Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 24, Issue 1
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

State Convertibility under Genuinely Incoherent Operations

Shuanping Du, Zhaofang Bai

Author affiliations
  • Shuanping Du1
  • Zhaofang Bai1
  1. School of Mathematical Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China

pp. 17-30 · 10.2478/qic-2024-0007

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

State convertibility is fundamental in the study of resource theory of quantum coherence. It is aimed at identifying when it is possible to convert a given coherent state to another using only incoherent operations. In this paper, we give a complete characterization of state convertibility under genuinely incoherent operations. It is found that convexity of the robustness of coherence plays a central role. Based on this, the majorization condition of determining convertibility from pure states to mixed states under strictly incoherent operations is provided. Moreover, maximally coherent states in the set of all states with fixed diagonal elements are determined. It is somewhat surprising that convexity of the robustness of coherence can also decide conversion between off-diagonal parts of coherent states. This might be a big step to answer completely the question of state convertibility for mixed states under incoherent operations.
Open accessCC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Keywords

  • quantum coherence
  • state convertibility
  • incoherent operations
  • 03.65.Ud
  • 03.67.-a
  • 03.65.Ta

Suggested citation

Shuanping Du, Zhaofang Bai (2024). State Convertibility under Genuinely Incoherent Operations. Quantum Information & Computation, 24(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2024-0007

Download BibTeX

References (84)

