arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 30 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 Funamental limits on quantum ynamics base on entropy change Sihartha Das 1, Sumeet Khatri 1, George Siopsis 3, an Mark M. Wile 1, arxiv: v [quant-ph] 30 Jan Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics an Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803, USA Center for Computation an Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803, USA 3 Department of Physics an Astronomy, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, , USA January 31, 018 Abstract It is well known in the realm of quantum mechanics an information theory that the entropy is non-ecreasing for the class of unital physical processes. However, in general, the entropy oes not exhibit monotonic behavior. This has restricte the use of entropy change in characterizing evolution processes. Recently, a lower boun on the entropy change was provie in the work of Buscemi, Das, an Wile [Phys. Rev. A 93(6), (016)]. We explore the limit that this boun places on the physical evolution of a quantum system an iscuss how these limits can be use as witnesses to characterize quantum ynamics. In particular, we erive a lower limit on the rate of entropy change for memoryless quantum ynamics, an we argue that it provies a witness of non-unitality. This limit on the rate of entropy change leas to efinitions of several witnesses for testing memory effects in quantum ynamics. Furthermore, from the aforementione lower boun on entropy change, we obtain a measure of non-unitarity for unital evolutions. 1 Introuction Entropy is a funamental quantity that is of wie interest in physics an information theory [vn3, Sha48,DGM6,Bek73]. Many natural phenomena are escribe accoring to laws base on entropy, like the secon law of thermoynamics [Car4, Men60, Att1], entropic uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics an information theory [Hir57, Bec75, BBM75, MU88, CBTW17], an area laws in black holes an conense matter physics [BCH73, BKLS86, Sre93, ECP10]. No quantum system can be perfectly isolate from its environment. The interaction of a system with its environment generates correlations between the system an the environment. In realistic situations, instea of isolate systems, we must eal with open quantum systems, that is, systems whose environment is not uner the control of the observer. The interaction between the system an the environment can cause a loss of information as a result of ecoherence, issipation, or ecay phenomena [Car09, RH11, Wei1]. The rate of entropy change quantifies the flow of information between the system an its environment. sas1@lsu.eu skhatr5@lsu.eu 1

2 In this work, we focus on the von Neumann entropy, which is efine for a system in the state ρ as S(ρ) := Tr{ρ log ρ}, an from here onwars we refer to it as the entropy. The entropy is non-ecreasing uner oubly-stochastic, also calle unital, physical evolutions [AU78, AU8]. This has restricte the use of entropy change in the characterization of quantum ynamics only to unital ynamics [Str85, BP0, CK1, BVMG15, MHFW16]. Recently, Ref. [BDW16] gave a lower boun on the entropy change for any positive trace-preserving map. Lower bouns on the entropy change have also been iscusse in Refs. [Str85, MHFW16, AW17, izhhh01] for certain classes of time evolution. Natural questions that arise are as follows: what are the limits place by the boun 1 on the entropy change on the ynamics of a system, an can it be use to characterize evolution processes? We elve into these questions, at first, by inspecting another pertinent question: at what rate oes the entropy of a quantum system change? Although the answer is known for Markovian oneparameter semigroup ynamics of a finite-imensional system with full-rank states [Spo78], the answer in full generality has not yet been given. In Ref. [KS14], the result of Ref. [Spo78] was extene to infinite-imensional systems with full-rank states unergoing Markovian one-parameter semigroup ynamics (cf., Ref. [DPR17]). We now prove that the formula erive in Ref. [Spo78] hols not only for finite-imensional quantum systems unergoing Markovian one-parameter semigroup ynamics, but also for arbitrary ynamics of both finite- an infinite-imensional systems with states of arbitrary rank. We then erive a lower boun on the rate of entropy change for any memoryless quantum evolution, also calle a quantum Markov process. This lower boun is a witness of non-unitality in quantum Markov processes. Interestingly, this lower boun also helps us to erive witnesses for the presence of memory effects, i.e., non-markovianity, in quantum ynamics. We compare one of our witnesses to the well-known Breuer-Laine-Piilo (BLP) measure [BLP09] of non-markovianity for two common examples. As it turns out, in one of the examples, our witness etects non-markovianity even when the BLP measure oes not, while for the other example our measure agrees with the BLP measure. We also provie bouns on the entropy change of a system. These bouns are witnesses of how non-unitary an evolution process is. We use one of these witnesses to propose a measure of non-unitarity for unital evolutions an iscuss some of its properties. The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section, we introuce stanar efinitions an facts that are use throughout the paper. In Section 3, we iscuss the explicit form (Theorem 1) for the rate of entropy change of a system in any state unergoing arbitrary time evolution. In Section 4, we provie a brief overview of quantum Markov processes. We state Theorem, which provies a lower limit on the rate of entropy change for quantum Markov processes. We show that this lower limit provies a witness of non-unitality. We also iscuss the implications of the lower limit on the rate of entropy change in the context of bosonic Gaussian ynamics (Section 4.1). In Section 5, base on the necessary conitions for the Markovianity of quantum processes as state in Theorem, we efine some witnesses of non-markovianity an also a couple of measures of non-markovianity base on these witnesses. We apply these witnesses to two common examples of non-markovian ynamics (Section an Section 5.1.) an illustrate that they can etect non-markovianity. In Section 5.1., we consier an example of a non-unital quantum non-markov process whose non-markovianity goes unetecte by the BLP measure while it is etecte by our witness. In Section 6, we erive an upper boun on entropy change for unital evolutions. We 1 Specifically, we consier the boun in Ref. [BDW16, Theorem 1] as it hols for arbitrary evolution for both finitean infinite-imensional systems.

