4
$\begingroup$

Let's consider $\rho_A$ a density matrix. I introduce a space $B$ and an entangled state $|\Psi\rangle$ (the purification) so that:

$$\newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{Tr}}\rho_A = \tr_B(|\Psi\rangle \langle \Psi |_{AB}) $$

Let's consider another purification of $\rho_A$: a vector $|\widetilde{\Psi}\rangle$. By definition we have:

$$ \rho_A = \tr_{B}(|\widetilde{\Psi}\rangle \langle \widetilde{\Psi} |_{AB})$$

I have read that those two states are indeed purification of $\rho_A$ if and only if:

$$ |\widetilde{\Psi}\rangle = I_A \otimes U_B |\Psi\rangle_{AB} $$

I understand the sufficient part, but I don't see why it would be necessary for $ |\widetilde{\Psi}\rangle$ to have this form. Could someone explain me how to get this result ? I found the statement but not a proof for this and I don't manage to find it (I'm probably missing something very obvious)

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\vert#1\rangle}$ First, write $\ket\psi$ and $\ket{\tilde\psi}$ in their Schmidt decomposition: $$ \begin{aligned} \ket\psi &= \sum \lambda_i \ket{a_i}\ket{b_i}\ , \\ \ket{\tilde\psi} & = \sum \tilde\lambda_i \ket{\tilde a_i}\ket{\tilde b_i}\ . \end{aligned} $$ Let us assume for simplicty that the $\lambda_i$ are non-degenerate. Since they both have the same reduced density operator $\rho_A$, we have that $\lambda_i=\tilde \lambda_i$ and $\ket{a_i}=\ket{\tilde a_i}$. Now construct $U$ such that $\ket{\tilde b_i}=U\ket{b_i}$ -- this is possible since both are orthogonal bases. Then, we see that $$ \ket{\tilde\psi} = (I\otimes U)\ket{\psi} $$ -- that is, given two arbitrary purifications of the same $\rho_A$, we have shown they are related by a unitary on the purifying system.

(In case some $\lambda_i$ are degenerate, the Schmidt decomposition is not unique - you want to choose it such that $\ket{a_i}=\ket{\tilde a_i}$ also for the degenerate $\lambda_i$, which is always possible, since the degenerate eigenvectors must span the same subspace.)

(Another note: In principle, the purifying system can be larger than the Schmidt rank; in that case, the action of $U$ is only fixed on the subspace spanned by the Schmidt vectors on B.)

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Even if $\lambda_i$ are all different then $|\tilde a_i\rangle$ are not necessary equal to $|a_i\rangle$ $-$ they can differ by a phase. But we can "move" those phases to $|\tilde b_i\rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Danylo Y Jan 3 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ @DanyloY Fair point! $\endgroup$ – Norbert Schuch Jan 3 at 18:36
2
$\begingroup$

It is due to Schmidt decomposition. For some $|\psi \rangle_{AB} \in H_A \otimes H_B$, there exists a decomposition in terms of the orthonormal basis (Schmidt bases) of system A and B. $\lambda_i$ are the Schmidt coefficients calculated from $Tr_B(|\psi\rangle \langle\psi|_{AB})$ whose eigenvalues are $\lambda^2_i$. Given below is the Schmidt decomposition, {$|a_i\rangle$} are the eigenvectors of system A and {$|b_i\rangle$} are the eigenvectors of system B.

$|\psi \rangle_{AB} = \sum_i \lambda_i |a_i\rangle |b_i\rangle $ where $\lambda_i \geq 0$ and $\sum_i \lambda^2_i =1$

So, based on the equation you have in the question, there is a purification being done on system B while keeping system A unchanged. Thus, the eigenvectors of A and {$\lambda_i$} should remain fixed in both decompositions. Because we want to preserve {$\lambda_i$}, eigenvalues of system B should be preserved i.e a unitary applied only to system B while identity is applied to A i.e. $I_A\otimes U_B$.

In conclusion, when the partial trace on system B is done, then this change does not show up in the final purification.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe I didnt get your point but I know that if I have a purification, only acting with a local unitary on B wont change the purification. My question is the other way around: are all purification of A all related through unitary acting locally on B. $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jan 2 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ Like if one gives you two purification of A how to prove that necesserally they are related via a unitary transformation on B $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jan 2 at 13:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is what my last statement is discussing. Any unitary acting on B as long as A is left unchanged will make two decomposition equivalent. The proofs have been solved at these links : marozols.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/…, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156777/… $\endgroup$ – Purva Thakre Jan 2 at 23:32
2
$\begingroup$

Another way to see this is remembering that the density matrix of a bipartite pure state is essentially its covariance matrix, in the sense that if a state $|\psi\rangle$ has components $\psi_{ij}$ and $\rho=|\psi\rangle\!\langle\psi|$, then $\rho=\psi\psi^\dagger$ (where we are thinking of $\psi$ as a matrix, so that $(\psi\psi^\dagger)_{ij}=\sum_\ell \psi_{i\ell}\bar\psi_{j\ell}$).

This means that, if $\psi$ and $\phi$ are pure states corresponding to the same density matrix $\rho$, as matrices they satisfy $\psi\psi^\dagger=\phi\phi^\dagger=\rho$. This implies that the singular value decomposition of $\psi$ and $\phi$ must have both singular values and left principal components in common, that is, we can write $$ \psi = \sum_k s_k \mathbf u_k \mathbf v_k^*, \\ \phi = \sum_k s_k \mathbf u_k \mathbf w_k^*, $$ for some $s_k\ge0$ (whose square equal the eigenvalues of $\rho$) and orthonormal sets of vectors $\{\mathbf u_k\}_k,\{\mathbf v_k\}_k,\{\mathbf w_k\}_k$, and with $\mathbf v^*$ denoting the dual of $\mathbf v$.

Going back to the notation with ket vectors (that is, considering again the vectorifications of $\psi,\phi$), we can see that the above equation is equivalent to the statement about purifications differing only by local unitaries.

| 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.