1
$\begingroup$

Let $\Phi\in\mathrm T(\mathcal X,\mathcal Y)$ be a quantum channel, $\Phi:\mathrm{Lin}(\mathcal X)\to\operatorname{Lin}(\mathcal Y)$. We define its Choi representation as the operator $J(\Phi)$ defined by $$J(\Phi) = (\Phi\otimes I) \,d\,\mathbb P_+= \sum_{a,b}\Phi(E_{a,b})\otimes E_{a,b},\tag1$$ where $\mathbb P_+\equiv \lvert +\rangle\!\langle +|$ with $\sqrt d|+\rangle=\sum_i |i,i\rangle$, and $E_{a,b}\equiv |a\rangle\!\langle b|$.

One way to retrieve the map from the Choi, used for example in Watrous, Eq. (2.66), is $$\Phi(X) = \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X}[J(\Phi)(I_{\mathcal Y}\otimes X^T)].\tag2$$ Verifying the equivalence between these two isn't too hard: $$ \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X}[J(\Phi)(I_{\mathcal Y}\otimes X^T)] = \sum_{a,b} \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X} [ \Phi(E_{a,b})\otimes E_{a,b} X^T ] = \Phi(X). $$

More generally, this gives us a way to associated to each bipartite state $\rho$ a map $\Phi_\rho$ such that $J(\Phi_\rho)=d\,\rho$, and if $\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal Y}\rho=I/d$, then $\Phi_\rho$ is trace-preserving (and thus CPTP).

In (Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki 1998) the authors mention another way to associate a map to a state $\rho$. Writing its eigendecomposition as $\rho=\sum_i p_k \mathbb P_{\psi_k}$, and writing with $\psi$ the operator whose vectorisation is $|\psi\rangle$, i.e. $\operatorname{vec}(\psi)\equiv |\psi\rangle$, we have $|\psi_k\rangle=(\psi_k\otimes I)\,\sqrt d |+\rangle$, and thus $$\rho = \sum_k p_k (\psi_k \otimes I) \,d\,\mathbb P_+(\psi_k^\dagger\otimes I) = (\Phi_\rho\otimes I) \mathbb P_+,\tag3$$ where $\Phi_\rho(X) = d\sum_k p_k \psi_k X \psi_k^\dagger.$

I presume (2) and (3) should be equivalent, provided $d \,\rho=J(\Phi)$. What's a good way to show this equivalence?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This follows from linearity of the isomorphism. $\endgroup$ – Markus Heinrich Sep 7 at 8:06
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkusHeinrich can you expand as to which part exactly follows from linearity? $\endgroup$ – glS Sep 7 at 8:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is clear how the inverse should look like on rank-one matrices $|u\rangle\langle u|$, or even more generally $|u\rangle\langle v|$. Thus, one only needs to check that Eq. (3) gives the right result for those which is straightforward. The general result follows via a decomposition into those (e.g. SVD for general matrices). But that's basically what you did. $\endgroup$ – Markus Heinrich Sep 7 at 9:46
  • $\begingroup$ What I actually meant was that inverting is trivial for $|u\rangle\langle v|$, thus for any matrix $M=\sum_k x_k |u_k\rangle\langle v_k|$ the associated superoperator has to be $\Phi(X) = \sum_k x_k U_k X V_k^\dagger$ (operators not necessarily unitary). The only thing to justify is the inversion formula Eq. (2), which you already did in you first post. $\endgroup$ – Markus Heinrich Sep 7 at 10:12
0
$\begingroup$

The goal is to start from a bipartite state $\rho$, and find the channel $\Phi_\rho$ such that $J(\Phi_\rho)=d\, \rho$.

The goal is, given $J(\Phi)$, to show that we can retrieve $\Phi$ via (3) rather than (2). In other words, that (2) is equivalent to $$\Phi(X) = d\sum_k p_k \psi_k X \psi_k^\dagger,$$ where $p_k$ are the eigenvalues of $J(\Phi)/d$ and $\psi_k$ the (unvectorised operators corresponding to the) eigenvectors of $J(\Phi)/d$. We, therefore, wish to show that $$d\sum_k p_k \psi_k X \psi_k^\dagger = \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X}[J(\Phi)(I_{\mathcal Y}\otimes X^T)].$$ Writing $J(\Phi)=d \sum_k p_k \mathbb P_{\psi_k}$, we get from the RHS: $d\sum_k p_k \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X}[\mathbb P_{\psi_k}(I_{\mathcal Y}\otimes X^T)]$. We therefore only need to show that, for all $k$, $$\psi_k X \psi_k^\dagger = \operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal X}[\mathbb P_{\psi_k}(I_{\mathcal Y}\otimes X^T)].$$ This can be proven directly analysing the matrix components, or again applying the previous trick to write $\mathbb P_{\psi_k}=(\psi_k\otimes I)\mathbb P_+(\psi_k^\dagger\otimes I)$.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.