Relation between the state distinction power anddisturbance in quantum measurements

Ikko Hamamura1, a) and Takayuki Miyadera1, b)

Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto University, 6158540 Kyoto,Japan

(Dated: 30 May 2019)

The measurement of an informative observable strongly disturbs a quantum state.We examine the so-called information-disturbance relation by introducing orderrelations based on the state distinction power of an observable and a variety ofnon-disturbed observables with respect to a channel, and obtain qualitative andquantitative representations.

PACS numbers: 03.65.TaKeywords: Quantum measurement, Information-Disturbance, Incompatibility

I. INTRODUCTION

All the operation pairs are not simultaneously realizable in quantum theory. This conceptof incompatibility1 is ubiquitous. For example, the position and momentum of a singleparticle cannot be simultaneously measured; therefore, these observables are incompatible.While this example refers to the incompatibility between two observables, the notion ofincompatibility can be extended to general operations. Each class of operation in thequantum theory is characterized by its outcome space. An observable has a classical statespace as its outcome space. An operation whose outcome is a quantum state is called a(quantum) channel. A pair of operations (possibly belonging to different classes) is calledincompatible if there is no device that contains these operations as its parts.

In this study, we discuss the incompatibility between observables and channels. This typeof incompatibility has been extensively studied, and various conditions have been obtainedfor ensuring compatibility between an observable and a channel2–7. The compatibility con-ditions exhibit an information-disturbance relation; “strong” disturbance is inevitable whilemeasuring “informative” observables. By introducing quantitative measures for the infor-mative character of an observable and the disturbing character of a channel, the inequalitiesbetween an observable and a channel can be identified; these inequalities place concrete lim-itations on compatible operations. Recently an author proposed a qualitative (structural)representation of the information-disturbance relation8. An observable A (a channel Λ1)is defined to be more informative (resp. less disturbing) than B (resp. Λ2) if and only ifB (resp. Λ2) can be obtained by A (resp. Λ1) followed by post-processing, This definitionconsiders the observable space (channel space) to be a preordered space that is not linearlyordered. Further, a relation in terms of the order structure was obtained. Once a quantita-tive measure on each space respecting the order is introduced, its corresponding quantitativerepresentation of the information-disturbance relation is obtained. Thus, this approach canreveal the structure of the information-disturbance relations and justify certain quantitativemeasures.

While the argument above was entirely based on the post-processing induced order, theorder is not a unique one that has operational meaning. The objective of this study isto examine another qualitative representation of the information-disturbance relation. Weemploy an order in the observable space determined using the state distinction power9,10.

a)Electronic mail: hamamura@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jpb)Electronic mail: miyadera@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jp

arX

iv:1

610.

0881

4v2

[qu

ant-

ph]

29

May

201

9

2

Two order relations in the channel space are introduced by focusing on the invariant ob-servables, which can be naturally interpreted in terms of the quantum non-demolitionmeasurement11–13. We demonstrate that these order relations are related to each otherby qualitative and quantitative information-disturbance relations.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II the fundamental concepts usedthroughout the paper are introduced. In section III, an order relation in the observablespace and two order relations in the channel space are introduced. In section IV the relationsamong the orders are discussed, and the qualitative and quantitative relations are obtained.In addition, a sequential measurement is discussed by comparing it with a result within thepost-processing order.

II. PRELIMINARIES

LetH be a separable (possibly infinite-dimensional) Hilbert space. Throughout the paper,we consider a quantum system described by H. We denote by B(H) the set of boundedoperators on H. A normal state is represented by a positive operator with unit trace (i.e.,a density operator). We denote the set of density operators as S(H). S(H) spans the set oftrace class operators T (H). On T (H) one can define a norm ‖T‖1 := tr [|T |], which makesthis space a Banach space. Its dual is B(H) which is also a Banach space with respect to‖A‖ := supT∈T (H)

| tr[TA]|‖T‖1 = sup|ψ〉6=0

‖A|ψ〉‖‖|ψ〉‖ . In addition to the norm topology induced by

‖ · ‖1, one can introduce a weak topology by the dual structure; Tn converges T weakly iff| tr [TnA]−tr [TA] | → 0 for all A ∈ B(H). A weak∗ topology on B(H) is introduced similarly;An → A in weak∗ topology iff | tr [TAn]− tr [TA] | → 0 for all T ∈ T (H). In this paper, wetreat observables with at most countable outcome sets. An observable whose outcome set isΩ is represented by a family of positive operators A = A(x) x∈Ω satisfying

∑x∈Ω A(x) = 1

which is called a positive-operator-valued measure (POVM), where the summation overinfinite Ω is defined with respect to the weak∗ topology. Hereafter we denote by ΩA theoutcome set of an observable A. As this set is at most countable, it may be safely identifiedwith a subset of N . Suppose that we prepare a state described by a density operator ρand measure an observable A. Then we obtain each outcome x ∈ ΩA with probabilitytr [ρA(x)]. Thus each observable A defines an affine map from the set of states S(H) to theset of probability distributions on its outcome set

p(x) x∈ΩA

∣∣ p(x) ≥ 0,∑x p(x) = 1

.

