arxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 18 Dec 2017

Transcription

1 Complete positivity on the subsystems level Momir Arsenijević University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Science, Kragujevac, Serbia Jasmina Jeknić-Dugić arxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 18 Dec 2017 University of Niš, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Niš, Serbia Miroljub Dugić University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Science, Kragujevac, Serbia (Dated: December 19, 2017) Abstract We consider complete positivity of dynamics regarding subsystems of an open composite quantum system, which is subject of a completely positive dynamics. By completely positive dynamics, we assume the dynamical maps called the completely positive and trace preserving maps, with the constraint that domain of the map is the whole Banach space of the system s density matrices. We provide a technically simple and conceptually clear proof for the subsystems completely positive dynamics. Actually, we prove that every subsystem of a composite open system can be subject of a completely positive dynamics if and only if the initial state of the composite open system is tensor-product of the initial states of the subsystems. An algorithm for obtaining the Kraus form for the subsystem s dynamical map is provided. As an illustrative example we consider a pair of mutually interacting qubits. The presentation is performed such that a student with the proper basic knowledge in quantum mechanics should be able to reproduce all the steps of the calculations. 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION Realistic physical systems are both composite [1, 2], i.e. divisible into smaller parts (subsystems), as well as open[3, 4], i.e. interacting with some surrounding systems(environment) so as that they cannot be described by the unitary Schrödinger dynamical law. Already at the level of the total open system, the rules for describing their dynamics are open issues in the foundations of modern quantum theory [3-6]. The state of the art regarding the open-systems subsystems is even more subtle, e.g. [7-10]. Why worry about the theoretical issues of apparently purely academic nature on the level of the undergraduate/graduate studies of physics? In response to this question, we strongly emphasize that the open quantum systems theory [1, 2] provides the general basis for description of the quantum systems dynamics. Hence numerous applications of the open systems theory, notably in quantum information science [11], quantum technology [12], materials science [13], etc. As the interest in the theory of open quantum systems grows considerably, there is a need of introducing the basics of the theory also on the undergraduate or graduate level of the physics and related studies [14-16]. In this paper, we provide a technically simple discussion on the conditions for the subsystems dynamics complete positivity [7-10], while assuming the composite open system is subject of a completely positive dynamical map. Our first task is to precisely define the concept of complete positivity (CP) of the open systems dynamics (Definition 1 in Section II), on which basis we are able to emphasize some alternative definitions of CP. Then, in Section III, we provide a general discussion on complete positivity of the subsystems dynamics, where we prove that every subsystem of a composite open system can be subject of a completely positive dynamics if and only if the initial state of the composite open system is tensor-product of the initial states of the subsystems. The proof is constructive in that it provides an algorithm for deriving the Kraus form for a subsystem s dynamical map. In Section IV, we illustrate the general result by a pair of mutually interacting quantum bits (qubits) that may be regarded instructive and illustrative for the finite-dimensional open systems: plenty of straightforward but often cumbersome calculations on the level of linear algebra of the finite-rank matrices. Section V is discussion and we conclude in Section VI. With some care, a student with the proper basic knowledge in quantum mechanics should be able to reproduce all the steps of the calculation. 2

