1: \documentstyle[psfig,aps,prl,amssymb]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Increased Efficiency of Quantum State Estimation Using
5: {\it Non-Separable} Measurements}
6: \author{Paul B. Slater}
7: \address{ISBER, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-2150\\
8: e-mail: slater@itp.ucsb.edu, FAX: (805) 893-7995}
9:
10: \date{\today}
11:
12: \draft
13:
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \vskip -0.1cm
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We address the ``major open problem'' of evaluating how much increased
20: efficiency in estimation is possible using {\it non-separable} --- as
21: opposed to separable --- measurements of $N$ copies
22: of $m$-level quantum systems. First, we study the six cases
23: $m=2$, $N=2,\ldots,7$ by
24: computing the $3 \times 3$ Fisher information
25: matrices for the corresponding {\it optimal} measurements
26: recently devised by Vidal {\it et al}
27: (Phys. Rev. A 60, 126 [1999]). We obtain simple polynomial expressions for
28: the (``Gill-Massar'') traces of the
29: products of the inverse of the
30: quantum Helstrom information matrix and these
31: Fisher information matrices.
32: The six traces {\it all}
33: have {\it minima} of $2 N -1$
34: in the {\it pure state} limit --- while for {\it separable} measurements
35: (Phys. Rev. A 61, 042312 [2000]),
36: the traces can equal $N$, but {\it not} exceed it.
37: Then, the result of an analysis for $m=3$, $N=2$
38: leads us to {\it conjecture} that for
39: optimal measurements for {\it all}
40: $m$ and $N$, the Gill-Massar trace achieves a
41: {\it minimum} of
42: $(2 N -1) (m-1)$ in the {\it pure state} limit.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45:
46: \pacs{PACS Numbers {03.67.-a, 89.70.+c, 02.50.-r}}
47:
48: \vspace{.1cm}
49:
50: \tableofcontents
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: We investigate information-theoretic properties of the optimal
54: measurement schemes recently devised by Vidal {\it et al}
55: \cite{vidal}, helping thereby to address the ``major open problem''
56: \cite{gill} of evaluating how much
57: increased efficiency in estimation
58: is possible using {\it non-separable} measurements (cf. \cite{fischer}).
59: In their
60: extensive study, ``State estimation for large ensembles,''
61: which we seek to extend here, Gill and
62: Massar stated that ``we cannot compare our results with the recent analysis
63: of covariant [optimal] measurements on mixed states \cite{vidal}
64: because we suppose separability
65: of the measurement, whereas \cite{vidal} does not'' \cite{gill}.
66: A ``separable measurement is one that can be carried out sequentially
67: on separate particles, where the measurement on one particle at any stage
68: (and indeed which particle to measure: one is allowed to measure particles
69: several times) can depend arbitrarily on the outcomes so far'' \cite{gill}.
70:
71: The analyses here are conducted in terms of the (classical) {\it Fisher
72: information} (of the probability distributions associated with
73: the non-separable measurements), making use of
74: the quantum (Helstrom) Cram\'er-Rao bound
75: \cite{helstrom} on the Fisher information matrix
76: for any {\it oprom} (operator-valued probability measure)
77: \cite{gill2,busch}.
78: Contrastingly, the studies of Vidal and his several Barcelona colleagues
79: \cite{vidal,tarvid,vidal2,acin}
80: have been formulated primarily in terms of
81: {\it fidelity}, $F(\rho,\rho')$
82: ($\rho$ and $\rho'$ being density matrices) \cite{uhlmann,jozsa},
83: and secondarily, {\it information gain} \cite{tarvid}.
84: Now, there surely exists
85: an intimate connection between these approaches, since
86: $2(1-F(\rho,\rho'))$ functions as the {\it Bures} distance between
87: $\rho$ and $\rho'$. The Bures metric is a distinguished member (the {\it
88: minimal}
89: one) of a continuum of possible quantum extensions --- each
90: associated with a distinct {\it operator monotone} function --- of the
91: (classical) Fisher information
92: metric \cite{petzsudar,bc,paulpla}. The Helstrom-Cram\'er-Rao bound
93: corresponds to the particular use of the Bures metric {\it via} the concept of
94: the {\it symmetric logarithmic derivative} \cite{helstrom}.