  1. A.J. Leggett (1980). “Macroscopic quantum systems and the quantum theory of measurement”. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 69: 80. https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.69.80.DOI: 10.1143/PTPS.69.80Google Scholar
  2. L. Mandel and E. Wolf (1995). Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139644105Google Scholar
  3. M. Hillery (2016). “Coherence as a resource in decision problems: The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation”. Physical Review A, 93: 012111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012111.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012111Google Scholar
  4. J.M. Matera, D. Egloff, N. Killoran and M.B. Plenio (2016). “Coherent control of quantum systems as a resource theory”. Quantum Science and Technology 1: 01LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/1/1/01LT01.DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/1/1/01LT01Google Scholar
  5. M. Pan and D. Qiu (2019). “Operator coherence dynamics in Grover’s quantum search algorithm”. Physical Review A, 100: 012349. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012349DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012349Google Scholar
  6. W. Wang, et al. (2019). “Witnessing quantum resource conversion within deterministic quantum computation using one pure superconducting qubit”. Physical Review Letters, 123: 220501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.220501.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.220501Google Scholar
  7. F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, J. M. Matera and M. B. Plenio (2022). “Coherence as a resource for Shor’s algorithm”. Physical Review Letters 129: 120501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.120501.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.120501Google Scholar
  8. M. Karimi, A. Javadi-Abhari, C. Simon and R. Ghobadi (2023). “The power of one clean qubit in supervised machine learning”. Scientific Reports, 13: 19975. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46497-y.DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46497-yGoogle Scholar
  9. L. Ye, Z. Wu and S. Fei (2023). “Tsallis relative α entropy of coherence dynamics in Grover’s search algorithm”. Communications in Theoretical Physics. 75: 085101. https://doi.org/10.1088/1572-9494/acdce5.DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/acdce5Google Scholar
  10. J. Berberich, D. Fink and C. Holm, “Robustness of quantum algorithms against coherent control errors”. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.00618.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.012417Google Scholar
  11. L. Escalera-Moreno, “QBithm: Towards the coherent control of robust spin qubits in quantum algorithms”. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.12655.DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-fw96zGoogle Scholar
  12. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone (2004). “Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit”. Science, 306: 1330. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104149.DOI: 10.1126/science.1104149Google Scholar
  13. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone (2011). “Advances in quantum metrology”. Nature Photonics, 5: 222. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2011.35.DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2011.35Google Scholar
  14. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski and L. Maccone (2014). “Using entanglement against noise in quantum metrology”. Physical Review Letters, 113: 250801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.250801.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.250801Google Scholar
  15. D.P. Pires, I.A. Silva, E.R. deAzevedo, D.O. Soares-Pinto, J.G. Filgueiras (2018). “Coherence orders, decoherence, and quantum metrology”. Physical Review A, 98: 032101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032101.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032101Google Scholar
  16. W. Cheng, S.C. Hou, Z. Wang and X.X. Yi (2019). “Quantum metrology enhanced by coherence-induced driving in a cavity-QED setup”. Physical Review A, 100: 053825. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.053825.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.053825Google Scholar
  17. C. Zhang, T.R. Bromley, Y.F. Huang, H. Cao, W.M. Lv, B.H. Liu, C.F. Li, G.C. Guo, M. Cianciaruso and G. Adesso (2019). “Demonstrating quantum coherence and metrology that is resilient to transversal noise”. Physical Review Letters 123: 180504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.180504.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.180504Google Scholar
  18. A. Castellini, R. LoFranco, L. Lami, A. Winter, G. Adesso and G. Compagno (2019). “Indistinguishability-enabled coherence for quantum metrology”. Physical Review A 100: 012308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012308.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012308Google Scholar
  19. L. Ares and A. Luis (2021). “Signal estimation and coherence”. Optics Letters 46: 5409. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.439197DOI: 10.1364/OL.439197Google Scholar
  20. R. Lecamwasam, S. Assad, J. Hope, P. Lam, J. Thompson and M. Gu (2024). “Relative entropy of coherence quantifies performance in Bayesian metrology”. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2401.16020.DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030303Google Scholar
  21. D. Girolami, T. Tufarelli and G. Adesso (2013). “Characterizing nonclassical correlations via local quantum uncertainty”. Physical Review Letters 110: 240402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.240402.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.240402Google Scholar
  22. A. Farace, A. De Pasquale, L. Rigovacca and V. Giovannetti (2014). “Discriminating strength: A bona fide measure of non-classical correlations”. New Journal of Physics, 16: 7, 073010 https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073010.DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/073010Google Scholar
  23. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso and M. B. Plenio (2017). “Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89: 041003. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003Google Scholar
  24. R. Takagi, B. Regula, K. Bu, Z.W. Liu and G. Adesso (2019). “Operational advantage of quantum resources in subchannel discrimination”. Physical Review Letters 122: 140402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.140402.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.140402Google Scholar
  25. M. Wilde (2020, June). “Coherent quantum channel discrimination”, in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 1921–1926. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT44484.2020.9174425.DOI: 10.1109/ISIT44484.2020.9174425Google Scholar
  26. Z.M. Rossi, J. Yu, I.L. Chuang and S. Sugiura (2022). “Quantum advantage for noisy channel discrimination”. Physical Review A, 105: 032401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032401.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032401Google Scholar