3 II. COMPLETE POSITIVITY The open quantum systems theory [1, 2] provides the general basis for description of the quantum systems dynamics. On the one hand, the so-called closed quantum systems are described by the standard unitary Schrödinger law that povides the time reversible dynamics, i.e. unitary dynamical map, of quantum systems interacting with no other quantum or classical system; the absence of external fields corresponds to the isolated systems. On the other hand, quantum systems in interaction with some surrounding systems cannot, in principle, be described by the unitary Schrödinger law that typically leads to irreversibility of their dynamics. Dynamics of such open systems is at the heart of the open quantum systems theory. The leading paradigm [1, 2] is to assume the unitary dynamics for the open system (S) plus its surrounding environment (E) and then to describe the open system s dynamics by tracing out (i.e. by integrating averaging over) the environmental degrees of freedom. That is, the environment is a dynamical system defined by the time varying degreesoffreedomandthestatespace, notjustasourceofsome external field (i.e. ofsome external potential ) for the S system. If the total (S +E) system s state is denoted ρ SE, then, in symbols, the open system s state ρ S (t) = tr E ρ SE (t) for every instant in time t. More precisely, if H SE denotes the total (isolated) system s time-independent Hamiltonian, then the unitary operator U(t) = exp( ıh SE t/ ) transforms the isolated S +E-system s state, in the Schrödinger picture: ρ SE (t) = U(t)ρ SE (0)U (t); the symbol denotes the Hermitian conjugate. Hence ρ S (t) = tr E (U(t)ρ SE (0)U (t)). By definition, the open system s state ρ S (t) is statistical operator ( density matrix ), which is a Hermitian (ρ S = ρ S), unit trace (tr S ρ S = 1) and semidefinite-positive operator, whose eigenvalues are nonnegative real numbers. Statistical operators for a system S constitute a Banach vector state space, B S. Dynamics of the open system S is described by a dynamical map Φ (t,t ), which transforms the state in an initial t to a final t t instant of time: ρ S (t) = Φ (t,t )ρ S (t. ). In this paper we are interested in the dynamical maps satisfying the following conditions: (i) Both the initial ρ S (t ) and the final ρ S (t) state are elements of the system s state-space B S, (ii) The map preserves the trace, i.e. tr S ρ S (t) = 1, t t, (iii) Domain of the map is the whole state space, B S, i.e. every possible state ρ S B S. 3

4 It is natural to assume that dynamics of the open system S should not be influenced by another system A, which the S system had never interacted with in the past. This is the requirement of the so-called complete positivity (CP) for the dynamical map Φ (t,t ) [1, 2]. Due to the Kraus theorem [17], complete positivity of a dynamical map is equivalent with the possibility to present the map in the form: Φ (t,t )ρ S (t ) = ρ S (t) = k K Sk (t)ρ S (t )K Sk (t). (1) A CP map eq.(1) that satisfies the above condition (ii) of trace preservation also fulfills the so-called completeness condition: K Sk (t)k Sk(t) = I S, (2) k where I S represents the identity map in B S. The maps satisfying eqs.(1) and (2) are often called completely positive and trace preserving (CPTP) maps. In order to ease the presentation, here and further on, we assume the following definition of CP: Definition 1. By completely positive dynamical maps we assume exclusively the maps that can be written in the form of eq.(1) and that fulfill the above conditions (i)-(iii). Dropping out some of the above points (i)-(iii) leads to some alternative definitions of CP. For example, dropping out the condition (i) leads to the more general considerations where the input and the output open systems may be different [9], while dropping out the condition (iii) emphasizes the maps with the reduced domain in the system s state space B S [18-21]. Inthenext section, weprovideasimpleproofregardingtheconditionsforcpofdynamics of certain subsystems of an open composite system, which is subject of a CP map. While the results to be presented below may be regarded well-known, e.g. [7-10], the method of the proof, to the best of our knowledge, is here provided for the first time. The virtue of the proof is its technical simplicity and conceptual clarity. 4

