (14) that CR(φm) ≤ sm =
1 pmCR(φ)
Tr(MmJeφ∗M† m)
|A′| . Taking the weighted average
over all sub-superchannels, we finally get X m pmCR(φm) ≤X m pm 1 pm CR(φ) Tr(MmJφe∗M†m) |A′| , = CR(φ). II: Derivation of (8)
In the following, we give ROC of a channel CR(φ) an-other expression as
CR(φ) = min
φ′∈ICAB{s ≥ 0|Jφ≤ (1 + s)Jφ
′}. (15)
From the definition of ROC of a channel, one has
Jφ= [1 + CR(φ)]Jφ′∗− CR(φ)Je φ∗,
with eφ∗ and φ′∗the channels in the optimal pseudomix-ture for CR(φ) as in Eq. (14). This implies
Jφ≤ [1 + CR(φ)]Jφ′∗,
with φ′∗ ∈ IC
AB, which means that CR(φ) is lower-bounded by the minimum on the right-hand side of Eq. (15). On the other hand, suppose Jφ ≤ (1 + s)Jφ′ for some φ′∈ IC
AB. Then we can write
Jφ′ =
Jφ+ sJφe
1 + s ,
with Jφe = [(1 + s)Jφ′ − Jφ]/s a valid Choi matrix of a channel eφ. This proves that the minimum in Eq. (15) is also an upper bound for CR(φ), hence we conclude that (15) holds.
[1] N. Datta, Max-relative entropy of entanglement, altas log robustness, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 2816 (2009). [2] V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement measures and
purification procedures., Phys. Rev. A 57, 1619 (1998). [3] J. W. Xu, Coherence of quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A
100, 052311 (2019).
[4] C. Napoli, T.R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. Johnston, and G. Adesso, Robustness of coherence: An operational and observable measure of quantum coher-ence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150502 (2016).