While an observable is sufficient to describe the statistical aspects of the classical outcomesof a measurement process, it does not specify any information on the dynamical changeof states. A state change in general is described by a map whose output space is a setof quantum states. We call a map from S(H) to S(K) (where K is an output Hilbertspace) a channel if it is affine and its natural extension to S(H⊗ CN ) has its codomain inS(K ⊗ CN ) for each N ∈ N. This map, from S(H) to S(K), can be linearly extended to atrace-preserving completely positive map from T (H) to T (K). We denote a dual map of Λby Λ∗ : B(K)→ B(H) which is defined by tr [Λ(T )B] = tr [TΛ∗(B)] for all T ∈ T (H). Thismap Λ∗ is demonstrated to be weak∗ continuous. In this paper, we examine channels whoseoutput system coincides with the input system, i.e., it is assumed that K = H.

A complete description of the measurement process is given by a set of completely positivemaps Ix x∈Ω called an instrument, where Ix for each x ∈ Ω is a completely positive mapfrom T (H) to itself such that

∑x∈Ω Ix is a channel, where the summation is defined with

respect to the weak topology. An instrument Ix x∈Ω gives a POVM I∗x(1) x∈Ω, whereI∗x is a dual map of Ix. The instrument gives an unconditional state change by a channel∑x Ix. An observable A = A(x) x∈Ω and a channel Λ is called compatible if and only

if there exists an instrument I = Ix such that A(x) = I∗x(1) for each x ∈ Ω and∑x∈Ω Ix = Λ hold. We call a channel Λ an A-channel if and only if an observable A and Λ

are compatible.It is well known that each channel can be represented using an operator sum form (Kraus

representation)14. There exists, for the given channel Λ, a family of operators Kn ⊂ B(H)satisfying Λ(ρ) =

∑nKnρK

∗n, where each Kn is referred to as a Kraus operator and satisfies

3

FIG. 1. Discriminating a pair of states ρ1 and ρ2 from its probability distribution by measuringan observable A.

∑nK

∗nKn = 1. While the Kraus representation for a given channel is not unique, for

a channel compatible with an observable A there is a convenient Kraus representationΛ(ρ) =

∑x,j Kx,jρK

∗x,j such that

∑j K∗x,jKx,j = A(x) holds for each x ∈ ΩA.

III. PREORDERS OF THE OBSERVABLES AND CHANNELS

A. Order structure of the observables induced by the state distinction power

A pair of states ρ1 and ρ2 is called distinguishable by an observable A if and only if theprobability distributions obtained by measuring A with respect to ρ1 and ρ2 are different;otherwise, the pair is indistinguishable. Thus ρ1 and ρ2 are distinguishable by A if andonly if there exists an outcome x ∈ Ω such that tr [ρ1A(x)] 6= tr [ρ2A(x)]; see Fig 1. Let usconsider a product space S(H) × S(H) ⊂ T (H) × T (H), on which a product topology ofweak topology is introduced. Thus, a sequence (ρn, σn) converges to (ρ, σ) if and only if forany (A,B) ∈ B(H) × B(H) both limn tr [ρnA] = tr [ρA] and limn tr [σnB] = tr [σB] hold.One can introduce a subset ΣA ⊂ S(H)× S(H) for an observable A by

ΣA = (ρ1, ρ2) ∈ S(H)× S(H) | ρ1 and ρ2 are not distinguishable by A .The following properties are observed to be valid:

(i) (ρ1, ρ2) ∈ ΣA, then (ρ2, ρ1) ∈ ΣA.

(ii) (ρ1, ρ2), (ρ2, ρ3) ∈ ΣA, then (ρ1, ρ3) ∈ ΣA.

(iii) ΣA is weakly closed.

(i) and (ii) are trivial. To show (iii), we investigate ΣcA. Suppose (ρ1, ρ2) ∈ ΣcA. This impliesthat there exists x ∈ ΩA such that | tr [ρ1A(x)]− tr [ρ2A(x)] | > ε > 0. Then, for all ρ′1 andρ′2 satisfying | tr [ρjA(x)]− tr

[ρ′jA(x)

]| > ε/3 for j = 1, 2, | tr [ρ′1A(x)]− tr [ρ′2A(x)] | > ε/3.

Thus, there exists an open neighborhood of (ρ1, ρ2) contained in ΣcA.Based on this distinguishability, a relation between observables called state-distinction

power, is introduced9,10.

Definition 1. An observable A has larger state distinction power than an observable B ifand only if any pair of states distinguishable by B is also distinguishable by A. That is,ΣA ⊆ ΣB holds. We denote this relation by A %i B.

4

It is easy to see that the state distinction power is a preorder. That is, the relation isreflexive (A -i A for any A) and transitive (A -i B and B -i C implies A -i C). However,this relation does not satisfy antisymmetric property and is not a partial order (see theargument presented below).