95: An interesting hypothesis is that asymptotically the Fisher information
96: matrix for optimal measurements is simply proportional to the metric
97: tensor associated with some specific operator monotone function.
98: (Our results below indicate that such a role is
99: definitely {\it not} played by the
100: Bures metric.)
101:
102: We shall be concerned
103: here primarily (cf. secs.~\ref{tl} and \ref{fl}) with the
104: two-level quantum systems, representable by the $2 \times 2$ density matrices,
105: \begin{equation} \label{bloch}
106: \rho = {1 \over 2} \pmatrix{1 + z & x + \mbox{i} y \cr
107: x - \mbox{i} y & 1- z \cr},
108: \end{equation}
109: where $r^2 =
110: x^2 +y^2 +z^2 \leq 1$. The particular $(x,y,z)$ parameterization employed
111: in (\ref{bloch})
112: corresponds to the use of Cartesian coordinates for the ``Bloch
113: (or Poincar\'e) sphere'' (unit ball in
114: three-space) representation of the two-level systems \cite{bm}
115: \cite[sec. 4.2]{belt}, while the alternative (spherical coordinate)
116: parameter
117: $r$ is the radial distance from the origin. Pure states, for which
118: $|\rho|=0$, correspond to
119: $r=1$ and the fully mixed state, for which $|\rho| = {1 \over 4}$, to $r=0$.
120:
121: For the cases of $N$ copies ($N=2,\ldots,7$) of a two-level quantum system
122: (\ref{bloch}) we obtain below in sec.~\ref{relations}
123: a quite interesting pattern of results of increased
124: efficiency using non-separable measurements,
125: which strongly suggests generalizability to arbitrary $N$.
126: To explicitly examine the cases $N>7$
127: would either entail considerable additional computations
128: for each specific $N$ and/or substantial analytical advances
129: (cf. sec.~\ref{fishmono}) allowing one
130: to formally establish the measure of increased efficiency
131: for {\it arbitrary} $N$. (We note that Latorre {\it et al} \cite{vidal2}
132: had to proceed {\it case-by-case},
133: that is, each $N$ individually, since they ``did not know how to build the
134: POVM algorithmically''.) In sec.~\ref{fishmono} we explore one possible
135: approach in this regard, attempting to explain the Fisher information
136: matrices we compute in sec.~\ref{nce} in terms of monotone metrics.
137: In sec.~\ref{nce}, we also formulate a conjecture as to the increase in
138: efficiency achieveable using non-separable optimal
139: measurements for $N$ copies of $m$-level
140: quantum systems in general.
141:
142: To begin our study, immediately below in sec.~\ref{goforit},
143: we expand upon an observation \cite[p. 2684]{slatjmp} regarding
144: an information-theoretic relationship
145: between certain classical
146: and quantum entities --- that is, the Fisher information matrix for
147: a certain (quadrinomial) multinomial probability distribution and
148: the quantum Helstrom information matrix (proportional to the
149: Bures metric tensor), and its implications for
150: optimal measurements.
151:
152: In sec.~\ref{uc} we examine further
153: ramifications on issues
154: of state estimation \cite{gill,helstrom} and
155: universal coding (data compression) \cite{cb1,kratt,kratt2,jozsa2}.
