Consider bipartite (qubit) systems. The classical mutual information between a pair of binary registers, $$I(X:Y)\equiv H(X)+H(Y)-H(X,Y),$$ is always lesser than $1$ (and non-negative). On the other hand, the quantum mutual information of a bipartite state $\rho$, defined as $$I(\rho) \equiv S(\rho_A) + S(\rho_B) - S(\rho),$$ with $S(\rho)$ von Neumann entropy of $\rho$, and $\rho_A\equiv\operatorname{Tr}_B(\rho)$, $\rho_B\equiv\operatorname{Tr}_A(\rho)$, satisfies $0\le I(\rho)\le 2$.

If $\rho$ is pure, we also know that $I(\rho)=2J(\rho)$, where $J(\rho)$ is the accessible mutual information (the one obtained computing the mutual information via the conditional entropy, maximising over the possible measurement choices). Therefore, a pure $\rho$ is separable (i.e. a product state) iff $I(\rho)=J(\rho) = 0$.

For a more general classical-quantum state, some $\rho=\sum_i p_i \,|i\rangle\!\langle i|\otimes \rho_i$, we have $$I(\rho) = H(\mathbf p)+S\left(\sum_{i}p_{i}\rho_{i}\right)-S(\rho), \\ S(\rho) = \sum_i p_i S(\rho_i) + H(\mathbf p),$$ and thus $$ I(\rho) = S\left(\sum_{i}p_{i}\rho_{i}\right) - \sum_i p_i S(\rho_i) \le S\left(\sum_{i}p_{i}\rho_{i}\right) \le 1, $$ because $S(\sigma)\le1$ for any single-qubit state $\sigma$.

These are all examples of separable states with quantum mutual information $I(\rho)\le 1$. More generally, it's clear that a state can give $I(\rho)>1$ only if it has nonzero discord, so a separable state with $I(\rho)>1$ would have to be discordant. But classical-quantum states are separable and can have nonzero discord (with respect to measurements on the second space), but still always give $I(\rho)\le1$. Other classical examples of discordant separable states that are not classical-quantum are Werner states: $$\rho_z = \frac{1-z}{4}I +z |\Phi^+\rangle\!\langle\Phi^+| =\frac14\begin{pmatrix}1+z & 0&0& 2z \\ 0& 1-z & 0 & 0 \\ 0&0&1-z&0 \\ 2z & 0 & 0 & 1+z\end{pmatrix}, \\ |\Phi^+\rangle\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(|00\rangle+|11\rangle).$$ These are separable for $z\le1/3$, but as discussed in (Ollivier, Zurek 2001), have nonzero discord. Their quantum mutual information reads $$I(\rho_z) = \frac14\left[ (1+3z) \log_2(1+3z) + 3(1-z)\log_2(1-z) \right],$$ which is smaller than $1$ for $z\le 1/3$.

Is the above a general feature? In other words, do all separable states have $I(\rho)\le1$?


1 Answer 1


If $\rho_{AB}$ is separable then $$ I(A:B) \leq \min\{H(A), H(B)\}. $$

To see this first note that $$ I(A:B) = H(A) + H(B) - H(AB) = H(A) - H(A|B). $$ Now consider the conditional entropy term $H(A|B) := H(AB) - H(B)$. We will show that it is nonnegative for separable states. Let $\rho_{AB} = \sum_x p_x \sigma_x \otimes \tau_x$ be a separable state and define a classical extension $\rho_{ABX} = \sum_x p_x \sigma_x \otimes \tau_x \otimes |x\rangle \langle x |$, where $X$ is a classical register. Note that $\mathrm{Tr}_X[\rho_{ABX}] = \rho_{AB}$. Now by strong subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy we have that $$ H(A|BX) \leq H(A|B). $$ So it suffices to show that $H(A|BX)\geq 0$. Well as $X$ is classical we have $$ H(A|BX) = \sum_x p_x H(A|B,X=x) $$ But notice that conditioned on a particular value of $X=x$ the state $\rho_{ABX}$ becomes a product state. It is not difficult to show that for product states, i.e., $\sigma_x \otimes \tau_x$ we have $$ H(AB) = H(A) + H(B) $$ hence $$ H(A|B,X=x) = H(A|X=x) + H(B|X=x) - H(B|X=x) = H(A|X=x). $$ But then $$ H(A|B) \geq H(A|BX) = \sum_x p_x H(A|X=x) \geq 0 $$ And so, $$ I(A:B) = H(A) - H(A|B) \leq H(A) - \sum_x p_x H(A)_{\sigma_x} \leq H(A). $$ We can do the same argument for $I(A:B) = H(B) - H(B|A)$ so the result holds.

  • $\begingroup$ very nice trick passing through the purification to show that $H(A|B)\ge0$. In hindsight, this reminds me the discussions about state merging, which are all about how the negativity of $H(A|B)$ can be exploited to perform entanglement (if I remember correctly). So also from that point of view, we must have $H(A|B)\ge0$ for separable states $\endgroup$
    – glS
    Nov 1, 2022 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Note though that the X system isn't purifying the state, it's just a classical register that keeps track of which term in the convex combination you have. Perhaps one can do something similar with a purification but I don't immediately see it. The upshot of this proof is that negative conditional entropy is a sufficient condition for bipartite entanglement (it's only necessary if the state is pure). $\endgroup$
    – Rammus
    Nov 2, 2022 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ ok, I finally had a chance of going through this more carefully. You're right of course. I do wonder why this trick works though. It feels like you're removing the discord contributions from $H(A|B)$ and finding it to still be positive, by making the various states in the separable decomposition "artificially distinguishable" via addition of an additional classical register $\endgroup$
    – glS
    Nov 6, 2022 at 9:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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