1
$\begingroup$

The mathematical construct of the Quantum process tomography is given in Page 391, 392, Chapter 8, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information by Nielsen and Chuang, as follows

Let a fixed set of operators $\tilde{E}_i$, which form a basis for the set of operators on the state space so that $E_i=\sum_m e_{im}\tilde{E}_m$, then the quantum operation can be represented as, \begin{align} \mathcal{E}(\rho)&=\sum_i E_i\rho E_i^\dagger \tag{8.150}\label{eq0}\\ &=\sum_{m,n}\tilde{E}_m\rho\tilde{E}^\dagger_n \chi_{mn} \tag{8.152}\label{eq2}\\ \end{align} where $\chi_{mn}=\sum_i e_{im}e^*_{in}$ are the entries of a matrix that is positive hermitian since $\chi_{mn}^*=(\sum_i e_{im}e^*_{in})^*=\sum_i e_{in}e^*_{im}=\chi_{nm}$ and $\chi_{mm}=\sum_i e_{im}e^*_{im}=\sum_i |e_{im}|^2\geq 0$.

Let $\rho_j,1\leq j\leq d^2$ be a fixed, linearly independent basis for the space of $d\times d$ matrices,i.e., any $d\times d$ matrix can be written as a unique linear combination of the $\rho_j$ and it is possible to determine $E(\rho_j)$ by state tomography, for each $\rho_j$.

Each $E(\rho_j)$ may be expressed as a linear combination of the basis states, $\mathcal{E}(\rho_j)=\sum_k \lambda_{jk}\rho_k \tag{8.155}\label{eq5}$

And, since $\mathcal{E}(\rho_j)$ is known from the state tomography, $\lambda_jk$ can be determined by standard linear algebraic algorithms. we can also write $\tilde{E}_m\rho_j\tilde{E}_n^\dagger=\sum_k\beta_{jk}^{mn}\rho_k \tag{8.156}\label{eq6}$

where $\beta_{jk}^{mn}$ are complex numbers that can be determined by standard algorithms from linear algebra given the $\tilde{E}_m$ operators and the $\rho_j$ operators.

Combining both obtain, \begin{align} \sum_k\sum_{mn}\chi_{mn}\beta_{jk}^{mn}\rho_k&=\sum_{k}\lambda_{jk}\rho_k\tag{8.157}\label{eq7}\\ \implies \sum_{mn}\beta_{jk}^{mn}\chi_{mn}&=\lambda_{jk} \tag{8.158}\label{eq8}\\ \implies \beta\vec{\chi}&=\vec{\lambda} \tag{8.161}\label{eq61} \end{align} Let $\kappa$ be the generalized inverse such that $\beta\kappa\beta=\beta\Leftrightarrow \beta_{jk}^{mn}=\sum_{st,xy}\beta_{jk}^{st}\kappa_{st}^{xy}\beta_{xy}^{mn}$

We can prove that $\chi$ defined by $\chi_{mn}\equiv\sum_{jk}\kappa_{jk}^{mn}\lambda_{mn}\Leftrightarrow\vec{\chi}=\kappa\vec{\lambda}\tag{8.160}\label{eq60}$ satisfies the equation $\sum_{mn}\beta_{jk}^{mn}\chi_{mn}=\lambda_{jk}\Leftrightarrow\beta\vec{\chi}=\vec{\lambda}$


But now it is stated that,

The difficulty in verifying that $\chi$ defined by \ref{eq0} satisfies \ref{eq8} is that, in general, $\chi$ is not uniquely determined by Equation \ref{eq8}

What is the logic in saying that $\chi$ is not uniquely defined by equation \ref{eq8} ?

In the next step, it says

From the construction that led to Equation \ref{eq2}, we know there exists at least onesolution to Equation \ref{eq61}

How do I make sense of this ?

In deriving equation \ref{eq2} we used the substitution $E_i=\sum_m e_{im}\tilde{E}_m$ into the expression $\mathcal{E}(\rho)=\sum_i E_i\rho E_i^\dagger$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Because it's a linear system, and a linear system can in general have (infinitely) many solutions.

If you want to find $x$ such that $Ax=b$ for some matrix $A$ and vector $b$, then the set of solutions is the set of vectors of the form $x=A^+ b + y$, with $A^+\equiv A^\dagger(AA^\dagger)^{-1}$ the pseudoinverse of $A$ (this assumes that $AA^\dagger$ is invertible; if instead $A^\dagger A$ is invertible then a slightly different formula for $A^+$ applies), and $y$ any vector in the ker of $A$.

In other words, there are infinitely many solutions iff $A$ has nontrivial kernel.

To more explicitly connect with the $\chi$ matrix, imagine that $x$ becomes the "vector" of all components of $\chi$, and $A$ the matrix of coefficients $\beta$, and $b$ the vector $\lambda$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ My understanding is that $Ax=b$ has a solution iff $b\in Range(A)$, else we will have to find the least square solution of the linear system, and that's where the pseudo inverse comes in. So how can we be sure that $\beta\vec{\chi}=\vec{\lambda}$ must have at least one solution? $\endgroup$
    – Sooraj S
    Nov 24, 2022 at 11:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ has a solution for $x$ iff $b\in\operatorname{range}(A)$, is what you meant to write. It's the same thing for $\chi$. You'll have a solution for $\chi$ iff $\vec\lambda$ is in the range of the operator $\beta$. But you already know that there is a solution here, because you defined $\beta$ to make this system satisfied. You define $\beta$ so that there is such a solution. What might be less obvious is that there is still in general an entire space of solutions, whenever $\beta$ has nontrivial ker $\endgroup$
    – glS
    Nov 24, 2022 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ sorry that was a typo, fixed my comment. $\endgroup$
    – Sooraj S
    Nov 24, 2022 at 11:27

Your Answer

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

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