156: There appears to be an interesting relation between the devising of
157: optimal measurements as in \cite{vidal},
158: and universal quantum coding, as both processes involve
159: averaging with respect to isotropic prior probability distributions
160: by ``projecting onto total spin eigenspaces, and within each such subspace,
161: onto total spin eigenstates with maximal total spin component in some
162: direction'' \cite{vidal} --- cf. \cite[eqs. (5.33) and (5.34)]{vidal}
163: and \cite[eq. (2.48)]{kratt}. The particular prior distribution which
164: yields both the minimax and maximin for the universal quantum coding of
165: the two-level systems is based on the {\it quasi-Bures} metric, a particular
166: example of a monotone metric. We attempt in sec.~\ref{fishmono}
167: to relate the Fisher information
168: matrices we compute in sec.~\ref{nce} to the monotone metrics.
169: \section{Proportionality between Helstrom and Fisher Information
170: Matrices} \label{goforit}
171: The density matrices (\ref{bloch})
172: turn out to have an intimate relationship
173: with a particular form of multinomial (that is,
174: quadrinomial) probability distributions --- the
175: {\it four} distinct possible outcomes
176: being assigned probabilities
177: \begin{equation} \label{qpd}
178: x^2,\quad y^2,\quad z^2, \quad 1-x^2-y^2-z^2 .
179: \end{equation}
180: One can attach to the three-dimensional convex set of two-level
181: quantum systems (\ref{bloch}),
182: adapting one (the simplest) of the ``explicit''
183: formulas of Dittmann \cite[eq. (3.7)]{ditt1} \cite{ditt2},
184: \begin{equation}
185: d_{Bures}(\rho,\rho + \mbox{d} \rho)^2 =
186: {1 \over 4} \mbox{Tr} \{ \mbox{d} \rho \mbox{d} \rho +{1 \over |\rho|}
187: (\mbox{d} \rho - \rho \mbox{d} \rho ) (\mbox{d} \rho -\rho \mbox{d} \rho) \},
188: \end{equation}
189: the $3 \times 3$ quantum (Helstrom) information
190: matrix \cite{helstrom,gill,barn}
191: (that is, {\it four} times
192: the Bures metric tensor \cite{ditt2,hub1,hub2,bc}),
193: \begin{equation} \label{niu}
194: H_{q}(x,y,z) = {1 \over (1-x^2-y^2-z^2)} \pmatrix{1-y^2-z^2 & x y & x z \cr
195: x y & 1- x^2 -z^2 & y z \cr
196: x z & y z & 1-x^2 -y^2 \cr}.
197: \end{equation}
198: We use the subscripts $q$ and $c$ --- in a suggestive, perhaps not
199: fully rigorous manner --- to denote results stemming from quantum or
200: classical considerations. Also, note that (\ref{niu}) ``blows up'' at the
201: pure states themselves --- so it will be problematical, at best, to
202: directly compare
203: results pertaining to (\ref{niu}) with ones based on {\it pure state}
204: models \cite{gill,fuji}.
205:
206: In spherical coordinates $(r,\theta,\phi$), $x = r \cos{\theta},
207: y =r \sin{\theta} \cos{\phi}, z = r \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi}$, the
208: matrix (\ref{niu}) takes a
209: {\it diagonal} form,
210: \begin{equation} \label{sPh}
211: H_{q}(r,\theta,\phi) = \pmatrix{ {1 \over 1 - r^2} & 0 & 0 \cr
212: 0 & r^2 & 0 \cr
213: 0 & 0 & r^2 \sin^2{\theta} \cr},
214: \end{equation}
215: for this {\it orthogonal} system of coordinates (cf. \cite{tod}).
216: (Below, in the interest of succinctness,
217: we will replace the frequently-occurring
218: expression $x^2+y^2+z^2$ by its equivalent, $r^2$.)
219:
220: Now, the quantum information matrices (\ref{niu}) and (\ref{sPh})
221: are simply proportional to the (classical) Fisher information
222: \cite{frieden} matrices $I_{c}(x,y,z)$ and $I_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)$
223: for the quadrinomial probability distribution (\ref{qpd}).