  27. S. Chen, S. Zhou, A. Seif and L. Jiang (2022). “Quantum advantages for Pauli channel estimation”. Physical Review A, 105: 032435. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032435.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032435Google Scholar
  28. J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V. Vedral and M. Gu (2016). “Converting coherence to quantum correlations”. Physical Review Letters, 116: 160407. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.160407.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.160407Google Scholar
  29. X. Hu and H. Fan (2016). “Extracting quantum coherence via steering”. Scientific Reports 6: 34380. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34380.DOI: 10.1038/srep34380Google Scholar
  30. Hu, X., A. Milne, B. Zhang and H. Fan (2016). “Quantum coherence of steered states.” Scientific Reports, 6: 19365. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19365.DOI: 10.1038/srep19365Google Scholar
  31. D. Mondal, T. Pramanik and A. K. Pati (2017). “Nonlocal advantage of quantum coherence”. Physical Review A, 95: 010301(R). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.010301.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.010301Google Scholar
  32. D. Girolami and B. Yadin (2017). “Witnessing multipartite entanglement by detecting asymmetry”. Entropy, 19: 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19030124.DOI: 10.3390/e19030124Google Scholar
  33. Z. Y. Ding, H. Yang, H. Yuan, D. Wang, J. Yang and L. Ye (2019). “Experimental investigation of the nonlocal advantage of quantum coherence”. Physical Review A, 100: 022308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.022308.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.022308Google Scholar
  34. K. Lee, J. Lin, K. Lemr, A. Cernoch, A. Miranowicz, F. Nori, H. Ku and Y. Chen (2023). “Coherence distillation unveils Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering”. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2312.01055.Google Scholar
  35. G. Karpat, B. Cakmak and F. F. Fanchini (2014). “Quantum coherence and uncertainty in the anisotropic XY chain”. Physical Review B, 90: 104431. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.104431.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.104431Google Scholar
  36. B. Cakmak, G. Karpat and F. Fanchini (2015). “Factorization and criticality in the anisotropic XY chain via correlations”. Entropy, 17: 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/e17020790.DOI: 10.3390/e17020790Google Scholar
  37. A.L. Malvezzi, G. Karpat, B. Cakmak, F.F. Fanchini, T. Debarba and R. O. Vianna (2016). “Quantum correlations and coherence in spin-1 Heisenberg chains”. Physical Review B, 93: 184428. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.184428.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.184428Google Scholar
  38. J. J. Chen, J. Cui, Y. R. Zhang and H. Fan (2016). “Coherence susceptibility as a probe of quantum phase transitions”. Physical Review A, 94: 022112. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022112.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022112Google Scholar
  39. Y. Li, H. Lin (2016). “Quantum coherence and quantum phase transitions”. Scientific Reports, 6: 26365. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26365.DOI: 10.1038/srep26365Google Scholar
  40. Z. D. Shi, H. Goldman, Z. Dong and T. Senthil (2024). “Excitonic quantum criticality: From bilayer graphene to narrow Chern bands”. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2402.12436.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.125154Google Scholar
  41. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer and M. B. Plenio (2014). “Quantifying coherence”. Physical Review Letters, 113: 140401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401Google Scholar
  42. E. Chitambar and G. Gour (2019). “Quantum resource theories”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 91: 025001. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001Google Scholar
  43. J. Aberg (2006). “Quantifying superposition”. arXiv 2006, arXiv:quant-ph/0612146.Google Scholar
  44. A. Winter and D. Yang (2016). “Operational resource theory of coherence”. Physical Review Letters, 116: 120404. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.120404.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.120404Google Scholar
  45. B. Yadin, J. Ma, D. Girolami, M. Gu and V. Vedral (2016). “Quantum processes which do not use coherence”. Physical Review X, 6: 041028. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041028.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041028Google Scholar
  46. E. Chitambar and G. Gour (2016) “Comparison of incoherent operations and measures of coherence”. Physical Review A, 94: 052336. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052336.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052336Google Scholar
  47. E. Chitambar and G. Gour (2016). “Critical examination of incoherent operations and a physically consistent resource theory of quantum coherence”. Physical Review Letters, 117: 030401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.030401.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.030401Google Scholar
  48. I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens (2016). “How to quantify coherence: Distinguishing speakable and unspeakable notions”. Physical Review A, 94: 052324. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052324.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052324Google Scholar
  49. J. Vicente and A. Streltsov (2017). “Genuine quantum coherence”. Journal of Physics A, 50: 045301. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/50/4/045301.DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/50/4/045301Google Scholar
  50. R. Takagi and B. Regula (2019). “General resource theories in quantum mechanics and beyond: Operational characterization via discrimination tasks”. Physical Review X 9: 031053. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031053.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031053Google Scholar
  51. S. Du, Z. Bai and Y. Guo (2015). “Conditions for coherence transformations under incoherent operations”. Physical Review A, 91: 052120. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052120.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052120Google Scholar
  52. A. Streltsov, S. Rana, P. Boes and J. Eisert (2017). “Structure of the resource theory of quantum coherence”. Physical Review Letters, 119: 140402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.140402.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.140402Google Scholar
  53. Q. Zhao, Y. Liu, X. Yuan, E. Chitambar and X. Ma (2018). “One-shot coherence dilution”. Physical Review Letters, 120: 070403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.070403.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.070403Google Scholar
  54. G. Torun and A. Yildiz (2018). “Deterministic transformations of coherent states under incoherent operations”. Physical Review A, 97: 052331. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052331DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052331Google Scholar