3 also show the monotonic behavior of the entropy for a wier class of operations than previously known. In Section 7, we provie a measure of non-unitarity for any unital evolution base on the bouns on the entropy change obtaine in Section 6. We also iscuss properties of our measure of non-unitarity. We give concluing remarks in Section 8. Preliminaries We begin by summarizing some of the stanar notations, efinitions, an lemmas that are use in Secs Let B(H) enote the algebra of boune linear operators acting on a Hilbert space H, with 1 H enoting the ientity operator. Let im(h) enote the imension of H, an note that this is equal to + in the case that H is a separable, infinite-imensional Hilbert space. If the trace Tr{A} of A B(H) is finite, then we call A trace-class. The subset of B(H) containing all trace-class operators is enote by B 1 (H). The subset containing all positive semi-efinite operators is enote by B + (H). We write P 0 to inicate that P B + (H). Let B 1 + (H) := B +(H) B 1 (H). Elements of B 1 + (H) with unit trace are calle ensity operators, an the set of all ensity operators is enote by D(H). The Hilbert space associate with a quantum system A is enote by H A. The state of a quantum system A is represente by a ensity operator ρ A D(H A ). We let H AB := H A H B enote the Hilbert space of a composite system AB. The ensity operator of a composite system AB is enote by ρ AB D(H AB ), an the partial trace Tr A over the system A gives the local ensity operator ρ B of system B, i.e., ρ B = Tr A {ρ AB }. A pure state ψ A := ψ ψ A is a rank-one element in D(H A ). Let N A B : B(H A ) B(H B ) enote a linear map (also calle superoperator) that maps elements in B(H A ) to elements in B(H B ). It is calle positive if it maps elements of B + (H A ) to elements of B + (H B ) an completely positive if i R N A B is positive for a Hilbert space H R of any imension, where i is the ientity superoperator. A positive map N A B : B 1 + (H A) B 1 + (H B) is calle trace non-increasing if Tr{N A B (σ A )} Tr{σ A } for all σ A B 1 + (H A), an it is calle trace-preserving if Tr{N A B (σ A )} = Tr{σ A } for all σ A B 1 + (H A). Where confusion oes not arise, we omit ientity operators in expressions involving multiple tensor factors, so that, for example, N A B (ρ RA ) is unerstoo to mean i R N A B (ρ RA ). A linear map N A B : B(H A ) B(H B ) is calle sub-unital if N A B (1 A ) 1 B, unital if N A B (1 A ) = 1 B an super-unital if N A B (1 A ) 1 B, where for C, D B(H), C D is efine to mean C D 0. Note that it is possible for a linear map to be neither unital, sub-unital, nor super-unital. A positive trace-preserving map can be sub-unital only if the imension of the output Hilbert space is greater than or equal to the imension of the input Hilbert space. A positive tracepreserving map can be super-unital only if the imension of the output Hilbert space is less than or equal to the imension of the input Hilbert space. Positive trace-preserving maps between two finite-imensional Hilbert spaces of the same imension that are both sub-unital an super-unital are unital. The evolution of a quantum state is escribe by a quantum channel, which by efinition is a linear, completely positive, an trace-preserving (CPTP) map. A quantum operation is efine to be a linear, completely positive, an trace non-increasing map. An isometry U : H H is a linear map such that U U = 1 H. The ajoint N : B(H B ) B(H A ) of a linear map N : B 1 (H A ) B 1 (H B ) is the unique linear 3

4 map that satisfies X A B 1 (H A ), Y B B(H B ) : Y B, N (X A ) = N (Y B ), X A, (.1) where C, D = Tr{C D} is the Hilbert-Schmit inner prouct. The ajoint of a trace-preserving map is unital, the ajoint of a trace-non-increasing map is sub-unital, an the ajoint of a tracenon-ecreasing map is super-unital. Let A be a self-ajoint operator acting on a Hilbert space H. The support supp(a) of A is the span of the eigenvectors of A corresponing to its non-zero eigenvalues, an the kernel of A is the span of the eigenvectors of A corresponing to its zero eigenvalues. There exists a spectral ecomposition of A: A = λ k k k, (.) k where {λ k } k are the eigenvalues corresponing to an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors { k } k of A. The projection Π(A) onto supp(a) is then Π(A) = k k. (.3) k:λ k 0 Let rank(a) enote the rank of A. If A is positive efinite, i.e., A > 0, then rank(a) = im(h), Π(A) = 1 H, an we say that the rank of A is full. If f is a real-value function with omain Dom(f), then f(a) is efine as f(a) = f(λ k ) k k. (.4) k:λ k Dom(f) The von Neumann entropy of a state ρ A of a quantum system A is efine as S(A) ρ := S(ρ A ) = Tr{ρ A log ρ A }, (.5) where log enotes the natural logarithm. In general, the state of an infinite-imensional quantum system nee not have finite entropy [BV13]. For any finite-imensional system A, the entropy is upper-boune by log im(h A ). The quantum relative entropy of any two operators ρ, σ B 1 + (H) is efine as [Ume6, Fal70, Lin73] D(ρ σ) = ( )] φ i ψ j [p(i) p(i) log, (.6) q(j) i,j where ρ = i p(i) φ i φ i an σ = j q(j) ψ j ψ j are spectral ecompositions of ρ an σ, respectively, with { φ i } i an { ψ j } j orthonormal bases for H. From the above efinition, it is clear that D(ρ σ) = + if supp(ρ) supp(σ). Another common way to write the relative entropy is as follows: { Tr{ρ(log ρ log σ)} if supp(ρ) supp(σ), D(ρ σ) = (.7) + otherwise when ρ(log ρ log σ) B 1 (H), where the trace is unerstoo to be with respect to the orthonormal basis { φ i } i. In general, the formula (.7) has to be evaluate using (.6). For any two positive semi-efinite operators ρ an σ, D(ρ σ) 0 if Tr{ρ} Tr{σ}, D(ρ σ) = 0 if an only if ρ = σ, 4

5 an D(ρ σ) < 0 if ρ < σ. The quantum relative entropy is non-increasing uner the action of positive trace-preserving maps [MHR17], that is, D(ρ σ) D(N (ρ) N (σ)) for any two ensity operators ρ an σ an positive trace-preserving map N. The Schatten p-norm of an operator A B(H) is efine as A p (Tr { A p }) 1 p, (.8) where A A A an p [1, ). If {σ i (A)} i are the singular values of A, then [ ] 1 p A p = σ i (A) p. (.9) i A := lim p A p is the largest singular value of A. Let B p (H) be the subset of B(H) consisting of operators with finite Schatten p-norm. Lemma 1 (Höler s inequality [Rog88, H 89, Bha97]) For all A B p (H), B B q (H), an p, q [1, ) such that 1 p + 1 q = 1, it hols that { A, B = Tr A B} A p B q. (.10) The following important lemma can be foun in Ref. [Wol1, Corollary 5.]. Lemma Let N : B + (H A ) B + (H B ) be a linear, positive, an sub-unital map. Then, for all σ A B + (H A ) it hols that N A B (log(σ A )) log(n A B (σ A )). (.11) We now efine entropy change, which is the main focus of our work. Definition 3 (Entropy change) Let N : B + 1 (H) B+ 1 (H ) be a positive trace-non-increasing map. The entropy change S(ρ, N ) of a system in the state ρ D(H) uner the action of N is efine as S(ρ, N ) := S (N (ρ)) S (ρ) (.1) whenever S(ρ) an S(N (ρ)) are finite. It shoul be note that N (ρ) is a sub-normalize state, i.e., Tr{N (ρ)} 1, if N is a positive trace-non-increasing map. It is well known that the entropy change S(ρ, N ) of ρ is non-negative, i.e., the entropy is nonecreasing, uner the action of a positive, sub-unital, an trace-preserving map N [AU78, AU8] (see also Refs. [BDW16, Section III] an [Nie0, Theorem 4..]). Recently, a refine statement of this result was mae in Ref. [BDW16], which is the following: Lemma 4 (Lower boun on entropy change) Let N : B 1 + (H) B+ 1 (H ) be a positive, tracepreserving map. Then, for all ρ D(H), ( ) S(ρ, N ) D ρ N N (ρ). (.13) Lemma 4 gives a tight lower boun on the entropy change. As an example of a map saturating the inequality (.13), take the partial trace N AB B = Tr A, which is a quantum channel that correspons to iscaring system A from the composite system AB. Its ajoint is N (ρ B ) = 1 A ρ B. Then, we have S (N (ρ AB )) S (ρ AB ) = S(ρ B ) S(ρ AB ) = D (ρ AB 1 A ρ B ) = D ( ρ AB N N (ρ AB ) ). 5

