<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JQIS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Quantum Information Science</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-5751</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jqis.2015.54015</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JQIS-61982</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  A Holevo-Type Bound for a Hilbert Schmidt Distance Measure
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>oaz</surname><given-names>Tamir</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Eliahu</surname><given-names>Cohen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>canjlm@actcom.co.il(OT)</email>;<email>eliahuco@post.tau.ac.il(EC)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>12</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>127</fpage><lpage>133</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>22</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>14</month>	<year>December</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>17</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  We prove a new version of the Holevo bound employing the Hilbert-Schmidt norm instead of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Suppose Alice is sending classical information to Bob by using a quantum channel while Bob is performing some projective measurements. We bound the classical mutual information in terms of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm by its quantum Hilbert-Schmidt counterpart. This constitutes a Holevo-type upper bound on the classical information transmission rate via a quantum channel. The resulting inequality is rather natural and intuitive relating classical and quantum expressions using the same measure.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Holevo Bound</kwd><kwd> Hilbert-Schmidt Norm</kwd><kwd> Entanglement Measures</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Holevo’s theorem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref1">1</xref>] is one of the pillars of quantum information theory. It can be informally summarized as follows: “It is not possible to communicate more than n classical bits of information by the transmission of n qubits alone”. It therefore sets a useful upper bound on the classical information rate using quantum channel.</p><p>Suppose Alice prepares a state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x6.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in some systems Q, where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x7.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with probabilities<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Bob performs a measurement described by the POVM elements <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> on that state, with measurement outcome Y. Let</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula36"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x10.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The Holevo bound states that [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref2">2</xref>]</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula37"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x11.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where S is the von Neumann entropy and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x12.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is the Shannon mutual information of X and Y. Recent proofs of the Holevo bound can be found in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>Consider the following trace distance between two probability distributions <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x13.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x14.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> on X (note that the trace distance here is different than the one used in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref2">2</xref>] , chapter 9, by a square)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula38"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x15.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>We can extend the definition to density matrices <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x16.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x17.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula39"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x18.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where we use <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x19.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x20.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. This is known as the Hilbert-Schmidt (HS) norm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref5">5</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref7">7</xref>] (in fact this is one half of the HS norm). Recently, the above distance measure was coined the “logical divergence” of two densities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref8">8</xref>] .</p><p>We prove a Holevo-type upper bound on the mutual information of X and Y, where the mutual information is written this time in terms of the HS norm instead of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. It is recently suggested by Ellerman [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref8">8</xref>] that employing the HS norm in the formulation of classical mutual information is natural. This is consistent with the identification of information as a measure of distinction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref8">8</xref>] . Note that employing the Kullback-Leibler divergence in the standard form of the Holevo bound gives an expression which can be identified with quantum mutual information, however, the “coherent information” is considered as a more appropriate expression (see also [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref2">2</xref>] chapter 12). In view of the above we hereby take Ellerman’s idea a step further and write a Holevo-type bound based on the HS norm.</p><p>The question whether <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x21.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> was the right measure of quantum mutual information was discussed in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref9">9</xref>] , within the context of area laws. It was used there to provide an upper bound on the correlations between two distant operators <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x21.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x21.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x23.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, where A is a region inside a spin grid and B is its complement:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula40"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x24.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is the correlation function of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x26.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x25.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x26.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x27.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>In addition, the HS norm was suggested as an entanglement measure [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref10">10</xref>] , however, this was criticized in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref11">11</xref>] , claiming it did not fulfill the so called CP non-expansive property (i.e. non-increasing under every completely-positive trace-preserving map).</p><p>In the following, we will prove a Holevo-type bound on the above HS distance between the probability <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x28.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> on the product space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x28.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and the product of its marginal probabilities<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x28.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x29.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x30.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula41"><label>(6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x31.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula42"><label>(7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x32.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>and where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula43"><label>(8)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x33.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula44"><label>(9)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x34.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>are the partial traces of<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x35.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and q is the dimension of the space Q. Note that both sides of Inequality (6) are measures of mutual information. Therefore, our claim is that the classical HS mutual information is bounded by the corresponding quantum one multiplied by the dimension of the quantum density matrices used in the channel. We will also show that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula45"><label>(10)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x36.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x37.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x37.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x38.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are the Tsallis entropies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref12">12</xref>]</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula46"><label>(11)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x39.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>also known as the linear entropy, purity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref13">13</xref>] or logical entropy of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x40.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref8">8</xref>] .</p><p>All the above is proved for the case of projective measurements. However, we expect similar results in the general case of POVM, in light of Naimark’s dilation theorem (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref14">14</xref>] or [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref15">15</xref>] for instance).</p><p>In the next section we review some basic properties of quantum logical divergence and then use these properties to demonstrate the new Holevo-type bound.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. The HS Norm and the Holevo-Type Bound</title><p>Let</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula47"><label>(12)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x41.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>In what follows we recall some basic properties of the HS distance measure, then we state and prove the main result of this paper.</p><p>Theorem 2.1. Contractivity of the HS norm with respect to projective measurements</p><p>Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x42.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x42.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x43.