5 III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SUBSYSTEMS DYNAMICS Bearing in mind the above point (iii), i.e. the requirement that the domain of a dynamical map be the whole Banach space B S, the Pechukas theorem [22] is essential for our considerations. Instead of the formal, not very transparent formulation(s) [22, 23], here we provide a non-rigorous but more illuminating formulation of the Pechukas theorem (PT): (PT) In order for a dynamical map Φ (t,t ) has the whole Banach space B S in its domain, the initial tensor-product state ρ SE (0) = ρ S (0) ρ E (0), (3) for the closed S + E system is a necessary condition; ρ E (0) is common for all the initial states ρ S (0) of the open S system. Consider a composite open system C consisting of two subsystems, 1 and 2; C = 1+2. Assume that dynamics of the C system is CP as defined in Section II. Then we areinterested in answering the following question: (Q) Which conditions should be met in order to have CP dynamics for the subsystems 1 and/or 2? We are interested in a composite system C +E where the dynamics of the C system is assumed to be CP. Then (PT) implies the initial tensor product state: ρ CE (0) = ρ C (0) ρ E (0). (4) Applying (PT) to the subsystem 1 implies the initial tensor product state: and analogously for the subsystem 2 the initial state: ρ CE (0) = ρ 1 (0) ρ 2E (0), (5) ρ CE (0) = ρ 2 (0) ρ 1E (0). (6) According to (PT), the state ρ 2E (0) is the same for all ρ 1 (0), and also the state ρ 1E (0) is the same for all ρ 2 (0). Then it is easy to see that the only initial state that may fulfill the requirements (4)-(6) is the full tensor-product state: 5

6 ρ CE (0) = ρ 1 (0) ρ 2 (0) ρ E (0). (7) Consequently, the initial state of the composite open system C ρ C (0) = ρ 1 (0) ρ 2 (0) (8) isanecessaryconditionforthecpdynamics ofbothsubsystems 1and2. Thatis, nonvalidity of eq.(8), i.e. the presence of initial correlations in the C = 1 +2 system, implies non-cp dynamics for both the subsystems 1 and 2; an example is presented by eq.(14). That the condition eq.(8) is sufficient for complete positivity (Definition 1) of the dynamics of both subsystems 1 and 2, can be seen as follows. Introduce anorthonormalbasis of Hermitian operators, {g 1i }, acting onthehilbert statespaceforthesubsystem 1, andanalogouslyabasis{h 2j }forthesubsystem 2. Thisprocedure is straightforward for the finite-dimensional 1 and 2 systems, which we are mainly concerned with; theorthonormalizationrulefortheset ofoperatorsischosenastr 1 (g 1i g 1i ) = δ ii, where δ ii standing for the Kronecker delta, and analogously for the subsystem 2. Then every Kraus operator K k (t) in eq.(1) can be presented as: K k (t) = i,j c k ij (t)g 1i h 2j ; (9) the normalization rule gives c k ij = tr(k k(t)g 1i h 2j ). Substitute eqs. (8) and (9) into eq.(1) and take the trace over the subsystem 2. Then, in accordance with the above point (iii) without imposing any restrictions on the initial states ρ 1 (0) and ρ 2 (0), it directly follows: ρ 1 (t) = tr 2 ρ C (t) = i,i ( k,j,j c k ij(t)c k i j (t)tr 2(h 2j ρ 2 (0)h 2j ) ) g 1i ρ 1 (0)g 1i i,i b ii (t)g 1i ρ 1 (0)g 1i, which satisfies the above point (i), while eq.(2) implies tr 1 ρ 1 (t) = 1, t, which leads to i,i b ii (t)g 1i g 1i = I 1, that is to satisfied the condition (ii). As we show below, the matrix (b ii (t)) well-defined for the finite dimensional subsystems 1 and 2 is Hermitian and semidefinite positive. That is, the matrix (b ii (t)) has non-negative 6 (10)