6 3 Quantum ynamics an the rate of entropy change In general, physical systems are ynamical an unergo evolution processes with time. An evolution process for an isolate an close system is unitary. However, no quantum system can remain isolate from its environment. There is always an interaction between a system an its environment. The joint evolution of the system an environment is consiere to be a unitary operation whereas the local evolution of the system alone can be non-unitary. This non-unitarity causes a flow of information between the system an the environment, which can change the entropy of the system. For any ynamical system with associate Hilbert space H, the state of the system epens on time. The time evolution of the state ρ t of the system at an instant t is etermine by ρt t when it is well efine. The state ρ T at some later time t = T is etermine by the initial state ρ 0, the evolution process, an the time uration of the evolution. Since the time evolution is a physical process, the following conition hols for all t: Tr { ρ t } = 0, (3.1) where ρ t := ρt t. It is known from Refs. [Spo78,Ber09] that for any finite-imensional system the following formula for the rate of entropy change hols for any state ρ t whose kernel remains the same at all times an whose support Π t is ifferentiable: t S(ρ t) = Tr { ρ t log ρ t }. (3.) The above formula has also been applie to infinite-imensional systems for Gaussian states evolving uner a quantum iffusion semigroup [DPR17, KS14] whose kernels o not change in time. Here, we erive the formula (3.) for states ρ t having fewer restrictions, which generalizes the statements from Refs. [Spo78, Ber09]. In particular, we show that the formula (3.) can be applie to quantum ynamical processes in which the kernel of the state changes with time, which can happen because the state has time-epenent support. Theorem 1 For any quantum ynamical process with im(h) < +, the rate of entropy change is given by t S(ρ t) = Tr { ρ t log ρ t }, (3.3) whenever ρ t is well efine. The above formula also hols when im(h) = + given that ρ t log ρ t is trace-class an the sum of the time erivative of the eigenvalues of ρ t is uniformly convergent 3 on some neighborhoo of t, however small. Proof. Let Spec(ρ t ) be the set of all eigenvalues of ρ t D(H), incluing those in its kernel. Let ρ t = λ(t)p λ (t) (3.4) λ(t) Spec(ρ t) be a spectral ecomposition of ρ t, where the sum of the projections P λ (t) corresponing to λ(t) is P λ (t) = 1 H. (3.5) λ(t) Spec(ρ t) By this, we mean that each matrix element of ρ t is ifferentiable with respect to t. 3 We efine uniform convergence as state in Ref. [Ru76, Definition 7.7]. 6

7 The following assumptions suffice to arrive at the statement of the theorem when im(h) = +. We assume that ρ t is well efine. We further assume that λ(t) Spec(ρ t) λ(t) is uniformly convergent on some neighborhoo of t, an ρ t log ρ t is trace-class. We note that when im(h) < +, λ(t) Spec(ρ t) λ(t) an ρ t log ρ t are always uniformly convergent an trace-class, respectively. Now, we efine the function s : [0, ) ( 1, ) (0, ) by s(t, h) := Tr{ρ 1+h t } = λ(t) Spec(ρ t) Noting that x ax = a x log a for all a > 0 an x R, we have that Applying (A.3) in Appenix A, we fin that λ(t) 1+h. (3.6) h ρh+1 t = ρ h+1 t log ρ t. (3.7) t s(t, h) = t Tr{ρh+1 t } = (h + 1) Tr{ρ h t ρ t }, (3.8) s(t, h) = h h Tr{ρh+1 t } = Tr{ρ h+1 t log ρ t }. (3.9) Then the entropy is S(ρ t ) = s(t, h) h = Tr{ρ t log ρ t } = h=0 λ(t) Spec(ρ t) λ(t) log λ(t), (3.10) where by efinition 0 log 0 = 0. We note that ρ h t is an infinitely ifferentiable, i.e., a smooth function of h, an a ifferentiable function of t for all t, h. Note that the trace is also a continuous function. Since h ts(t, h) exists an is continuous for all (t, h) [0, ) ( 1, ), the following exchange of erivatives hols for all (t, h) (0, ) ( 1, ): [ ] s(t, h) = [ ] s(t, h). (3.11) h t t h This implies that [ h)] h t h=0 s(t, = [ ] s(t, h) t h h=0 (3.1) From (3.8), we see that ts(t, h) is a smooth function of h. Therefore, the Taylor series expansion of this function in the neighborhoo of h = 0 is [ From (3.6), we fin: s(t, h) t = h=0 t t s(t, h) = t λ(t) Spec(ρ t) s(t, h) + h=0 h λ(t) 1+h = h=0 7 h)] t h=0 s(t, h + O(h ). (3.13) λ(t) Spec(ρ t) [ λ(t) 1+h] h=0 (3.14) t