We emphasize that this relation is not total. That is, there exists a pair of observables Aand B that satisfies neither A -i B nor B -i A. For instance, in the qubit system (H = C2),the sharp observables determined by the Pauli matrices σx, σy and σz have no relation interms of the state distinction power, e.g. σx 6- σy and σx 6% σy. Also, in the qutrit system(H = C3), the sharp observables determined by the spin components

Sx =1√2

0 1 01 0 10 1 0

, Sy =1√2i

0 1 0−1 0 10 −1 0

, Sz =

1 0 00 0 00 0 −1

. (1)

are incomparable with each other.To study the comparability, we introduce the linear span of a POVM A by

L0(A) =

X ∈ B(H)

∣∣∣∣∣ X =∑x∈Ω0

cxA(x), cx ∈ C,Ω0 ⊂ Ω with |Ω0| <∞

(2)

and its weak∗ closure, L(A). These sets are vector spaces and self-adjoint; they are operatorsystems.For a subset M ⊆ B(H), a subset aM := T ∈ T (H) | tr [TX] = 0, ∀X ∈M of T (H)is called a preannihilator of M . On the other hand, for a subset F ⊆ T (H), F a :=X ∈ B(H) | T (TX) = 0, ∀T ∈ F is called an annihilator of F . For M ⊆ B(H), as aM iswritten as aM = ∩X∈M T ∈ T (H) | tr [TX] = 0 , aM is a closed subspace with respectto both the weak and norm topology. Similarly, for F ⊆ T (H), F a is a closed subspacewith respect to weak∗ and norm topology. One can show that for M ⊆ B(H), (aM)a is thesmallest weak∗ closed subspace containing M . Thus we find (aL0(A))a = L(A).

States ρ1 and ρ2 are not distinguishable if and only if ρ1 − ρ2 is in aL0(A).The following theorem provides a simple criterion for a pair of observables to be compa-

rable.

Theorem 1. Let A and B be observables. The following conditions are equivalent.

(i) A -i B.

(ii) L(A) ⊆ L(B).

Proof. (ii)⇒ (i). Suppose that states ρ1 and ρ2 are distinguishable by A; there exists x suchthat tr [ρ1A(x)]− tr [ρ2A(x)] = ε > 0. We consider a neighborhood of A(x) ∈ B(H), Uε/3 :=B ∈ B(H) | | tr [ρjA(x)]− tr [ρjB] | < ε/3, j = 1, 2 . Then there exists B ∈ L0(B) ∩ Uε/3,which satisfies

ε = | tr [ρ1A(x)]− tr [ρ2A(x)] | ≤ | tr [ρ1A(x)]− tr [ρ1B] |+ tr [ρ2A(x)]− tr [ρ2B] |+ | tr [ρ1B]− tr [ρ2B] |< 2ε/3 + | tr [ρ1B]− tr [ρ2B] |.

Thus there exists B =∑finitey cyB(y) (cy ∈ C) such that

| tr [ρ1B]− tr [ρ2B] | > ε/3,

which implies that there exists y satisfying tr [ρ1B(y)] 6= tr [ρ2B(y)].(i) ⇒ (ii). Assume that (ii) is not true. There exists x ∈ ΩA such that A(x) /∈ L(B).

According to Proposition 14.13 in a textbook15, there exists T ∈ T (H) such that tr [TB] = 0for all B ∈ L(B) and tr [TA(x)] 6= 0. Because 1 ∈ L(B), T ∈ T (H) satisfies tr [T ] = 0.By decomposing T into self-adjoint and skew self-adjoint parts, one can assume that T isself-adjoint. Thus T is written as T = T+ − T−, where T± are positive operators satisfyingtr [T+] = tr [T−] < ∞. For sufficiently small ε > 0, we can find a state ρ0 such thatρ1 := ρ0+εT is also a state. These states are not distinguishable by B but are distinguishableby A. Thus (i) does not hold.

5

An observable A is called informationally complete if tr [ρ1A(x)] = tr [ρ2A(x)] for allx implies ρ1 = ρ2. Thus by definition it is obvious that each informationally completeobservable is a maximal element with respect to the preorder of the state distinction power.In fact, the linear span of an informationally complete observable coincides with B(H)16.

Example 1. On the qubit system (H = C2), a symmetric informationally complete (SIC)POVM17 ASIC is given by

ASIC(0) =1

4

(1 + 1√

31√3− i 1√

31√3

+ i 1√3

1− 1√3

), ASIC(1) =

1

4

(1− 1√

31√3

+ i 1√3

1√3− i 1√

31 + 1√

3

),

ASIC(2) =1

4

(1− 1√

3− 1√

3− i 1√

3

− 1√3

+ i 1√3

1 + 1√3

),ASIC(3) =

1

4

(1 + 1√

3− 1√

3+ i 1√

3

− 1√3− i 1√

31− 1√

3

).

It is easy to verify that their linear span coincides with B(H).