7 (real) eigenvalues, b p, for every t. Then it can be diagonalized (in general, separately for every instant of time t): b ii = p b p u ip u i p (11) where (u ip ) is a unitary matrix. Placing eq.(11) into eq.(10) easily gives rise to a Kraus form for the subsystem 1: ρ 1 (t) = p K 1p (t)ρ 1 (0)K 1p (t), (12) with the subsystem s Kraus operators: K 1p (t) = i b p (t)u ip (t)g 1i, (13) which satisfy the completeness relation eq.(2), i.e. p K 1p (t)k 1p(t) = i,i b ii (t)g 1i g 1i = I 1, t, that is the condition (ii) for the subsystem s dynamics. Everything analogously for the subsystem 2. Therefore we answer the above question (Q): Bearing in mind Definition 1, we have proved that the subsystems dynamics is CP if and only if eq.(8) is satisfied for the open system C, which is subject of a CP dynamical map. Hence the algorithm for obtaining a Kraus form eq.(12) for the 1 subsystem from the compositesystem skrausformeq.(1): (i)calculatethecoefficientsc k ij (t) = tr(k k(t)g 1i h 2j ) from eq.(9); (ii) according to eq.(10) calculate the matrix entries b ii (t), see also eq.(16) below; (iii) diagonalize the matrix (b ii (t)); (iv) The Kraus operators directly follow from the substitution of the results into eq.(13). It cannot be overemphasized: due to (PT), thealgorithmbreaks for theinitial stateρ C (0) carrying correlations for the subsystems 1 and 2. To see how the procedure may break, let us assume a separable (non-entangled) initial state ρ C (0) = m p mσ 1m σ 2m ρ 1 ρ 2 ; m p m = 1, while the σ m s are of the unit trace, trσ m = 1, m. Substituting this initial state into eq.(1) with the use of eq.(9) readily gives, instead of eq.(10): ρ 1 (t) = m p m ( i,i b m ii (t)g 1iσ 1m g 1i ), (14) 7

8 where b m ii (t) = k,j,j c k ij (t)ck i j (t)tr 2(h 2j σ 2m h 2j ). Then diagonalization as in eq.(11) can be separately applied for every m in eq.(14) giving rise to ) ρ 1 (t) = m p m ( p K m 1p (t)σ 1mK m 1p (t). (15) It is possibly obvious that eq.(15) cannot be written in the form of eq.(12), which, in turn, is required for CP. To fulfill the Kraus form eq.(12), in eq.(15) should appear the qubit s initial state ρ 1 (0), which is now defined as ρ 1 (0) = tr 2 ρ C (0) = m p mσ 1m, with arbitrary values of p m s satisfying the unit-trace (i.e. the normalization) condition, m p m = 1. Now it is straightforward to generalize eq.(8) to subsystems of a three- or more-partite (finite-dimensional) open system C. In the full analogy with the proof of eq.(8), it readily follows, that the only initial state ρ C (0) allowing for CP for every subsystem s dynamics is tensor product, ρ C (0) = i ρ i (0). Accordingly, it also straightforwardly follows a generalization of the above described algorithm for obtaining the Kraus form of a subsystem s CP dynamics. Finally, weprovethatthematrix(b ii (t))ispositivesemidefinite forevery t. Fromeq.(10), b ii (t) = c k ij(t)c k i j (t)tr 2(h 2j ρ 2 (0)h 2j ) tr 2 D2i(t)ρ k 2 (0)D k 2i (t), (16) k,j,j where D k 2i (t) j ck ij (t)h 2j. For every instant of time t: it is obvious that b ii = b i i, which is the condition of Hermiticity of the matrix B = (b ii (t)), while the semidefinite positivity of the matrix B means k v Bv = vi b ii v i 0, t, (17) i,i for every vector v = (v i ). Placing eq.(16) into eq.(17) easily gives v Bv = tr 2 A 2k ρ 2 (0)A 2k = k ) tr 2 (A 2k ρ 2 (0)A 2k 0, (18) k where A 2k i v id k 2i, and the inequality follows from the obvious semidefinite positiveness tr 2 A 2k ρ 2 (0)A 2k 0 for every k and for every instant of time t. 8