8 = λ(t) Spec(ρ t) = λ(t) 0 [(1 + h)λ(t) h λ(t) ] h=0 (3.15) λ(t). (3.16) The secon equality follows from Ref. [Ru76, Theorem 7.17] ue to the uniform convergence of λ(t) Spec(ρ t) λ(t) on some neighborhoo of t. To obtain the last equality, we use the following fact: since λ(t) 0 for all t an λ(t) is ifferentiable, if λ(t ) = 0 for some time t = t (0, ), then λ(t ) = 0. From (3.8) an (3.16), we obtain Tr{Π t ρ t } = λ(t) 0 λ(t) = t λ(t) 0 λ(t) = t Tr{ρ t} = 0, (3.17) where Π t is the projection onto the support of ρ t. The secon equality hols because λ(t ) = 0 whenever λ(t ) = 0 for all λ(t ) Spec(ρ t ) an all t (0, ). Employing (A.4), we fin: h [ s(t, h) t ] = [ ] (h + 1) Tr{ρ h t ρ t } h ] = Tr{ρ h t ρ t } + (h + 1) Tr {[ρ h t log ρ t (3.18) } ρ t. (3.19) Therefore, t S(ρ t) = [ ] s(t, h) t h (3.0) h=0 = [ h)] h t h=0 s(t, (3.1) = Tr{Π t ρ t } + Tr { ρ t Π t log ρ t } (3.) = Tr{ ρ t log ρ t }, (3.3) where to obtain the last equality we use (3.17) an the fact that log ρ t is efine on supp(ρ t ). This conclues the proof. As an immeiate application of Theorem 1, consier a close system consisting of a system of interest A an a bath (environment) system E in a pure state ψ AE, for which the time evolution is given by a unitary U AE. Uner unitary evolution, the entropy of the composite system AE oes not change. Also, for a pure state, the entropy of the composite system is zero, an S(ρ A ) = S(ρ E ), where ρ A an ρ E are the reuce states of the systems A an E, respectively. Now, it is often of interest to etermine the amount of entanglement in the reuce state ρ A of the system A. Several measures of entanglement have been propose [PV10], among which the entanglement of formation [BDSW96, Woo01], the istillable entanglement [BDSW96, BBP + 96], an the relative entropy of entanglement [VP98, VPRK97] all reuce to the entropy S(ρ A ) of the system A in the case of a close bipartite system [ON0]. Thus, in this case, the rate of entropy change of the system A is equal to the rate of entanglement change (with respect to the aforementione entanglement measures) cause by unitary time evolution of the pure state of the composite system, an Theorem 1 provies a general expression for this rate of entanglement change. 8

9 In Appenix B, we iscuss how (3.3) generalizes the evelopment in Refs. [Spo78, Ber09]. We consier examples of ynamical processes in which the support an/or the rank of the state change with time, but the formula (3.3) is still applicable accoring to the above theorem. 4 Quantum Markov processes The ynamics of an open quantum system can be categorize into two broa classes, quantum Markov processes an quantum non-markov processes, base on whether the evolution process exhibits memoryless behavior or has memory effects. Here, we consier the ynamics of an open quantum system in the time interval I = [t 1, t ) R for t 1 < t. We assume that the state ρ t D(H) of the system at time t I satisfies the following ifferential master equation: ρ t = L t (ρ t ) t I, (4.1) where L t is calle the generator [Kos7], or Liouvillian, of the ynamics an can in general be time-epenent [AL07]. A state ρ eq is calle a fixe point, or invariant state of the ynamics, if ρ eq = 0, or, L t (ρ eq ) = 0 t I. (4.) In general, the evolution of systems governe by the master equation (4.1) is given by the two-parameter family {M t,s } t,s I of maps M t,s : B(H) B(H) efine by [RH11] [ t ] M t,s = T exp L τ τ s s, t I, s t, M t,t = i t I, (4.3) where T is the time-orering operator, so that the state ρ t of the system at time t is obtaine from the state of the system at time s t as ρ t = M t,s (ρ s ). The maps {M t,s } t s satisfy the following composition law: an in terms of these maps the generator L t is given by s r t : M t,s = M t,r M r,s, (4.4) t I : M t,t = i, (4.5) M t+ε,t i L t = lim. (4.6) ε 0 + ε For the maps {M t,s } t s to represent physical evolution, they must be trace-preserving. This implies that for all ρ D(H) the generator L t has to satisfy Tr [L t (ρ)] = 0 t I. (4.7) When the intermeiate maps M t,r an M r,s are positive an trace-preserving for all s r t, the conition (4.4) is calle P-ivisibility. If the intermeiate maps M t,r an M r,s are CPTP (i.e., quantum channels) for all s r t, the conition (4.4) is calle CP-ivisibility [WC08, ARHP14]. Base on the notion of CP-ivisibility, we have the following efinition of a quantum Markov process. 9

10 Definition 5 (Quantum Markov process [RHP10]) The ynamics of a system in a time interval I are calle a quantum Markov process when they are governe by (4.1) an they are CPivisible (i.e., the intermeiate maps in (4.4) are CPTP). An important fact is that the ynamics governe by the master equation (4.1) are CP-ivisible (hence Markovian) if an only if the generator L t of the ynamics has the Linbla form L t (ρ) = ι[h(t), ρ] + [ γ i (t) A i (t)ρa i (t) 1 { A i (t)a i(t), ρ} ], (4.8) i with H(t) a self-ajoint operator an γ i (t) 0 for all i an for all t I. The operators A i (t) are calle Linbla operators. In the time-inepenent case, this result was inepenently obtaine by Gorini et al. [GKS76] for finite-imensional systems an by Linbla [Lin76] for infinite-imensional systems. For a proof of this result in the time-epenent scenario, see Refs. [RH11, CK1]. In finite imensions, necessary an sufficient conitions for L t to be written in Linbla form have been given in Ref. [WECC08]. It shoul be note that in general, for some physical processes, γ i (t) can be temporarily negative for some i an the overall evolution still CPTP [LPB10, HCLA14]. Given the generator L t of the ynamics (4.1) an the corresponing positive trace-preserving maps {M s,t } s,t I, it hols that the ajoint maps {M s,t } s,t I are positive an unital. Furthermore, the ajoint maps {M s,t } s,t I are generate by L t, where L t is the ajoint of L t. The Linbla form (4.8) of the generator L t is L t (X) = ι[h(t), X] + i ( γ i (t) A i (t)xa i(t) 1 { X, A i i(t)} ) (t)a. (4.9) Now, let us consier the rate of entropy change t S(ρ t) of a system in state ρ t at time t evolving uner ynamics with Liouvillian L t. Theorem 1 implies the following equality: t S(ρ t) = Tr {L t (ρ t ) log ρ t } t I. (4.10) We now erive a limitation on the rate of entropy change of quantum Markov processes using the lower boun in Lemma 4 on entropy change. Theorem (Lower limit on the rate of entropy change) The rate of entropy change of any quantum Markov process (Definition 5) is lower boune as t S(ρ { )} { } t) lim ε 0 + ε Tr Π t ((M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) = Tr Π t L t (ρ t), (4.11) where Π t is the projection onto the support of the state ρ t of a system. In general, (4.11) also hols for ynamics that obey (4.1) an are P-ivisible. Proof. First, since the system is governe by (4.1), we have that ρ t+ε = M t+ε,t (ρ t ) for any ε > 0. Also, since M t+ε,t is CPTP (hence positive an trace-preserving), we can use Lemma 4 to get that ( ) (Mt+ε,t S(M t+ε,t (ρ t )) S(ρ t ) D ρ t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) (4.1) 10