Example 2. A SIC-POVM on the qutrit system (H = C3) is given by

AqutritSIC (0) =

1

6

1 1 01 1 00 0 0

, AqutritSIC (1) =

1

6

1 ω∗ 0ω 1 00 0 0

, AqutritSIC (2) =

1

6

1 ω 0ω∗ 1 00 0 0

,

AqutritSIC (3) =

1

6

1 0 10 0 01 0 1

, AqutritSIC (4) =

1

6

1 0 ω∗

0 0 0ω 0 1

, AqutritSIC (5) =

1

6

1 0 ω0 0 0ω∗ 0 1

,

AqutritSIC (6) =

1

6

0 0 00 1 10 1 1

, AqutritSIC (7) =

1

6

0 0 00 1 ω∗

0 ω 1

, AqutritSIC (8) =

1

6

0 0 00 1 ω0 ω∗ 1

where ω = exp

(2π3 i). It can be easily observed that their linear span coincides with B(C3).

On the other hand, the minimum element of this preorder is a trivial observable whichis written as A(x) = px1 with px ≥ 0 for each x ∈ Ωx. Any pair of states ρ1 and ρ2 is notdistinguishable by the trivial observable because tr [ρ1A(x)] = tr [ρ2A(x)] = px holds. It iseasy to see that every minimum element is a trivial observable.

B. Order structure of channels induced by the nondisturbing measurement

Let us introduce the order structure of channel space in the light of the disturbanceproperty. A channel describes a state change from ρ to Λ(ρ). Suppose that we examine thechange by measuring an observable B = B(y) y∈Ω. We can confirm that ρ and Λ(ρ) differif the probability distributions tr [ρB(y)] and tr [Λ(ρ)B(y)] are distinct. On the otherhand, if we select B so that tr [ρB(y)] = tr [Λ(ρ)B(y)] holds for all y ∈ Ω and for any inputstate ρ, this B is useless to study the state change. Motivated by this observation, we call Λnondisturbing18 for an observable B (or B is not disturbed by Λ) if tr [ρB(y)] = tr [Λ(ρ)B(y)]holds for any input state ρ and y ∈ Ω (see Fig 2).

We introduce an order structure on the set of channels.

Definition 2. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be channels. If any observable not disturbed by Λ1 is alsonot disturbed by Λ2, we call Λ2 less disturbing than Λ1 and denote by Λ1 -f Λ2.

This binary relation is a preorder. The Heisenberg picture is useful to characterize thispreorder. Channel Λ has a dual description (i.e., Heisenberg picture) Λ∗ : B(H) → B(H)defined by tr [Λ(ρ)X] = tr [ρΛ∗(X)] for any ρ. The set of fixed points of the map Λ∗ isdefined by

Fix(Λ∗) = X ∈ B(H) | Λ∗(X) = X , (3)

6

FIG. 2. Channel Λ does not disturb the output from measuring an observable B

which forms a weakly closed operator system in B(H). In fact, for any X ∈ Fix(Λ∗), asΛ∗(X∗) = Λ∗(X)∗ = X∗ holds, Fix(Λ∗) is self-adjoint. In addition, as Fix(Λ) = ker(id−Λ∗)holds, it is a weakly closed set.

Theorem 2. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be the channels. The following conditions are equivalent.

(i) Λ1 -f Λ2.

(ii) Fix(Λ∗1) ⊂ Fix(Λ∗2).

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Assume that there exists X ∈ Fix(Λ∗1) ∩ Fix(Λ∗2)c. One can show thatthere exists Y ∈ Fix(Λ∗1)∩Fix(Λ∗2) such that 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1. In fact, any X can be decomposedinto X = ReX+iImX, where ReX := X+X∗

2 and ImX := X−X∗

2i . As Fix(Λ∗1) is self-adjoint,ReX, ImX ∈ Fix(Λ∗1) holds. In addition, X /∈ Fix(Λ∗2) implies that at least one of themis not in Fix(Λ∗2). Let us assume that ReX /∈ Fix(Λ∗2). One can choose a, b ∈ R so that0 ≤ Y := aReX + b1 ≤ 1. It is easy to see Y ∈ Fix(Λ∗1)∩Fix(Λ∗2)c. We introduce a POVMY,1− Y . This POVM is disturbed by Λ2, but not by Λ1. It contradicts.(ii) ⇒ (i): Trivial.

Thus there exists the greatest element in the channel space. The greatest element is anidentity channel id. One can easily verify that Fix(id∗) = B(H) holds. On the other hand,the least element does not exist. One of the minimal elements is a channel whose outputstate does not depend on the input state. That is, Λ has a fixed ρ0 such that Λ(ρ) = ρ0

holds for any ρ. Other examples of minimal elements are presented later.In the aforementioned setting, we can employ an arbitrary POVM to confirm if an input

state ρ and an output state Λ(ρ) differ. On the other hand, we can restrict the observablesto be measured after channel Λ to be sharp ones. Therefore we introduce the followingnotion.

Definition 3. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be the channels. If any PVM that is not disturbed by Λ1 isalso not disturbed by Λ2, we denote the relation by Λ1 -S Λ2.