9 IV. APPLICATION: A CASE STUDY As an illustration of the general results of Section III, we consider a two-qubit system in the weak interaction with a thermal environment of mutually non-interacting harmonic oscillators (or normal modes ). For completeness, we describe the physical background, but uninterested reader may skip to eq.(23). The total, isolated, system is described by the Hamiltonian [24]: H = H 1 +H 2 +H E1 +H 12 +H 1E1, (19) where the index stands for the subsystems self-hamiltonians and the rest are the interaction terms. Hence only the qubit 1 is monitored by its environment denoted E 1. While the self-hamiltonians are standard (see below), the qubits interaction is chosen [24]: H 12 = βs 1z S 2z, (20) where the 1/2-spin operators S pz = σ pz /2,p = 1,2 and we take = 1, while the interaction with the environment: H 1E1 = S 1x νmax 0 dνh(ν)(a ν +a ν ) S 1x B E1, (21) where appear the annihilation and creation operators satisfying the standard Bose-Einstein commutation [a ν,a ν ] = δ(ν ν ). The total system s self-hamiltonian [in the units of = 1] H = H 1 +H 2 +H 12 +H E1 = ω 2 σ 1z + ω 2 σ 2z + β 4 σ 1z σ 2z +H E1, (22) where the environmental self-hamiltonian: H E1 = ν max 0 dνa νa ν with the maximum cutoff frequency ν max. Initial state of the environment is assumed to be thermal, and the total system s initial state is tensor-product, ρ(0) = ρ C ρ E1 ; C = 1+2. The following set of the Hermitian Kraus operators for the pair of qubits is found in the interaction picture [24]: 9

10 1 e 32tγ ı 1 e 32tγ K 1 =,K 2 =, (23) ı ı 0 1 e 32tγ 1 1 e 32tγ 1 K 3 =,K =, (24) 2 ı K 5 = 1 e 16tγ ,K 6 = 1 e 16tγ 1. (25) The damping functions are given by expressions: γ 1 4πJ(ω +β/2) n(ω +β/2), γ 2 4πJ(ω β/2) n(ω β/2), (26) in the high-temperature limit. n(ν) is the average number of bosons in thermal state n(ν) = (e ν/t 1) 1 while J(ν) = ανe ν/νc stands for the standard Ohmic spectral density with the cutoff ν c. The last two Kraus matrices are diagonal and rather large. So we present their non-zero entries with the use of the following notation: τ = (γ 1 +γ 2 )t, W = (γ 1 γ 2 )/(γ 1 +γ 2 ). For K 7 : K 7 1,1 = K7 3,3 = A( 8e32τ + 2e 24τ sinh(16wτ) + 4e 32τ sinh(8wτ) + B); K 7 2,2 = K 7 4,4 = A( 8e32τ 2e 24τ sinh(16wτ) 4e 32τ sinh(8wτ)+b). For the K 8 matrix: K 8 1,1 = K 8 3,3 = A (8e 32τ 2e 24τ sinh(16wτ) 4e 32τ sinh(8wτ)+b); K 8 2,2 = K8 4,4 = A (8e 32τ +2e 24τ sinh(16wτ)+4e 32τ sinh(8wτ)+b). In K 7 and K 8 appear: 2e A = 16τ +2e 32τ cosh(16wτ)+4e 24τ cosh(8wτ) e 56τ B (27) 16(2e 16τ sinh(16wτ)+4e 24τ sinh(8wτ)) 2 +16e 16τ (B 8e 32τ ) 2 A 2e = 16τ +2e 32τ cosh(16wτ)+4e 24τ cosh(8wτ)+e 56τ B (28) 16(2e 16τ sinh(16wτ)+4e 24τ sinh(8wτ)) 2 +16e 16τ (B +8e 32τ ) 2 10