11 Therefore, by efinition of the erivative, we obtain t S(ρ S(ρ t+ε ) S(ρ t ) t) = lim ε 0 + ε 1 ( lim ε 0 + ε D S(ρ t ) Tr = lim ε 0 + { = lim ε 0 + ε Tr = lim ε 0 + Tr ) (Mt+ε,t ρ t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) { ρ t log ρ t [ ρ t log ( log [ (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) ε ]} (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) [ ]) (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) ε ]} (4.13) (4.14) (4.15) (4.16) (4.17) { } = lim ε 0 + ε Tr Π t (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ), (4.18) where we use the efinition of the erivative to get (4.16) from (4.15). From Appenix A, an noting that lim ε 0 (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) = ρ t, we arrive at (4.18). Then, using the efinition of the ajoint an the master equation (4.1), we get lim ε 0 + { ε Tr Π t (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) = lim ε 0 + = lim ε 0 + Tr = lim ε 0 + Tr } ε Tr {M t+ε,t(π t )M t+ε,t (ρ t )} (4.19) { } ε (M t+ε,t(π t )M t+ε,t (ρ t )) (4.0) {( ) ( )} ε M t+ε,t(π t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) + M t+ε,t (Π t ) ε M t+ε,t(ρ t ). Employing (4.6) an the fact that M t,t = i for all t I, we get Therefore, (4.1) M t+ε,t i L t = lim = lim ε 0 + ε ε 0 + ε M t+ε,t. (4.) { } lim ε 0 + ε Tr Π t (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) = Tr {L t (Π t )ρ t + Π t L t (ρ t )} (4.3) { } = Tr Π t L t (ρ t), (4.4) where we use the fact (3.17) that Tr{Π t L t (ρ t )} = Tr {Π t ρ t } = 0. Quantum ynamics obeying (4.1) are unital in a time interval I if L t (1) = 0 for all t I, which implies that Tr{Π t L t (ρ t)} = 0 for any initial state ρ 0 an for all t I. The eviation of Tr{Π t L t (ρ t)} from zero is therefore a witness of non-unitality at time t. One can fin the maximum eviation of Tr{Π t L t (ρ t)} away from zero by maximizing over all possible initial states an over states at any time t I to obtain a measure of non-unitality. 11

12 Remark 3 When ρ t > 0, the rate of entropy change of any quantum Markov process is lower boune as t S(ρ { } { } t) lim ε 0 ε Tr (M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) = Tr L t (ρ t). (4.5) Given a quantum Markov process an a state escribe by a ensity operator ρ t > 0 that is not a fixe (invariant) state of the ynamics, we can make the following statements for t I an for all ε > 0 such that [t, t + ε) I: (i) If M t+ε,t is strictly sub-unital, i.e., M t+ε,t (1) < 1, then its ajoint is trace non-increasing, which means that Tr{L t (ρ t)} < 0. This implies that the rate of entropy change is strictly positive for strictly sub-unital Markovian ynamics. (ii) If M t+ε,t is unital, i.e., M t+ε,t (1) = 1, then its ajoint is trace-preserving, which means that Tr{L t (ρ t)} = 0. This implies that the rate of entropy change is non-negative for unital Markovian ynamics. (iii) If M t+ε,t is strictly super-unital, i.e., M t+ε,ε (1) > 1, then its ajoint is trace-increasing, which means that Tr{L t (ρ t)} > 0. This implies that it is possible for the rate of entropy change to be negative for strictly super-unital Markovian ynamics. Using the Linbla form of L t in (4.9), we fin that Tr{L t (ρ t)} = ] γ i (t) [A i (t), A i (t) (4.6) ρ t i where A ρ = Tr{Aρ}. Using this expression, the lower boun on the rate of entropy change for quantum Markov processes when the state ρ t > 0 is t S(ρ t) i [ ] γ i (t) A i (t), A i(t). (4.7) ρ t The inequality (4.7) was first erive in Ref. [BN88] an recently iscusse in Ref. [OCA17]. When the generator L t L is time-inepenent an I = [0, ), it hols that the time evolution from time s I to time t I is etermine merely by the time ifference t s, that is, M t,s = M t s,0 for all t s. The evolution of the system is then etermine by a one-parameter semi-group. We let M t := M t,0 for all t 0. Remark 4 If the ynamics of a system are unital an can be represente by a one-parameter semigroup {M t } t 0 of quantum channels such that the generator L is self-ajoint, then for ρ 0 > 0, Tr{ρ 0 log ρ t } S(ρ t ) Tr{ρ t log ρ 0 }. (4.8) This follows from Lemma, (.1), an the fact that M t = M t. In particular, S(ρ t ) = S(M t (ρ 0 )) = Tr{M t (ρ 0 ) log M t (ρ 0 )} Tr{M t (ρ 0 )M t (log ρ 0 )} (4.9) = Tr{M t M t(ρ 0 ) log ρ 0 } (4.30) = Tr{ρ t log ρ 0 }. (4.31) 1

13 Similarly, S(ρ t ) = S(M t (ρ 0 )) = Tr{M t (ρ 0 ) log M t (ρ 0 )} = Tr{ρ 0 M t (log M t(ρ 0 ))} (4.3) Tr{ρ 0 log(m t M t(ρ 0 ))} (4.33) = Tr{ρ 0 log ρ t }. (4.34) Remark 5 If the ynamics of a system are unital an can be represente by a one-parameter semigroup {M t } t 0 of quantum channels such that the generator L is self-ajoint, then the entropy change is lower boune as S(ρ t ) S(ρ 0 ) D(ρ 0 ρ t ). (4.35) This follows using Lemma 4. Uner certain assumptions, when the ynamics of a system are escribe by Davies maps [Dav74], the same lower boun (4.35) hols for the entropy change [AW17]. From the above remark, we see that the entropy change in a time interval [0, t] is lower boune by the relative entropy between the initial state ρ 0 an the evolve state ρ t after time t. In the context of information theory, the relative entropy has an operational meaning as the optimal type- II error exponent (in the asymptotic limit) in asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing [HP91,ON00]. The entropy change in the time interval [0, t] is thus an upper boun on the optimal type-ii error exponent, where ρ 0 is the null hypothesis an ρ t is the alternate hypothesis. 4.1 Bosonic Gaussian ynamics Let us consier Gaussian ynamics that can be represente by the one-parameter family {G t } t 0 of phase-insensitive bosonic Gaussian channels G t (cf. Ref. [HHW10]). It is known that all phaseinsensitive gauge-covariant single-moe bosonic Gaussian channels form a one-parameter semigroup [GHLM10]. The Liouvillian for such Gaussian ynamics is time-inepenent an has the following form: L = γ + L + + γ L, (4.36) where L + (ρ) = â ρâ 1 { } ââ, ρ, (4.37) L (ρ) = âρâ 1 { } â â, ρ, (4.38) â is the fiel-moe annihilation operator of the system, an the following commutation relation hols for bosonic systems: [ â, â ] = 1. (4.39) The state ρ t of the system at time t is ρ t = G t (ρ 0 ) = e tl (ρ 0 ). (4.40) The thermal state ρ th (N) with mean photon number N is efine as ρ th (N) := 1 N + 1 n=0 13 ( ) N n n n, (4.41) N + 1