It is easy to see that Λ1 -f Λ2 implies Λ1 -S Λ2. In addition, we obtain the followingtheorem.

Theorem 3. For channels Λ1 and Λ2 the following conditions are equivalent:

(i) Λ1 -S Λ2

(ii) Fix(Λ∗1)∩ P (H) ⊆ Fix(Λ∗2)∩ P (H), where P (H) is the set of all projection operators.

7

IV. INFORMATION-DISTURBANCE RELATION

A. Qualitative formulation

In this section, we study the qualitative information-disturbance relation based on thepreorder structures. Relationship between orders -i and -S is investigated.

Theorem 4. Let A be an observable. There exists a channel ΛA satisfying that for anyA-channel Λ the following relation holds:

Λ -S ΛA.

That is, there exists a maximum channel with respect to the order -S in the set of A-channels.

Proof. Suppose P ∈ Fix(Λ∗) ∩ P (H). Let us introduce a Kraus representation of Λ byΛ(T ) =

∑x,j Kx,jTK

∗x,j satisfying

∑j K∗x,jKx,j = A(x) for each x. In accordance with the

argument in Lindblad19, we consider

Λ∗(P )− Λ∗(P )P − PΛ∗(P ) + P =∑j,x

[Kj,x, P ]∗[Kj,x, P ] = 0.

Thus we find [Kj,x, P ] = [K∗j,x, P ] = 0 for all j. Furthemore, we obtain

[A(x), P ] =∑j

[K∗j,xKj,x, P ] =∑j

[K∗j,x, P ]Kj,x +K∗j,x[Kj,x, P ] = 0.

Thus we can conclude that

Fix(Λ∗) ∩ P (H) ⊆ L(A)′ ∩ P (H).

Let us introduce ΛA by ΛA(T ) =∑x

√A(x)T

√A(x), a Lüders channel. It is obvious that

each P ∈ L(A)′∩P (H) satisfies P ∈ Fix(Λ∗)∩P (H). Thus the equality Fix(ΛA∗)∩P (H) =L(A)′ ∩ P (H) holds.

In contrast to the post-processing order version, the set of A-channels is not an ideal withrespect to -S as demonstrated by the following example.

Example 3. Let us consider a qubit system and a channel Λ(T ) = σzTσz. Fix(Λ) isspanned by 1 and σz, and is thus nontrivial. However, this channel is not compatible withany nontrivial observable including σz.

The following theorem which can be referred to as a qualitative information-disturbancerelation, is easy to obtain.

Theorem 5. Let A and B be observables satisfying A -i B. Suppose that Λ is a channelcompatible with B. Then there exists a channel Γ compatible with A such that Λ -S Γholds.

Proof. Consider Γ = ΛA.

Suppose that the A-channel Λ has a nontrivial projection P ∈ Fix(Λ∗) ∩ P (H). Thefollowing argument yields an explicit construction of a pair of indistinguishable states of A.

Now there exist unit vectors |ψ1〉 and |ψ2〉 satisfying P |ψ1〉 = |ψ1〉 and P |ψ2〉 = 0. A pairof states Λ(|ψ1〉〈ψ1|) and Λ(|ψ2〉〈ψ2|) is perfectly distinguishable by a PVM P,1− P .In fact, tr [Λ(|ψ1〉〈ψ1|)P ] = 1 and tr [Λ(|ψ2〉〈ψ2)P ] = 0 hold. According to the paper8, anyA-channel is written in the following form:

Λ(T ) = E(∑

x

A(x)V TV ∗A(x)

),

8

where ( A(x) x , V ) is a Naimark extension of the POVM A and E is a channel. Thatis, V : H → K is an isometry to a larger Hilbert space K and A(x) x is a PVM onK satisfying V ∗A(x)V = A(x) for each x ∈ ΩA, and E : T (K) → T (H) is a channel.Thus one can conclude that a pair of subnormalized states E(A(x)V |ψ1〉〈ψ1|V ∗A(x)) andE(A(x)V |ψ2〉〈ψ2|V ∗A(x)) is perfectly distinguishable. Because any channel does not in-crease the distinguishability, we observe that a pair of subnormalized states A(x)V |ψ1〉〈ψ1|V ∗A(x)

and A(x)V |ψ2〉〈ψ2|V ∗A(x) is perfectly distinguishable. This demonstrates that

〈ψ1|A(x)|ψ2〉 = 0

holds for each x. Therefore we can conclude that for |ψ〉 = c1|ψ1〉+c2|ψ2〉 with |c1|2+|c2|2 =1, a pair of states |ψ〉〈ψ| and |c1|2|ψ1〉〈ψ1| + |c2|2|ψ2〉〈ψ2| is not dinstinguishable by A. Inparticular, the following theorem holds.

Theorem 6. Let A be an informationally complete observable and Λ be an A-channel.Then it holds that for any channel Γ,

Λ -S Γ.

That is, Λ is a minimum channel.

Let us remark that the converse is not true. The following example shows a minimalchannel that is not compatible with any informationally complete observable.