11 and B 2 = 2e 48τ (28e 16τ 1)+2e 48τ cosh(32wτ) 8e 56τ cosh(8wτ) +8e 64τ cosh(16wτ)+8e 280τ cosh(120wτ). (29) These Kraus operators, K i (t),i = 1,2,...,8, should be placed in eq.(1) for the pair of qubits modelled by eqs.(19)-(21). The Kraus operators in the Schrödinger picture are defined as exp( ıh C t)k i(t), where H C is the H term in eq.(21) with dropped the H E1 term. We are now ready to apply the algorithm of the previous section regarding the qubit 1; everything analogous for the qubit 2. According to Section III, we assume a tensor-product initial state ρ C (0) = ρ 1 (0) ρ 2 (0), without imposing any restrictions to the choices of ρ 1 (0) and ρ 2 (0). What follows is typical for the calculations of the sort: plenty of straightforward but lengthy algebraic calculations. Therefore we only provide the main steps of the calculation that can be patiently and straightforwardly reproduced. As an orthonormal basis of the operators g 1i h 2j with the orthonormalization rule tr(g 1i h 2j g 1i h 2j ) = (tr 1 (g 1i g 2i ))(tr 2 (h 2j h 2j )) = δ ii δ jj (see Section III) for the pair of qubits, we choose the standard, so-called Pauli basis, σ 1i σ 2j /2,i,j = 0,1,2,3, where for both qubits, σ = I and σ i,i = 1,2,3, are the standard Pauli matrices; the single-qubit basis, {σ i / 2,i = 0,1,2,3}. To reduce the number of independent parameters, due to equations (23)-(29), for the complex elements, we place K i qp = Ki pq, where Ki pq is the (pq)th (the pth row and the qth column) element of the K i Kraus matrix. For example, non-zero K 1 24 = K 1 42 = ı 1 exp( 32tγ 2 )/2, etc. Then the item (i) of the above algorithm easily leads to the following set of the non-zero c-parameters defined by eq.(9): c 1 20 = c1 23 = ık1 24 ;c2 10 = c 2 13 = K 2 24;c 3 10 = c 3 13 = K 3 13;c 4 20 = c 4 23 = ık 4 31;c 5 30 = c 5 33 = K 5 22;c 6 30 = c 6 33 = K 6 11;c 7 00 = K K7 22,c7 03 = K7 11 K7 22 ;c8 00 = K8 11 +K8 22,c8 03 = K8 11 K8 22. The item (ii) of the algorithm returns a diagonal matrix B, universally; this makes the item (iii) of the algorithm unnecessary. The entries of the matrix B, cf. eq.(16), of course depend on the initial state of the qubit 2, ρ 2 (0). Without loss of generality, we assume arbitrary initial pure state a a 2 (where σ 2z ± 2 = ± ± 2 and, for simplicity, a is real, 0 a 1), for which it follows: 11

12 b 0 b 00 = 2a K (1 a) K a K (1 a) K b 1 b 11 = 2(1 a) K a K b 2 b 22 = 2(1 a) K a K b 3 b 33 = 2(1 a) K a K (30) The use of eq.(13), i.e. the item (iv) of the algorithm, directly leads to the Hermitian subsystem s Kraus operators in the interaction picture: k = b 2 I, k b1 1 = 2 σ b2 x, k 2 = 2 σ b3 y, k 3 = 2 σ z. (31) Substituting the matrix elements of the Kraus operators eq.(23)-(29) into eq.(24), a lengthy but straightforward calculation gives rise to the explicit time dependence: b 0 = a 2 e 32γ 2t + a 2 e 32γ 1t +(1 a)e 16γ2t +ae 16γ 1t b 1 = b 2 = a 2 e 32tγ 2 a 2 e 32tγ 1 b 3 = 1 a 2 ( 1 e 16tγ 2 ) 2 + a 2 ( 1 e 16tγ 1 ) 2 (32) that gives the following state of the qubit 1 in the interaction picture: ρ 1 (t) = Φ 1 (t,0)ρ 1 (0) = b (t) 2 ρ 1(0)+ b 1(t) 2 σ xρ 1 (0)σ x + b 1(t) 2 σ yρ 1 (0)σ y + b 3(t) 2 σ zρ 1 (0)σ z. (33) Taking the trace of ρ 1 (t) gives the completeness condition eq.(2) satisfied: tr 1 ρ 1 (t) = i k i (t)k i (t) = 1 2 (b (t)+b 1 (t)+b 2 (t)+b 3 (t)) = 1 (34) for every instant of time t. Therefore, the qubit s dynamical map Φ 1 (t,0) is both of the Kraus form eq.(1) and trace preserving, as physically it should be. It is worth stressing that the Kraus form eq.(12) exists independently of the strength of the qubits mutual interaction. For different values of the interaction strength β, equations (20) and (26), the Kraus operators are different, but the fact of their existence is beyond question. Dependence of the Kraus operators on the initial state of the subsystem 2 is given 12