14 where N 0 an { n } n 0 is the orthonormal, photonic number-state basis. Using (4.6), we have: [ Tr{L (ρ t )} = γ + [â, â γ â, â ] ρt ] (4.4) ρ t Therefore, by Remark 3, we fin that if ρ t > 0, then = γ + γ. (4.43) S(G t (ρ 0 )) t γ + γ. (4.44) The lower boun γ + γ is a witness of non-unitality. It is positive for strictly sub-unital, zero for unital, an negative for strictly super-unital ynamics. For example, when the ynamics are represente by a family {A t } t 0 of noisy amplifier channels A t with thermal noise ρ th (N), we have γ + = N + 1 an γ = N, which implies that the ynamics are strictly sub-unital. When the ynamics are represente by a family {B t } t 0 of lossy channels B t (i.e., beamsplitters) with thermal noise ρ th (N), we have γ + = N, γ = N + 1, which implies that the ynamics are strictly super-unital. When the ynamics are represente by a family {C t } t 0 of aitive Gaussian noise channels C t, we have γ + = γ, which implies that the ynamics are unital. 5 Quantum non-markov processes Dynamics of a quantum system that are not a quantum Markov process as state in Definition 5 are calle a quantum non-markov process. Among these two classes of quantum ynamics, non- Markov processes are not well unerstoo an have attracte increase focus over the past ecae. Some examples of applications of quantum Markov processes are in the fiels of quantum optics, semiconuctors in conense matter physics, the quantum mechanical escription of Brownian motion, whereas some examples where quantum non-markov processes have been applie are in the stuy of a ampe harmonic oscillator, or a ampe riven two-level atom [Car09,Wei1,RH11]. There can be several tests erive from the properties of quantum Markov processes, the satisfaction of which gives witnesses of non-markovianity. Base on Theorem, we mention here a few tests that will always fail for a quantum Markov process. Passing of these tests guarantees that the ynamics are non-markovian. An immeiate consequence of Theorem is that only a quantum non-markov process can pass any of the following tests: (a) (b) (c) t S(ρ { )} t) + lim ε 0 + ε Tr Π t ((M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) < 0. (5.1) lim ε 0 + { } t S(ρ t) + Tr Π t L t (ρ t) < 0. (5.) { )} { } ε Tr Π t ((M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ) Tr Π t L t (ρ t). (5.3) 14

15 If the ynamics of the system satisfy any of the above tests, then the process is non-markovian. Base on the escription of the ynamics an the state of the system, one can choose which test to apply. In the case of unital ynamics, (5.1) an (5.) reuce to t S(ρ t) < 0. The observation that the negativity of the rate of entropy change is a witness of non-markovianity for ranom unitary processes, which are a particular kin of unital processes, was mae in Ref. [CasanM14]. Base on the above witnesses of non-markovianity, we can introuce ifferent measures of non- Markovianity for physical processes. Here, we introuce two measures of non-markovianity that are base on the channel an generator representation of the ynamics of the system: 1.. where M (L) := max ρ 0 t: S(ρ t ) +Tr t } {Π tl t (ρt) <0 M (M) := max ρ 0 t:f(t)<0 S(ρ t ) t { + Tr Π t L t t)} (ρ. (5.4) f(t), (5.5) f(t) := t S(ρ { )} t) + lim ε 0 + ε Tr Π t ((M t+ε,t ) M t+ε,t (ρ t ). (5.6) In the case of unital ynamics, the above measures are equal. It shoul be note that the above measures of non-markovianity are not faithful. This is ue to the fact that the statements in Theorem o not provie sufficient conitions for the evolution to be a quantum Markov process. In other wors, if the measure M (5.4) is non-zero, then the ynamics are non-markovian, but if it is equal to zero, then that oes not in general imply that the ynamics are Markovian. 5.1 Examples In this section, we consier two common examples of quantum non-markov processes: pure ecoherence of a qubit system (Section 5.1.1) an a generalize amplitue amping channel (Section 5.1.). In orer to characterize quantum ynamics, several witnesses of non-markovianity an measures of non-markovianity base on these witnesses have been propose [WECC08,BLP09,RHP10,LWS10, LPP11, LFS1, ZSM + 13, LLW13, LPP13, CasanM14, HCLA14, HSK15, PGD + 16]. Many of these measures are base on the fact that certain quantities are monotone uner Markovian ynamics, such as the trace istance between states [BLP09], entanglement measures [RHP10,LPP11,LFS1], Fisher information an Bures istance [LWS10,ZSM + 13,LLW13], an the volume of states [LPP13]. Among these measures, the one propose in Ref. [RHP10] base on the Choi representation of ynamics is both necessary an sufficient. The measure propose in Ref. [HCLA14] is also necessary an sufficient an is base on the values of the ecay rates γ i (t) appearing in the Linbla form (4.8) of the Liouvillian of the ynamics. Here, we compare our measures of non-markovianity with the wiely-consiere Breuer-Laine- Piilo (BLP) measure of non-markovianity [BLP09]. This is a measure of non-markovianity efine using the trace istance an is base on the fact that the trace istance is monotonically nonincreasing uner quantum channels. Our measure agrees with the BLP measure in the case of pure ecoherence of a qubit. In the case of the generalize amplitue amping channel, our witness is able to etect non-markovianity even when the BLP measure oes not. 15

16 5.1.1 Pure ecoherence of a qubit system Consier a two-level system with groun state an excite state +. We allow this qubit system to interact with a bosonic environment that is a reservoir of fiel moes. The time evolution of the qubit system is given by [ ρ t t = ι[h(t), ρ t] + γ(t) σ ρ t σ + 1 ] {σ +σ, ρ t }, (5.7) where σ + = +, σ = + an t 0. If H(t) = 0, then the system unergoes pure ecoherence an the Liouvillian reuces to L t (ρ t ) = γ(t) (σ zρ t σ z ρ t ), (5.8) where σ z = [σ +, σ ]. The ecoherence rate is given by γ(t), an it can be etermine by the spectral ensity of the reservoir [BLP09]. One can verify that Tr{Π t L t (ρ t)} = 0 for all t 0 an any initial state ρ 0. This implies that the ynamics are unital for all t 0. In this case, for t > 0, our witness (5.) reuces to t S(ρ t) < 0. For qubit systems unergoing the given unital evolution, it hols that ρ t > 0 for all t > 0, an thus for t > 0 our measures (5.4) an (5.5) are equal an reuce to the measure in [Ref. [HSK15], Eq. (15)], which was base on the fact that the rate of entropy change is non-negative for unital quantum channels. As state therein, these measures of non-markovianity are positive an agree with those obtaine by the BLP measure [BLP09, Eq. (11)] Generalize amplitue amping channel In this example, we consier non-unital ynamics that can be represente as a family of generalize amplitue amping channels {M t } t 0 on a two-level system [LLW13]. These channels have Kraus operators [Fuj04] Mt 1 = ( ) 1 0 p t 0 η t Mt = ( ) 0 1 ηt p t 0 0 M 3 t = 1 p t ( ηt ) M 4 t = 1 p t ( ηt 0 where p t = cos (ωt), ω R, an η t = e t. Then, for all t 0, M t (ρ) = 4 i=1 M t i ρ(mt i ). M t is unital if an only if p t = 1 or η t = 1. When η t = 1, M t = i for all ω. It was shown in Ref. [LLW13] that the BLP measure [BLP09] oes not capture the non- Markovianity of the ynamics given by (5.9). Let the initial state ρ 0 be maximally mixe, that is, ρ 0 = 1 1. The evolution of this state uner M t is then ρ t := M t (ρ 0 ) = 1 ( ) 1 + Wt 0, (5.10) 0 1 W t ), (5.9) 16