Example 4. Let us suppose that dimH = N ≥ 3, which has a standard basis | n〉 N−1n=0 .

We define unitary matrices U =∑n e

i 2πnN |n〉〈n| and V =∑n |n + 1〉〈n|, where |N〉 is

identified with |0〉. It is easy to see that U, V ′ = C1 holds. We consider a channelΛ(ρ) = 1

2UρU∗ + 1

2V ρV∗. This has a faithful fixed point 1

N . Based on the previousdiscussion, we conclude that this channel is a minimal element in the channel space. Onthe other hand, every POVM element of an observable compatible with this channel isspanned by 1, U∗V, V ∗U . Thus for any A compatible with Λ, dimL(A) ≤ 3 holds. Wecan conclude that no informationally complete observable is compatible.

It is unclear whether there exists any simple relation between the orders -i and -S . Inthe following section, we investigate their relation using a quantitative formulation.

B. Quantitative inequality

Hereafter, we assume H to be finite dimensional. To systematically investigate the re-lation, we introduce a subclass of channels. A channel is said to satisfy property F if andonly if it has a faithful invariant state. That is, Λ with property F has a state ρ0 whosekernel is 0 such that Λ(ρ0) = ρ0. Fixed point Fix(Λ∗) of this channel forms a subalgebraof B(H)19. In fact a Kraus decomposition Λ∗(·) =

∑j,xK

∗j,x · Kj,x allows its fixed point

Fix(Λ∗) to be

Fix(Λ∗) =Kj,x,K

∗j,x

′j,x

=X ∈ B(H)

∣∣ [X,Kj,x] = [X,K∗j,x] = 0 for all j, x

(4)

It is used to obtain

Fix(Λ∗) ⊆ L(A)′. (5)

It should be noted that L(A) and Fix(Λ∗) are vector spaces. A natural quantity usedto measure the size of a complex vector space is its dimension. We obtain the followingtheorem.

9

Theorem 7. For an observable A and a channel Λ∗ that are compatible, it holds that

dimL(A) + dim Fix(Λ∗) ≤ (dimH)2 + 1. (6)

Furthermore, equality is attained if and only if an observable A is informationally completeor a channel Λ∗ is the identity channel.

Proof. We first assume that channel Λ satisfies property F. We prove ∆ := (RHS)−(LHS) ≥0.

∆ = (dimH)2 + 1− dimL(A)− dim Fix(Λ∗)

≥ (dimH)2 + 1− dimL(A)− dimL(A)′ ((5) is used)

≥ (dimH)2 + 1− dimL(A)′′ − dimL(A)′.

As A(x) ′ is a finite von Neumann algebra, it can be represented as

A(x) ′ =⊕

n=1,2,...,N

B(Hn)⊗ 1Kn ,

whereHn⊗Kn are orthogonal subspaces satisfying⊕Hn⊗Kn = H20. Therefore A(x) ′′ =⊕

n=1,2,...,N 1Hn⊗B(Kn) and A(x) ′′∩A(x) ′ =⊕

n CPn hold where Pn is a projectionon Hn ⊗Kn. We obtain

∆ ≥ (dimH)2 + 1− dim

N⊕n=1

1Hn ⊗ B(Kn)− dim

N⊕n=1

B(Hn)⊗ 1Kn

= (dimH)2 + 1−N∑n=1

(dimKn)2 −N∑n=1

(dimHn)2

=

(N∑n=1

(dimHn)× (dimKn)

)2

+ 1−N∑n=1

((dimHn)2 + (dimKn)2) (∵ H = ⊕Nn=1Hn ⊗Kn)

≥N∑n=1

(dimHn)2(dimKn)2 +N(N − 1) + 1−N∑n=1

((dimHn)2 + (dimKn)2).

Since an equality N(N − 1) + 1 = N + (N − 1)2 holds,

∆ ≥N∑n=1

(dimHn)2(dimKn)2 +N + (N − 1)2 −N∑n=1

((dimHn)2 + (dimKn)2)

= (N − 1)2 +

N∑n=1

((dimHn)2 − 1)((dimKn)2 − 1)

≥ (N − 1)2 (7)≥ 0. (8)

Further, we discuss a case in which Λ does not satisfy property F. We use a supportprojection operator PΛ introduced by Lindblad19. This projection operator PΛ is definedby the smallest projection satisfying tr [ρPΛ] = 1 for all ρ ∈ S(H) ∩ Fix(Λ). We assumedimPΛH = n < d = dimH. It can be observed that map Λ(PΛ · PΛ) is well-defined as achannel on S(PΛH). As demonstrated by Lindblad, there exists an invariant state ρ0 forΛ whose support projection coincides with PΛH. By using this state ρ0, we observe thattr [(1− PΛ)Λ(PΛρ0PΛ)] = tr [(1− PΛ)Λ(ρ0)] = 0. As any state σ on PΛH is dominated byρ0, we conclude that Λ(PΛσPΛ) = PΛΛ(PΛσPΛ)PΛ holds.