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be two density matrices of a system S. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x42.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x43.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x44.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be the trace preserving operator</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula48"><label>(13)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x45.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where the projections <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> satisfy<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x47.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x47.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x48.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x46.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x47.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x48.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x49.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for every i, then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula49"><label>(14)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x50.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Proof: We now write<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x51.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Then X is Hermitian with bounded spectrum, and using Lemma 2 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref16">16</xref>] we conclude that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula50"><label>(15)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x52.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Theorem 2.2. The joint convexity of the HS norm</p><p>The logical divergence <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x53.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is jointly convex.</p><p>Proof: First observe that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is convex from the convexity of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x54.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x55.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and the linearity of the trace. Next we can write</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula51"><label>(16)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x56.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where the inequality is due to the convexity of<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x57.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. This constitutes the joint convexity.</p><p>Theorem 2.3. The monotonicity of the HS norm with respect to partial trace</p><p>Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x58.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x58.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x59.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be two density matrices, then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula52"><label>(17)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x60.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where b is the dimension of B.</p><p>Proof: One can find a set of unitary matrices <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x61.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> over B and a probability distribution <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x61.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x62.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula53"><label>(18)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x64.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula54"><label>(19)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x66.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>(see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref2">2</xref>] chapter 11). Now since <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x67.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is jointly convex on both densities, we can write</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula55"><label>(20)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x71.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Observe now that the divergence is invariant under unitary conjugation, and therefore the sum in the right hand side of the above inequality is<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x72.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>We can now state the main result:</p><p>Theorem 2.4. A Holevo-type bound for the HS trace distance between <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x73.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x73.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x74.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></p><p>Suppose Alice is using a distribution<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x75.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, where x is in<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x75.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x76.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, to pick one of n densities <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x75.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x76.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x77.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in Q. She then sends the signal in a quantum physical channel to Bob. We can add an artificial quantum system P and write <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x75.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x76.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x77.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x78.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for Alice as:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula56"><label>(21)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x79.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where the vectors <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x80.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are orthogonal. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x80.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x81.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x80.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x81.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be the partial traces of<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x80.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x81.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x83.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Suppose Bob is measuring the system using a projective measurement as in Theorem 2.1, then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula57"><label>(22)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x84.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where q is the dimension of the space Q.</p><p>Proof: First we consider one more auxiliary quantum system, namely M for the measurement outcome for Bob. Initially the system M is in the state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x85.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x85.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x86.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> be the operator defined by Bob’s measurement</p><p>as in Theorem 2.1 above: let <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x87.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> on Q be defined such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x87.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x88.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula58"><label>(23)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x89.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>One can easily extend <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x90.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> to the space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x90.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x91.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> by</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula59"><label>(24)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x92.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>This can be done by choosing a set of operators, conjugating <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x93.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> to<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x93.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x94.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. It amounts to writing the measurement result in the space M (see also Ch. 12.1.1 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref2">2</xref>] ). If we now trace out Q we find</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula60"><label>(25)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x95.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Moreover, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x96.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>can be extended to <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x96.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x97.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> by</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula61"><label>(26)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x98.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If we trace out Q we arrive at</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula62"><label>(27)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x99.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Finally, we can extend <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x100.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x100.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x101.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> by</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula63"><label>(28)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x102.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>If we trace out Q we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula64"><label>(29)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x103.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>We can now use the properties stated in the above theorems, Equation (27) and Equation (29) to deduce</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula65"><label>(30)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x104.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where in the first inequality we have used Theorem 2.1 and in the second inequality Theorem 2.3. The final equality is an easy consequence of the definition of the HS norm.</p><p>Corollary: Suppose Alice is sending classical information to Bob using a quantum channel Q, Bob measures the quantum state using a projective measurement defined above (having results in space Y). Under all the above assumptions</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula66"><label>(31)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x105.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x106.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x106.