17 where W t = (p t 1)(1 η t ) = cos(ωt)(1 e t ). Note that ρ t > 0 for all t 0. The evolution of these states for an ε > 0 time interval is ρ t+ε = M ε (ρ t ) = 1 ( ) 1 + Wε + η ε W t 0 (5.11) 0 1 W ε η ε W t To check whether or not the given ynamics are non-markovian, let us apply the test in (5.1). First, we evaluate M ε M ε (ρ t ) = 1 ( ) at 0, (5.1) 0 b t where a t := p t (1 + W ε + η ε W t ) + (1 p t )η t (1 + W ε + η ε W t ) + (1 p t )(1 η t )(1 W ε + η ε W t ) (5.13) b t := p t η t (1 W ε + η ε W t ) + p t (1 η t )(1 + W ε + η ε W t ) + (1 p t )(1 W ε + η ε W t ). (5.14) Then, lim ε 0 + { } ε Tr M ε M ε (ρ t ) = W t. (5.15) It shoul be note that the eviation of W t from zero is a witness of non-unitality. For a unital } process, for any initial state ρ 0 an for all time t, we shoul have lim ε 0 + ε {Π Tr t M ε M ε (ρ t ) = 0. For a non-unital process, there will exist some initial state such that for some time t, lim ε 0 + { } ε Tr Π t M ε M ε (ρ t ) 0. Next, we evaluate the entropy of the state ρ t to be S(ρ t ) = 1 [ ( ) 1 + Wt (1 + W t ) log + (1 W t ) log This implies that the rate of entropy change is: S(ρ t ) = 1 [ W t 1 + Wt log t t = 1 [ W t 1 Wt log t 1 + W t ] + 1 W t log t ( 1 Wt [ ] 1 Wt )]. (5.16) (5.17) ], (5.18) where W t = ω sin(ωt)(1 e t ) + cos(ωt)e t. (5.19) t Therefore, the test in (5.1) reuces to f(t) = 1 W t log t [ 1 + Wt ] + 1 W t log t [ 1 Wt ] + W t < 0, (5.0) where f is efine in (5.6). For values of ω such that the ynamics are non-unital, we fin that f can be negative in several time intervals; for example, see Fig. 1 for the case ω = 5. 17

18 f(t) t Figure 1: Negative values of f, as given in (5.0), inicate non-markovianity. We have taken ω = 5. 6 Bouns on entropy change In this section, we give bouns on how much the entropy of a system can change as a function of the initial state of the system an the evolution it unergoes. Lemma 6 Let N : B 1 + (H) B+ 1 (H ) be a positive, trace-non-increasing map. Then, for all ρ D(H) such that N (ρ) > 0, ( ) S(ρ, N ) D ρ N N (ρ). (6.1) Proof. Using the efinition (.1) of the ajoint, we obtain S(ρ, N ) = S(N (ρ)) S(ρ) = Tr{ρ log ρ} Tr {N (ρ) log N (ρ)} { } = Tr{ρ log ρ} Tr ρn (log N (ρ)) { [ ]} Tr{ρ log ρ} Tr ρ log N N (ρ) ( ) = D ρ N N (ρ). (6.) The inequality follows from Lemma applie to N, which is positive an sub-unital since N is positive an trace non-increasing. Note that for a quantum channel N, S(ρ, N ) = 0 for all ρ if an only if ρ = N N (ρ), which is true if an only if N is a unitary operation (see Refs. [NS07, Theorem.1] an [RH11, Theorem 3.4.1]). We use this fact to provie a measure of non-unitarity in Section 7. As an application of the lower boun in Lemma 4, let us suppose that a quantum channel E A B can be simulate as follows ρ A D(H A ) : E A B (ρ A ) = F AC B (ρ A θ C ), (6.3) for a fixe interaction channel F AC B an a fixe ancillary state θ C. By applying Lemma 4 to F an the state ρ A θ C, we obtain S(ρ A, E) = S (F(ρ A θ C )) S (ρ A ) (6.4) 18

19 ( ) F S (ρ A θ C ) S (ρ A ) + D ρ A θ C F(ρ A θ C ) (6.5) ( ) F = S (θ C ) + D ρ A θ C F(ρ A θ C ). (6.6) Equality hols, i.e., S(ρ, E) = S (θ C ), if an only if the interaction channel F is a unitary interaction. If F is a sub-unital channel, then S(ρ, E) S (θ C ) because the relative entropy term is non-negative. This result is of relevance in the context of quantum channels obeying certain symmetries (cf. Ref. [DW17]). Lemma 7 Let N : B + (H) B + (H ) be a sub-unital channel. Then, for all ρ D(H) such that ρ > 0, {[ ] } S(ρ, N ) Tr ρ N N (ρ) log ρ. (6.7) This also hols for any positive sub-unital map satisfying the above conitions. Proof. By applying Lemma to N, we get This conclues the proof. S(ρ, N ) = Tr{ρ log ρ} Tr {N (ρ) log N (ρ)} Tr{ρ log ρ} Tr {N (ρ) N (log ρ)} {[ ] } = Tr ρ N N (ρ) log ρ. (6.8) By applying Höler s inequality (Lemma 1) to this upper boun, we obtain the following. Corollary 8 Let N : B + (H) B + (H ) be a sub-unital channel. Then, for all ρ D(H) such that ρ > 0, S(ρ, N ) ρ N N (ρ) log ρ. (6.9) 1 Now, if we let N be a sub-unital quantum operation, then as a consequence of Lemma 4 an Corollary 8, we have, for all states ρ > 0 such that N (ρ) > 0 an the entropies S(ρ) an S(N (ρ)) are finite, ( D ) ρ N N (ρ) S(N (ρ)) S(ρ) ρ N N (ρ) log ρ. (6.10) 1 It is interesting to note that (6.10) implies ρ N 1 ( ) N (ρ) D ρ N N (ρ) 1 log ρ (6.11) for a sub-unital quantum operation N an a state ρ > 0 such that N (ρ) > 0. This inequality has the reverse form of Pinsker s inequality [HOT81], which in this case is ( ) D ρ N N (ρ) 1 ρ N N (ρ). (6.1) 1 In general, the relationship between relative entropy an ifferent istance measures, incluing trace istance, has been stuie in Refs. [BR96, AE05, AE11]. 19