224: (By way of algorithmic example, the $xy$-entry of the $3 \times 3$
225: Fisher information matrix --- in its Cartesian coordinate form,
226: $I_{c}(x,y,z)$ --- is
227: computable as the expected value
228: of the
229: [two-fold] product of the logarithmic derivatives of (\ref{qpd})
230: with respect to
231: $x$ and with respect to $y$.)
232: More precisely, the nine entries of $I_{c}(x,y,z)$ are
233: all {\it four} times the
234: corresponding entries of (\ref{niu}), that is
235: \begin{equation}
236: I_{c}(x,y,z) = 4 H_{q}(x,y,z).
237: \end{equation}
238: A natural explanation for this phenomenon is that the
239: {\it information geometry} \cite{murray}
240: of both models is that of the standard metric on
241: the surface of a three-sphere in four-dimensional Euclidean space
242: \cite{bc,kass}.
243:
244: Both quantum (Helstrom) information and Fisher information
245: possess the property of {\it additivity}, that is, for $N$ independent
246: identical density matrices
247: or probability distributions, the information matrices
248: (possibly scalars) are $N$ times those
249: for a single one \cite[exer. 1.10]{gill2}
250: \cite[sec. VI.4]{helstrom}
251: \cite{kagan,chentsov,kagan2,rao}.
252:
253: By the quantum version of the Cram\'er-Rao theorem \cite{helstrom},
254: the inverse matrix
255: $H_{q}(x,y,z)^{-1}$ serves as a lower
256: bound on the variance-covariance matrix $V(x,y,z)$
257: for any {\it unbiased}
258: estimator of the parameters ($x,y,z$) of $\rho$.
259: (This means that the matrix
260: difference, $V(x,y,z) -H_{q}(x,y,z)^{-1}$, must be nonnegative definite,
261: that is, have all its
262: eigenvalues nonnegative.)
263: In this regard,
264: \begin{equation} \label{inv}
265: H_{q}(x,y,z)^{-1} = \pmatrix{1 -x^2 & -x y & - x z \cr
266: - x y & 1-y^2 & - y z \cr
267: -x z & - y z & 1-z^2 \cr}
268: \end{equation}
269: (Of course, $H_{q}(r,\theta,\phi)^{-1}$ is diagonal.)
270:
271: By dint of the additivity of information, in conjunction with the
272: Cram\'er-Rao theorem (cf. \cite[eq. (26)]{gill}), one can
273: conclude that it is {\it not}
274: possible to devise
275: for $N < 4$ independent identical two-level systems, an {\it oprom}
276: \cite{gill2,busch}, which has
277: for its outcomes the quadrinomial distribution (\ref{qpd})
278: (cf. \cite{vidal,bennett}).
279: (When we attempted to construct such an oprom for the
280: case $N=2$, we found that the four
281: operators could {\it not} all be nonnegative
282: definite if they were to yield (\ref{qpd}).) However, for
283: $N \geq 4$, the question
284: of whether such an oprom exists would appear
285: to be a completely open one --- since now
286: the Cram\'er-Rao theorem does {\it not} rule out its possibility.
287: (The results of Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal}
288: show that an optimal {\it minimal} number of measurements for $N>3 $ is
289: at least {\it fifteen},
290: exceeding the number {\it four} for an oprom that would give
291: as its outcomes, the quadrinomial probability
292: distribution (\ref{qpd}).) If such an oprom could be found for $N=4$ itself,
293: then the Cram\'er-Rao inequality would be {\it fully} saturated.
294: \section{Analyses of {\it Optimal} Measurements of Vidal {\it et al} for
295: $N$ Copies of Two-Level Quantum Systems}
296: \label{nce}
297: \subsection{Computation of the Fisher Information Matrices} \label{omer}
298: \subsubsection{$N=2$}
299: Let us now consider the probability distribution
300: in \cite{vidal} obtained from the optimal minimal number (five) of
301: measurements for the case of $N=2$ identical independent copies of
302: the two-level systems (\ref{bloch}).