13 by eqs.(31) and (32) for arbitrary initially pure state ρ 2 (0), and analogously for the mixed states while bearing in mind the general formρ = (I+ σ n)/2 of a state of a single qubit [11]; for pure states, n = 1. The variations of the initial state (i.e. of the parameter a) give rise to variations of the contributions of the damping rates γ 1,2 in eq.(32) without alternating anything else in eq.(33). In passing, we note that the single-qubit dynamics presented by equations (32) and (33) is known to be Markovian [26]. Obtaining the Schrödinger-picture form of the Kraus operators eq.(30) is straightforward only for non-interacting qubits (when β = 0 in eq.(20)); then the Schrödinger picture operators read exp( ıth 1 )k i (t). In general, one should transform the total-system s Kraus operators into the Schrödinger picture, exp( ıh Ct)K i(t) (see above), and then apply the algorithm. V. DISCUSSION Section III directly concerns the finite-dimensional open systems. For the infinitedimensional ( continuous variable ) open systems, every step should be carefully checked if applicable. A special case of our considerations is provided by the condition c k ij = ak i bk j for eq.(9), which directly leads to the tensor product Kraus operators K k = K 1k K 2k, where K 1k = i ak ig 1i, and analogously for the subsystem 2. This requires the mutually non-interacting subsystems 1 and 2; in the context of Section IV, this is the case β = 0 in eqs.(14) and (20). Nevertheless, unless all the Kraus operators are already given in the tensor-product form, the procedure of Section III should be applied. An alternative route may be taken by investigating whether or not c k ij = ak i bk j Ref. [25] may be useful. for every k. To this end, the method developed in It is a corollary of the Pechucas theorem as well as of eq.(8): Initial correlations for a pair of subsystems imply non-cp dynamics for the correlated subsystems. As an illustration, let us consider a tripartite C = open system, whose dynamics is completely positive (in the sense of Section II). Let us assume the initial state of the form ρ C (0) = ρ 12 (0) ρ 3 (0), where ρ 12 (0) carries some correlations, i.e. is not ofthe tensor-product form. Then obviously ρ C (0) ρ 1 ρ 23 (0) as well as ρ C (0) ρ 2 (0) ρ 13 (0). Bearing in mind equation (8), the presence of the initial correlations makes the dynamics non-cp (and therefore non- 13

14 Markovian [4, 5]) for the subsystems 1, 2, 2+3 and 1+3. However, dynamics of both the bipartite system S = 1+2 as well as of the subsystem 3 are CP; this directly follows from ρ C (0) = ρ 12 (0) ρ 3 (0) ρ S (0) ρ 3 (0), which is of the form of eq.(8). Due to the Pechukas theorem, Section III, the presence of the initial correlations emphasizes the reduced domain of a dynamical map. It is not our intention to discuss the subtleties regarding the positivity domain of complete positivity of the dynamical maps [4-10]. Here, we just want to emphasize, that, if reduced to a special set of states σ 1m in eq.(14), equation (15) may in principle take the form of eq.(12) and hence exhibit the domain-dependent complete positivity. In order to illustrate this situation, let us assume that K1p m is the same for m = 1,2, i.e. K1 1p = K2 1p = K 1p, for every index p and every instant of time t. Then the right hand side of eq.(15) reduced to only m = 1,2 gives: ( 2 K 1p p m σ 1m )K 1p. (35) p m=1 Bearing in mind that reduction to only m = 1,2 gives for the 1 system s state σ 1 (0) = tr 2 ρ C (0) = 2 m=1 p mσ 1m, we can see that eq.(35) is of the Kraus form of eq.(1), i.e. that it gives completely positive dynamics for the 1 subsystem for the reduced state σ 1 (0), for arbitrary p m s that satisfy the normalization condition 2 m=1 p m = 1. This situation is in contrast with the condition (iii), which is our starting point in Section III and throughout this paper. VI. CONCLUSION We provide a technically simple and conceptually clear conditions for complete positivity of dynamics of subsystems, which constitute a composite system subjected to a completely positive dynamics. Application of the general results presented in this paper to a pair of mutually interacting qubits may be regarded typical and instrumental for the finitedimensional open composite systems. 14