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x107.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are Tsallis entropies of the second type (the quantum logical entropies) of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x106.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x107.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x108.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x106.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x107.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x108.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x109.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Proof: Clearly (see also [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref17">17</xref>] )</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula67"><label>(32)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x110.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>It is easy to see (by a matrix representation) that for <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x111.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> as in Equation (21)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula68"><label>(33)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x112.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>therefore</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula69"><label>(34)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x113.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>However, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x114.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x114.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x115.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref17">17</xref>] Theorem II.2.4 and Theorem II.3), therefore</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula70"><label>(35)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x116.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Combining this with Theorem 2.4 we find</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula71"><label>(36)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x117.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Example: Suppose Alice sends the state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x118.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with probability 1/2 and the state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x118.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x119.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with probability 1/2, then</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula72"><label>(37)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x120.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x121.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x121.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x122.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. By partial tracing we get</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula73"><label>(38)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x123.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x124.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is a balanced coin. The eigenvalues of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x124.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x125.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x124.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x125.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x126.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and therefore</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula74"><label>(39)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x127.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Also <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x128.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x128.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x129.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, hence</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula75"><label>(40)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x130.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The left hand side of the above inequality is a measure of the classical mutual information according to the HS norm between X and Y. The very fact that it is smaller than the Tsallis information measure of X (which is 1/2) means that the quantum channel restricts the rate of classical information transfer, where the mutual information is measured by the HS norm and the source of information X is measured by Tsallis entropy. This is analogous to Holevo’s upper bound in the framework of Tsalis/linear entropy. We find this result similar in spirit to the well-known limitation on the rate of classical information transmission via a quantum channel (without utilizing entanglement): one cannot send more than one bit for each use of the channel using a one qubit channel.</p><p>In the above example, if <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x131.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x131.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x132.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are mixed states, then by the same argument we can show that:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.61982-formula76"><label>(41)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x133.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>This gives a bound on the classical mutual information using the quantum “logical entropy” (the Tsallis entropy).</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Discussion</title><p>We proved a Holevo-type bound employing the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between the density matrices on the product space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x134.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and the tensor of the two marginal density matrices on<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x134.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1300174x135.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Using a different measure of mutual information, we showed that this Holevo-type upper bound on classical information transmission could be written as an inequality between the classical mutual information expression and its quantum counterpart.</p><p>It seems that by utilizing Naimark’s dilation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref15">15</xref>] , the above result can be generalized to any POVM if one is willing to employ the suitable channel in a higher dimensional Hilbert space.</p><p>As was claimed in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref17">17</xref>] , the divergence distance used above is the natural one in the context of quantum logical entropy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61982-ref8">8</xref>] . Being the “right” measure of mutual information in quantum channels passing classical information, we expect that this formalism would be helpful in further studies of various problems such as channel capacity theory, entanglement detection and area laws.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>E.C. was supported by Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 1311/14 and by ERC AdG NLST.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>BoazTamir,EliahuCohen,11, (2015) A Holevo-Type Bound for a Hilbert Schmidt Distance Measure. Journal of Quantum Information Science,05,127-133. doi: 10.4236/jqis.2015.54015</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.61982-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Holevo. A.S. (1973) Bounds for the Quantity of Information Transmitted by a Quantum Communication Channel. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 9, 3-11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nielsen, M.A. and Chuang, I.L. (2010) Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cerf, N.J. and Adami, C. (1996) Accessible Information in Quantum Measurement. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Winter, A. (1999) Coding Theorem and Strong Converse for Quantum Channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45, 2481-2485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/18.796385</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Buzek, V. and Hillery, M. (1996) Quantum Copying: Beyond the No-Cloning Theorem. Physical Review A, 54, 1844-1852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1844</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vedral, V. and Plenio, M.B. (1998) Entanglement Measures and Purification Procedures. Physical Review A, 57, 1619-1633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.1619</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Perez-Garcia, D., Wolf, M.M., Petz, D. and Ruskai, M.B. (2006) Contractivity of Positive and Trace-Preserving Maps under Lp Norms. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 47, Article ID: 083506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2218675</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dllerman, E. (2013) Information as Distinction: New Foundation for Information Theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5607</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wolf, M.M., Verstraete, F., Hasting, M.B. and Cirac, J.I. (2008) Area Law in Quantum Systems: Mutual Information and Correlations. Physical Review Letters, 100, Article ID: 070502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.070502</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Witte, C. and Trucks, M. (1999) A New Entanglement Measure Induced by the Hilbert-Schmidt Norm. Physics Letters A, 257, 14-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00279-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ozawa, M. (2000) Entanglement Measures and the Hilbert-Schmidt Distance. Physics Letters A, 268, 158-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00171-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tsallis, C. (1988) Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 52, 479-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01016429</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peters, N.A., Wei, T.C. and Kwiat, P.G. (2004) Mixed State Sensitivity of Several Quantum Information Benchmarks. Physical Review A, 70, Article ID: 052309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052309</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Paulsen, V. (2002) Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matsumoto, K., Shimono, T. and Winter, A. (2004) Remarks on Additivity of the Holevo Channel Capacity and of the Entanglement of Formation. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 246, 427-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-003-0919-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rastegin, A.E. (2010) Some General Properties of Unified Entropies. Journal of Statistical Physics, 143, 1120-1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-011-0231-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61982-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tamir, B. and Cohen, E. (2014) Logical Entropy for Quantum States. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0616</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>