303: The five probabilities --- as we have explicitly found ---
304: can be written as (the three)
305: \begin{equation} \label{ped}
306: {1 \over 4} (1-r^2),\quad {3 \over 16} (1+z)^2, \quad {1 \over 48}
307: (8 x^2 -4 \sqrt{2} x (z-3) +(z-3)^2) ,
308: \end{equation}
309: together with the pair
310: \begin{displaymath}
311: {1 \over 48} (9 + 2 x^2 \pm 4 \sqrt{3} x y + 6 y^2 + 2 \sqrt{2}
312: (x \pm \sqrt{3} y) (z-3) -6 z + z^2).
313: \end{displaymath}
314:
315: Quite remarkably, the associated Fisher information matrix
316: ($\tilde{I}_{c}$) turns out
317: to precisely equal the quantum (Helstrom) information matrix,
318: $H_{q}(x,y,z)$ --- and not $2 H_{q}(x,y,z)$, which is the
319: upper bound furnished by the
320: quantum Cram\'er-Rao theorem. So, the bound could be said to be
321: ``half-saturated''.
322: (In regard to this specific result, R. Gill has observed that there may
323: exist other measurement schemes which are {\it sub-optimal} accoding to the
324: {\it fidelity} criterion of \cite{vidal}, but superior
325: in terms of Fisher information (cf. \cite{tarvid}).)
326: \subsubsection{$N=3$}
327: For an optimal minimal set of measurements for $N=3$, we can take the eight
328: probabilities, consisting of the four pairs,
329: \begin{equation}
330: {(1 \pm x)^3 \over 12},\quad
331: {(1 \pm y)^3 \over 12}, \quad {(1 \pm z)^3 \over 12}, \quad {1 \over 4}
332: (1 \pm {x+y+z \over \sqrt{3}}) (1 - r^2) .
333: \end{equation}
334: The associated Fisher information matrix is expressible as
335: \begin{equation} \label{pkd}
336: 2 H_{q}(x,y,z) + {1 \over 2( (x+y+z)^2 -3)} \pmatrix{a & b & b \cr
337: b & a & b \cr
338: b & b & a \cr},
339: \end{equation}
340: where $a = 2 (1-x y - x z - y z)$ and $b=-1+r^2$.
341: The second summand in (\ref{pkd}) is {\it negative} definite (having two
342: of its three negative
343: eigenvalues equal to $-{1 \over 2}$), while $3 H_{q}(x,y,z)$ is the upper bound
344: on the Fisher information matrix
345: provided by the Cram\'er-Rao theorem.
346: \subsubsection{$N=4$}
347: An optimal minimal set of measurements for $N=4$ yields a
348: fifteen-vector of probabilities. The Fisher information matrix for this
349: probability distribution is
350: \begin{equation} \label{cue}
351: 3 H_{q}(x,y,z) + {1 \over 12} \pmatrix{-7-5 y^2 - 5 z^2 & 5 x y & 5 x z \cr
352: 5 x y & -7 - 5 x^2 - 5 z^2 & 5 y z \cr
353: 5 x z & 5 y z & -7 -5 x^2 - 5 y^2 \cr}.
354: \end{equation}
355: The second term is {\it negative} definite with one eigenvalue
356: equal to $-{7 \over 12}$ and the other two, $ -{1 \over 12}
357: (7 + 5 r^2)$. If we subtract (\ref{cue}) from
358: the Cram\'er-Rao upper bound $4 H_{q}(x,y,z)$, we obtain (as we must)
359: a nonnegative definite
360: matrix, having two eigenvalues
361: ${1 \over 12} (19 + 5 r^2)$ and one,
362: ${7 \over 12} + {1 \over 1 - r^2}$.