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

dim

Fix

(Λ∗ )

dim L(A)

The equality in (7)

σx, σy, σz

AZX ,BZY ASIC

Atrivial

(a) Qubit system

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

dim

Fix

(Λ∗ )

dim L(A)

The equality in (7)

AqutritSIC

Atrivial

AHW

AHW(L)

Sx,y,z

(b) Qutrit system

FIG. 3. Relation between the quantitative state distinction power dimL(A) and the non-disturbingness dim Fix(Λ∗).

Let A be an observable compatible with Λ. Then an observable PΛAPΛ on a subspacePΛH is compatible with a channel Λ(PΛ · PΛ). We apply the first part of the present proofto Λ(PΛ · PΛ) to obtain

dimPΛL(A)PΛ + dim Fix(Λ(PΛ · PΛ)) = dimPΛL(A)PΛ + dim Fix(Λ)

≤ n2 + 1. (9)

As L(A) is decomposed as L(A) = PΛL(A)PΛ + PΛL(A)(1 − PΛ) + (1 − PΛ)L(A)PΛ +(1 − PΛ)L(A)(1 − PΛ), the dimension of L(A) is bounded by dimPΛL(A)PΛ + (d2 − n2).Combining this bound with (9) ends the proof of the first half of the claim.

It is easy to show that equality is attained if A is an informationally complete or Λ isthe identity channel. We show the opposite implication. In the support projection PΛ, asequality of inequality (8) holds, N = 1 is required. To obtain equality (7), dimH1 = 1 ordimK1 = 1 must hold. This implies that dimK1 = dimH or dimH1 = dimH holds; thusthe observable A is an informationally complete or the channel Λ is the identity channel.

The following is obtained immediately.

Corollary 1. Let A be an informationally compete observable. Then any channel Λ com-patible with A is minimal with respect to the order -i; Fix(Λ∗) = C1 holds.

We plot dimL(A) and dim Fix(Λ) for AHW defined by the following Kraus operators andfor the Lüders channel in Figure 3. AHW represents a channel defined by Kraus operators

K1 =1

2

√2 0 −10 0 00 0 0

, K2 =1

10

0 0 0

0 −√

10 2√

100 0 0

, K3 =1

2

0 0 0

0√

2 00 0 0

,

K4 =1

10

0 0 0

0 2√

10√

100 0 0

, K5 =1

2

√2 0 10 0 00 0 0

and an observable defined by AHW(i) = K∗iKi(i = 1, · · · , 5). This channel does not satisfyproperty F18. AHW(L) is Lüders channel of AHW. The fixed point set of AHW(L) is spannedby diag(1, 1, 1), whose dimension is 1.

C. Sequential measurements

In a previous paper21, the problem of sequential measurement was discussed concerningthe post-processing order structure. It was shown that for each observable A there exists

11

a measurement process which does not spoil the joint measurability. In particular, aftersuch a measurement process whose channel is called a universal channel, one can extractinformation on an arbitrary maximum observable which is more informative than A bymeasuring an observable.

Inspired by this observation, we consider the following problem. Suppose that we firstmeasure an observable A and then measure an observable B which was not disturbed bythe first measurement. This sequential measurement provides a joint measurement of Aand B. We examine whether it is possible to measure A so that this joint measurementprovides maximal state distinction power. In other words, we study if the joint observableA and B can be informationally complete. A trivial A provides a trivial example. Asthe measurement of A does not cause any disturbance, one can subsequently measure anyinformationally complete observable B. A less trivial example is as follows. We assume thatH has a tensor product structure as H = H1 ⊗ H2. Suppose that A is an informationallycomplete observable on H1, and B is another informationally complete observable on H2.Then A ⊗ B becomes an informationally complete observable on H. We can construct achannel compatible with A acting only on H1, which naturally does not disturb B. Thispreservation of state distinction power does not hold in general.

Theorem 8. Let A be an observable such that A(x) ′′ ∩ A(x) ′ is not trivial. That is,this algebra is strictly larger than C1. We measure A by a compatible channel Λ. Let B bean observable satisfying B(y) ∈ Fix(Λ∗) for all y ∈ ΩB. The subsequent measurement of Bprovides a joint measurement of A and B. This joint measurement cannot be informationallycomplete.

Proof. Let Λ be a channel compatible with A. We denote its Kraus representation Λ(·) =∑x

∑iK∗x,i ·Kx,i. Fix(Λ∗) is contained in A(x) ′.

As A(x) ′ is a finite von Neumann algebra, it can be represented as

A(x) ′ =⊕

n=1,2,...,N

B(Hn)⊗ 1Kn ,

whereHn⊗Kn are orthogonal subspaces satisfying⊕Hn⊗Kn = H20. Therefore A(x) ′′ =⊕

n=1,2,...,N 1Hn⊗B(Kn) and A(x) ′′∩A(x) ′ =⊕

n CPn hold where Pn is a projectionon Hn ⊗Kn. The assumption of its nontriviality is equivalent to the condition N ≥ 2.