15 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Work on this paper is financially supported by Ministry of Science Serbia, grant [1] J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Arsenijević, and M. Dugić, Quantum Structures. A View of the Quantum World (LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2013). [2] Quantum Structural Studies. Classical Emergence from the Quantum Level, eds. R. E. Kastner, J. Jeknić-Dugić, G. Jaroszkiewicz (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2017). [3] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002). [4] Á. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems. An Introduction (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012). [5] Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Quantum Non-Markovianity: Characterization, Quantification and Detection, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, (2014). [6] H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, (2016). [7] F. Buscemi, On complete positivity, Markovianity, and the quantum data-processing inequality, in the presence of initial system-environment correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, (2014). [8] J. M. Dominy, A. Shabani, and D. A. Lidar, A general framework for complete positivity, Quantum Inf. Process (2016). [9] X.-M. Lu, Structure of correlated initial states that guarantee completely positive reduced dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 93, (2016). [10] B. Vacchini and G. Amato, Reduced dynamical maps in the presence of initial correlations, Sci. Rep. 6, (2016). [11] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000). [12] W. P. Schleich, K. S. Ranade, C. Anton, Quantum technology: from research to application, Applied Physics B May 2016, (2016). 15

16 [13] R. Biele, C. A. Rodriguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, and T. Rubio, Controlling heat and particle currents in nanodevices by quantum observation, npj Quantum Materials 2, 38 (2017). [14] J. Sabbaghzadeh and A. Dalafi, The role of the density operator in the statistical description of quantum systems, Am. J. Phys. 75, (2007). [15] B. W. Lovett and A. Nazir, Aspects of quantum coherence in nanosystems, Eur. J. Phys. 30, S89-S100 (2009). [16] H. J. Korsch and K. Rapedius, Computations in quantum mechanics made easy, Eur. J. Phys. 37, (2016). [17] K. Kraus, States, effects and operations, fundamental notions of quantum theory (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 1983). [18] A. Shabani and D. A. Lidar, Vanishing Quantum Discord is Necessary and Sufficient for Completely Positive Maps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009). [19] A. Brodutch, A, Datta, K. Modi, Á. Rivas, and C. A. Rodriguez-Rosario, Vanishing quantum discord is not necessary for completely positive maps, Phys. Rev. A 87, (2013). [20] A. Shabani and D. A. Lidar, Erratum: Vanishing Quantum Discord is Necessary and Sufficient for Completely Positive Maps [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009)], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, (2016). [21] K. Kumar Sabapathy, J. Solomon Ivan, S. Ghosh, and R. Simon, Quantum discord plays no distinguished role in characterization of complete positivity: Robustness of the traditional scheme, arxiv preprint arxiv: (2013). [22] P. Pechukas, Reduced Dynamics Need Not Be Completely Positive Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, (1994). [23] T. F. Jordan, A. Shaji, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Dynamics of initially entangled open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 70, (2004). [24] M. Arsenijević, J. Jeknić-Dugić, and M. Dugić, Kraus operators for a pair of interacting qubits: a case study, arxiv preprint arxiv: [quant-ph]. [25] M. Dugić, On diagonalization of a composite-system observable. Separability Phys. Scripta 56, (1997). [26] E. Andersson, J. D. Cresser, and M. J. W. Hall, Finding the Kraus decomposition from a master equation and vice versa, J. Mod. Opt. 54, (2007). 16