4
$\begingroup$

Let $\Phi_1,\Phi_2 \colon S(\mathcal{H}) \to S(\mathcal{H})$ be CPTP maps on the same Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ which are $\varepsilon$-close in diamond norm, and let $U_1,U_2$ be respective unitary dilations on some larger space $\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{K}$ (i.e. so that $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathcal{K}}(U_i (\rho \otimes |0\rangle\langle0|) U_i^{\dagger}) = \Phi_i(\rho)$).

Now let $A$ be a unitary operating on $\mathcal{H}$, and let $$\rho_i := \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathcal{K}}(U_i^{\dagger} (A \otimes I_{\mathcal{K}}) U_i (\rho \otimes |0\rangle\langle0|) U_i^{\dagger} (A^{\dagger} \otimes I_{\mathcal{K}}) U_i).$$ That is, $\rho_i$ is obtained from $\rho$ by applying $U_i$, then $A$, then $U_i^{\dagger}$, then tracing out $\mathcal{K}$. Since all dilations are equivalent up to a local unitary, $\rho_i$ does not depend on the choice of $U_i$. Can we bound $\| \rho_1 - \rho_2 \|_1$?

I have tried to get a bound from results on the distance between Stinespring isometries, but this seems to not be enough here.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, it's not clear that your map giving the $\rho_i$'s is CPTP, the representation theorem for CPTP maps says there are unitaries such that $\Phi(\rho)=Tr_K(U^*(\rho\otimes |0\rangle\langle0|)U)$ is CPTP, it doesn't say you can pick these unitaries apriori. You can, however, pick an isometry, and then extend that to a unitary. $\endgroup$
    – Condo
    Oct 29 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ I am assuming here that we chose these unitaries so that the equality holds. However, I do believe that this map is CPTP for any choice of unitary. $\endgroup$
    – nickspoon
    Oct 30 at 23:09
3
$\begingroup$

Let $V_i=U_i^\dagger(A\otimes I_K)U_i$ and $\sigma=\rho\otimes |0\rangle\langle0|$, then we have that $V_i$ is unitary and

$$\|\rho_1-\rho_2\|_1=\|tr_K\left((V_1\sigma V_1^\dagger -V_2\sigma V_2^\dagger\right)\|_1\\ \leq \|V_1\sigma V_1^\dagger -V_2\sigma V_2^\dagger\|_1\\ =\|V_1\sigma V_1^\dagger -V_1\sigma V_2^\dagger+V_1\sigma V_2^\dagger-V_2\sigma V_2^\dagger\|_1\\ \leq \|V_1\sigma V_1^\dagger -V_1\sigma V_2^\dagger\|_1+\|V_1\sigma V_2^\dagger-V_2\sigma V_2^\dagger\|_1\\ \leq \|V_1\sigma\|_1\|V_1^\dagger-V_2^\dagger\|_1+\|V_1-V_2\|_1\|\sigma V_2^\dagger\|_1\\ =2\|V_1-V_2\|_1\\ \leq 2\dim(H\otimes K)\|V_1-V_2\|_\infty\\ \leq 2\dim(H\otimes K)\sqrt{\|\Phi_1-\Phi_2\|_\diamond}\\ \leq 2\dim(H\otimes K)\sqrt{\epsilon}$$

since, for $X\in L(H\otimes K)$ we have that $\|tr_K(X)\|_1\leq \|X\|_1$, $\|\sigma\|_1=1$ for any density matrix $\sigma$. We also use the fact that the $\|\cdot\|_1$ norm is unitarily invariant and relates to the operator norm via $\|\cdot\|_1\leq rank(X)\|\cdot\|_\infty$. At the end we use the result from this question about relating isometry distance to that of the diamond norm.

Note: In the case that $H$ or $K$ are infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces this bound will of course be useless. There may be a subtler method that works in that case, but I don't see how it could work immediately.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Very nice. I think $\le 2\|V_1-V_2\|_1$ can be written as an equality. $\endgroup$ Oct 27 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Adam yes, thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Condo
    Oct 27 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Suggestion to better connect this with the linked answer: $$2\dim(H\otimes K)\|V_1-V_2\|_\infty\\\le2\dim(H\otimes K)\sqrt{\|\Phi_1-\Phi_2\|_{cb}}\\\leq 2\dim(H\otimes K)\sqrt{\|\Phi_1-\Phi_2\|_\diamond}$$ where the first inequality follows from that answer and the latter inequality is the "completely bounded" variant of $\|A\|_{op}\le\|A\|_1$. $\endgroup$ Oct 27 at 17:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you! I do still wonder if one can obtain a dimension-independent bound, but this is very helpful. $\endgroup$
    – nickspoon
    Oct 27 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ @nickspoon yeah that's certainly a good question. Perhaps there is a result that bounds the Schatten $1$-norm of the unitaries by their diamond norm distance in a dimension-independent way... or someone knows a counterexample? Anyways, thanks for the question. $\endgroup$
    – Condo
    Oct 27 at 20:53

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.