20 7 Measure of non-unitarity In this section, we introuce a measure of non-unitarity for any unital quantum channel that is inspire by the iscussion at the en of Section 6. A measure of unitarity for channels N : D(H A ) D(H A ), where H A is finite-imensional, was efine in Ref. [WGHF15]. A relate measure for non-isometricity for sub-unital channels was introuce in Ref. [BDW16]. A measure of non-unitarity for a unital channel is a quantity that gives the istinguishability between a given unital channel with respect to any unitary operation. It quantifies the eviation of a given unital evolution from a unitary evolution. These measures are relevant in the context of cryptographic applications [HLSW04, Aub09] an ranomize benchmarking [WGHF15]. We know that any unitary evolution is reversible. The ajoint of a unitary operator is also a unitary operator, an a unitary operator an its ajoint are the inverse of each other. These are the istinct properties of any unitary operation. Let us enote a unitary operator by U A B, where im(h A ) = im(h B ). Then a necessary conition for the unitarity of U A B is (U A B ) U A B = 1 A. The unitary evolution U A B of a quantum state ρ A is given by U A B (ρ A ) = U A B (ρ A ) (U A B ). (7.1) From the reversibility property of a unitary evolution, it hols that (U A B ) U A B = i A. It is clear that (U A B ) is also a unitary evolution, an (U A B ) an U A B are the inverse of each other. Contingent upon the above observation, we note that a measure of non-unitarity for a unital channel N A B shoul quantify the eviation of (N A B ) N A B from i A an is esire to be a non-negative quantity. We make use of the trace istance, which gives a istinguishability measure between two positive semi-efinite operators an appears in the upper boun 4 on entropy change for a unital channel (Section 6), to efine a measure of non-unitarity for a unital channel calle the iamon norm of non-unitarity. Definition 9 (Diamon norm of non-unitarity) The iamon norm of non-unitarity of a unital channel N A B is a measure that quantifies the eviation of a given unital evolution from a unitary evolution an is efine as N = i N N, (7.) where the iamon norm [Kit97] of a Hermiticity-preserving map M is efine as M = max (i M)(ρ RA) 1. (7.3) ρ RA D(H RA ) In other wors, N = max ρ RA D(H RA ) (i (i N N ))(ρ RA ). (7.4) 1 The iamon norm of non-unitarity of any unital channel N has the following properties: 1. N 0. 4 It shoul be note that the lower boun on the entropy change can also be use to arrive at the measure in terms of trace istance by employing Pinsker s inequality (6.1). 0

21 . N = 0 if an only if N N = i, i.e., the unital channel N is unitary. 3. In (7.4), it suffices to take ρ RA to be rank one an to let im(h R ) = im(h A ). 4. N. Once we note that N N : D(H A ) D(H A ) is a quantum channel, properties 1, 3, an 4 are irect consequences of the properties of the iamon norm [Wat16]. For property 3, the reference system R has to be comparable with the channel input system A, following from the Schmit ecomposition. So H R shoul be countably infinite if H A is. Property follows from Refs. [NS07, Theorem.1] an [RH11, Theorem 3.4.1]. The iamon norm has an operational interpretation in terms of channel iscrimination [Wil17, Wat16] (see also Refs. [Hel69, Hel76] for state iscrimination). Specifically, the optimal success probability p succ (N 1, N ) of istinguishing between two channels N 1 an N is p succ (N 1, N ) := 1 (1 + 1 ) N 1 N. (7.5) It follows that the optimal success probability of istinguishing between the ientity channel an N N is p succ (i, N N ) = 1 ( ) i N N (7.6) = 1 ( ) N. (7.7) Proposition 10 Let N : D(H) D(H) be a unital channel. If there exists a unitary operator U B(H) such that N U δ, (7.8) where U : D(H) D(H) is the unitary evolution (7.1) associate with U, then N δ + δ. Proof. We have that i N N = i N U + N U N N (7.9) i N U + N (U N ) (7.10) i N U + δ. (7.11) To obtain these inequalities, we have use the following properties of the iamon norm [Wat16]: 1. Triangle inequality: N 1 + N N 1 + N.. Sub-multiplicativity: N 1 N N 1 N. 3. For all channels M, M = 1. 1

22 In particular, to use the thir fact, we observe that N is a channel since N is unital. We have also mae use of our assumption that U N δ. Now, from the assumption U N δ, it follows by unitary invariance of the iamon norm that i U N δ. (7.1) By the operational interpretation of the iamon istance, this means that the success probability of istinguishing the channel U N from the ientity channel, using any scheme whatsoever, cannot excee p succ (i, U N ) as efine in (7.5). In other wors, the success probability cannot ( δ). One such scheme is to sen in a bipartite state ψ RA on a reference system excee 1 R an the system A on which the channel acts an perform the measurement efine by the positive operator-value measure { ψ ψ RA, 1 RA ψ ψ RA }. If the outcome of the measurement is ψ ψ RA, then we guess that the channel is the ientity channel, an if the outcome of the measurement is 1 RA ψ ψ RA then we guess that the channel is U N. The success probability of this scheme is 1 [Tr{ ψ ψ RAi RA ( ψ ψ RA )} ] ] + Tr{(1 RA ψ ψ RA ) [i R (U N ) A ( ψ ψ RA )} (7.13) = 1 ] ] [ ψ RA [i R (U N ) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA. (7.14) By employing the above, we fin that 1 ] ] [ ψ RA [i R (U N ) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA 1 (1 + 1 ) δ (7.15) [ ] ψ RA i R (U N ) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA 1 1 δ. (7.16) By employing the efinition of the channel ajoint, we fin that [ ] ψ RA i R (U N ) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA [ ] = ψ RA i R (N U) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA 1 1 δ. (7.17) This hols for all input states, so we can conclue that the following inequality hols: [ ] min ψ RA i R (N U) A ( ψ ψ RA ) ψ RA 1 1 δ. (7.18) ψ RA Now, by the efinition (7.3) of the iamon norm, an the fact that it suffices to take the maximization in the efinition of the iamon norm over only pure states, we have [ ] i N U = max i R (i N U) A ( ψ ψ RA ). (7.19) ψ RA 1 By the Fuchs-van e Graaf inequality [FvG99], we obtain [i ] R (i N U) A ( ψ ψ RA ) (7.0) 1