  55. G. Torun, L. Lami, G. Adesso and A. Yildiz (2019). “Optimal distillation of quantum coherence with reduced waste of resources”. Physical Review A, 99: 012321. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012321DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012321Google Scholar
  56. L. Lami, B. Regula, G. Adesso (2019). “Generic bound coherence under strictly incoherent operations”. Physical Review Letters, 122: 150402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.150402DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.150402Google Scholar
  57. S. Du, Z. Bai and X. Qi (2019). “Coherence manipulation under incoherent operations”. Physical Review A, 100: 032313. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032313DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032313Google Scholar
  58. C.L. Liu and D.L. Zhou (2019). “Deterministic coherence distillation”. Physical Review Letters, 123: 070402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.070402DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.070402Google Scholar
  59. K. Wu et al. (2020). “Quantum coherence and state conversion: Theory and experiment”. npj Quant. Info., 6: 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-0250-zDOI: 10.1038/s41534-020-0250-zGoogle Scholar
  60. K. Fang and Z. W. Liu (2020). “No-go theorems for quantum resource purification”. Physical Review Letters, 125: 060405. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.060405DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.060405Google Scholar
  61. G. Torun, H. Senyasa and A. Yildiz. (2021). “Resource theory of superposition: State transformations”. Physical Review A, 103: 032416. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032416DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032416Google Scholar
  62. L. Zhang, T. Gao and F. Yan (2021). “Transformations of multilevel coherent states under coherence-preserving operations”. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 64: 260312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-021-1696-yDOI: 10.1007/s11433-021-1696-yGoogle Scholar
  63. G. Torun, O. Pusuluk and O. Mustecaplioglu. (2023). “A compendious review of majorization-based resource theories: Quantum information and quantum thermodynamics”. Turkish Journal of Physics, 47: 141. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0101.2744DOI: 10.55730/1300-0101.2744Google Scholar
  64. Y. Yao, G. H. Dong, X. Xiao, M. Li and C. P. Sun (2017). “Interpreting quantum coherence through a quantum measurement process”. Physical Review, 96: 052322. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.052322DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.052322Google Scholar
  65. K. Tan, S. Choi and H. Jeong (2019). “Optimizing nontrivial quantum observables using coherence”. New Journal of Physics, 21: 023013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab0430.DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab0430Google Scholar
  66. C. Napoli, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. Johnston and G. Adesso (2016). “Robustness of coherence: An operational and observable measure of quantum coherence”. Physical Review Letters, 116: 150502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150502.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150502Google Scholar
  67. Y. Yao, D. Li and C. P. Sun (2019). “Quantum coherence fraction”. Physical Review A, 100: 032324. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032324DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032324Google Scholar
  68. D. Sauerwein, N. R. Wallach, G. Gour and B. Kraus (2018). “Transformations among pure multipartite entangled states via local operations are almost never possible”. Physical Review X, 8: 031020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031020.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031020Google Scholar
  69. S. Du and Z. Bai (2022). “Conversion of Gaussian states under incoherent Gaussian operations”. Physical Review A, 105: 022412. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022412.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022412Google Scholar
  70. O. Kruger and R. F. Werner (2005). “Some open problems in quantum information theory”. arXiv 2005, arXiv:quant-ph/0504166.Google Scholar
  71. Available at: https://oqp.iqoqi.oeaw.ac.at/ (Accessed on 22 June 2024).Google Scholar
  72. J. Vicente (2024). “Maximally entangled mixed states for a fixed spectrum do not always exist”. Physical Review Letters, 133: 050202. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.050202.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.050202Google Scholar
  73. J. Xu (2024). “Coherence and imaginarity of quantum states”. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.06210.Google Scholar
  74. H. Zhao and C. Yu (2018). “Coherence measure in terms of the Tsallis relative α entropy”. Scientific Reports, 8: 299. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18692-1DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18692-1Google Scholar
  75. A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera and G. Adesso (2015). “Measuring quantum coherence with entanglement”. Physical Review Letters, 115: 020403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.020403DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.020403Google Scholar
  76. K. Bu, N. Anand and U. Singh (2018). “Asymmetry and coherence weight of quantum states”. Physical Review A, 97: 032342. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.032342DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.032342Google Scholar
  77. S. Du, Z. Bai and X. Qi (2015). “Coherence measures and optimal conversion for coherent states”. Quantum Information & Computation, 15: 1307. https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC15.15-16-3DOI: 10.26421/QIC15.15-16-3Google Scholar
  78. C. Datta, R. Ganardi, T. V. Kondra and A. Streltsov (2023). “Is there a finite complete set of monotones in any quantum resource theory?” Physical Review Letters, 130: 240204. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.240204DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.240204Google Scholar
  79. C. Li and H. Woerdeman (1997). “Special classes of positive and completely positive maps”. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 255: 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(96)00776-8DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3795(96)00776-8Google Scholar
  80. V. Paulsen (2003). Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511546631Google Scholar
  81. J. Watrous (2018). Theory of Quantum Information, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1017/9781316848142Google Scholar
  82. M. Piani, M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, C. Napoli, N. Johnston and G. Adesso (2016). “Robustness of asymmetry and coherence of quantum states”. Physical Review A, 93: 042107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.042107.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.042107Google Scholar
  83. M. Sion (1958). “On general minimax theorems”. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 8: 171.DOI: 10.2140/pjm.1958.8.171Google Scholar
  84. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson (1991). Topics in Matrix Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840371Google Scholar