Let us construct states that cannot be distinguished by the joint observable A and B. Wedefine a unitary operator U by U =

⊕n e

iθnPn satisfying θn 6= θm (mod 2π) for all n 6= m.The states we are now considering are a some arbitrary state |φ0〉 and |φ1〉 = U |φ0〉. Thesestates cannot be distinguished by the joint measurement. In fact,

Pr(A = x,B = y|φ0) =

⟨φ0

∣∣∣∣∣∑i

K∗x,iB(y)Kx,iφ0

⟩= 〈φ0 |A(x)B(y)φ0〉

Pr(A = x,B = y|φ1) =

⟨φ0

∣∣∣∣∣U∗∑i

K∗x,iB(y)Kx,iUφ0

⟩= 〈φ0 |U∗A(x)B(y)Uφ0〉= 〈φ0 |A(x)B(y)φ0〉 .

Thus they correspond to each other. However, |φ0〉 and |φ1〉 are not identical in general.

V. DISCUSSION

In this paper, we studied the compatibility between observables and channels. We in-vestigated the state distinction power which characterizes the quality of the observables.

12

This notion introduces a preorder structure completely characterized by the operator sys-tem L(A). In the channel space, based upon a discussion on the nondisturbing channel, weintroduced two preorders -f and -S . The order structures are completely characterized bythe fixed point set Fix(Λ∗) of each channel Λ. We further investigated the relations betweenthe orders Λi and ΛS . It was shown that the set of A-channels contains a maximum channelwith respect to ΛS . In contrast to the result for the post-processing order structure, theset of A-channels is not an ideal in general. In addition, a quantitative relation between Λiand ΛS was obtained.

It is interesting to compare our results with those obtained for the post-processing orderstructure. While both the results exhibit their own information-disturbance relations, theyare different from each other in several aspects. For instance, while the latter offers acomplete characterization of the A-channels as a principal ideal, the former does not. Inaddition, their maximum channels in A-channels do not coincide in general.

Extending the present analysis to channel-channel compatibility is a future problem, onwhich we hope to report elsewhere.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

IH acknowledges support by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (JP18J10310). TMacknowledges financial support from JSPS (KAKENHI Grant Number 15K04998).1T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, “An invitation to quantum incompatibility,” Journal ofPhysics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 123001 (2016), arXiv:1511.07548.

2C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, “Quantum-state disturbance versus information gain: Uncertainty relations forquantum information,” Phys. Rev. A 53, 2038–2045 (1996).

3M. Ozawa, “Universally valid reformulation of the heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and distur-bance in measurement,” Phys. Rev. A 67, 042105 (2003).

4M. Ozawa, “Uncertainty relations for noise and disturbance in generalized quantum measurements,” An-nals of Physics 311, 350–416 (2004), arXiv:0307057 [quant-ph].

5D. Kretschmann, D. Schlingemann, and R. F. Werner, “The information-disturbance tradeoff and thecontinuity of stinespring’s representation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54, 1708–1717(2008).

6F. Buscemi, M. J. W. Hall, M. Ozawa, and M. M. Wilde, “Noise and disturbance in quantum measure-ments: An information-theoretic approach,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 050401 (2014).

7P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner, “Proof of heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 160405 (2013).

8T. Heinosaari and T. Miyadera, “Qualitative noise-disturbance relation for quantum measurements,”Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 1–7 (2013), arXiv:1303.5530.

9P. Busch and P. J. Lahti, “The determination of the past and the future of a physical system in quantummechanics,” Foundations of Physics 19, 633–678 (1989).

10T. Heinonen, “Optimal measurements in quantum mechanics,” Physics Letters, Section A: General,Atomic and Solid State Physics 346, 77–86 (2005), arXiv:0508063 [quant-ph].

11V. B. Braginsky, Y. I. Vorontsov, and K. S. Thorne, “Quantum Nondemolition Measurements,” Science209, 547–557 (1980).

12P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J.-P. Poizat, “Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics,” Nature396, 537–542 (1998), arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3.

13A. Lupascu, S. Saito, T. Picot, P. C. De Groot, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, “Quantumnon-demolition measurement of a superconducting two-level system,” Nature Physics 3, 119–123 (2007),arXiv:0611505 [cond-mat].

14K. Kraus, “States, effects, and operations fundamental notions of quantum theory,” (1983).15A. Brown and C. Pearcy, Introduction to Operator Theory I (Springer, 1977).16T. Heinosaari and M. Ziman, The mathematical language of quantum theory: from uncertainty to entan-

glement (Cambridge University Press, 2011).17J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, “Symmetric informationally completequantum measurements,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 45, 2171–2180 (2004).

18T. Heinosaari and M. M. Wolf, “Nondisturbing quantum measurements,” Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 092201 (2010).

19G. Lindblad, “A general no-cloning theorem,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 47, 189–196 (1999).20M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I (Springer, 1979).21T. Heinosaari and T. Miyadera, “Universality of sequential quantum measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 91,022110 (2015).