363: \subsubsection{$N=5$}
364: For $N=5$, a twenty-vector of probabilities was obtained for the optimal
365: minimal number of measurements. The Fisher information matrix can be
366: expressed as the sum of $4 H_{q}(x,y,z)$ (which dominates it, while
367: $3 H_{q}(x,y,z)$ does not)
368: and a {\it negative}
369: definite matrix, having one of its three negative eigenvalues equal to
370: $-{3 \over 16} (5+3 r^2)$. This negative definite matrix
371: can be written as the product of ${1 \over 16 (-3 +(x+y+z)^2)}$
372: and a $3 \times 3$ matrix,
373: the $(1,1)$ cell of which is
374: \begin{equation} \label{fds}
375: -2 (-20 + 7 y^4 +9 y^3 z - 11 z^2 + 7 z^4 - 5 x^3 (y+z) + 3 y z (5 + 3 z^2) +
376: \end{equation}
377: \begin{displaymath}
378: 3 x (y + z) ( 5 + 3 y^2 + 3 z^2) + x^2 (10 + 7 y^2 - 5 y z + 7 z^2)
379: + y^2 (-11 +14 z^2))
380: \end{displaymath}
381: and the $(1,2)$ off-diagonal entry is
382: \begin{equation}
383: -5 x^4 + 14 x^3 y + 2 x^2 (5 + 9 y^2 + 14 y z- 5 z^2) -
384: 5 (-1+y^2+z^2)^2 + 14 x y (-3 + (y +z)^2).
385: \end{equation}
386: The remaining cells are obtainable by simple symmetry arguments (for example,
387: the (2,2) cell can be gotten by interchanging $x$ and $y$ in (\ref{fds})).
388: \subsubsection{$N=6$}
389: For $N=6$, we used an optimal (but not minimal) set of thirty-three
390: measurements. We found --- using a large number of randomly generated
391: points $(x,y,z)$ --- that the associated Fisher information matrix
392: was strictly dominated by $5 H_{q}(x,y,z)$, but not by $4.99 H_{q}(x,y,z)$.
393: The Fisher information matrix takes the form (cf. (\ref{cue}))
394: \begin{equation} \label{owd}
395: 5 H_{q} (x,y,z) + {1 \over 120} \pmatrix{a & A x y & A x z \cr
396: A x y & b& A y z \cr A x z & A y z & c \cr},
397: \end{equation}
398: where
399: \begin{equation}
400: A=193 - 31 r^2, \quad a = - 125 -146 y^2 - 146 z^2 + 31 (y^2 +z^2)^2
401: +x^2 (47 +31 y^2 +31 z^2),
402: \end{equation}
403: and the diagonal entry
404: $b$ can be obtained from $a$ by interchanging $x$ and $y$,
405: and $c$ from $a$ by interchanging $x$ and $z$.
406:
407: One of the three negative
408: eigenvalues of the second (``residual'') matrix in (\ref{owd}) is
409: $(125 -172 r^2 + 47 r^4)/(120 (-1+r^2))$. Now, if we were to rewrite
410: (\ref{owd}) in the form of
411: $4.99 H_{q}(x,y,z)$ plus a {\it slightly} revised residual matrix,
412: the eigenvalue in question would be altered only in the respect that
413: the constant 125 would change to 123.8. This would render
414: it {\it positive} for
415: $r >.992348$, leading to a loss of strict dominance for $r \in
416: [.992348,1]$.
417: In this specific sense, the upper bound of $5 H_{q}(x,y,z)$
418: on the Fisher information matrix is {\it tight}.
419: The residual matrix for $N=4$ strictly dominates that for $N=6$. This
420: indicates that the ``fit'' of $(N-1) H_{q}(x,y,z)$ to the Fisher information
421: matrix for optimal measurements of $N$ copies {\it improves} as $N$
422: increases.
423: \subsubsection{$N=7$} \label{ssecn7}
424: For $N=7$, employing a 42-vector of probabilities, we found the Fisher
425: information matrix to be strictly dominated by $6 H_{q}(x,y,z)$, but {\it not}
426: by
427: $5.99 H_{q}(x,y,z)$.
428: Reviewing our previous analyses, we then found that the
429: analogous situation held also for $N=3,\ldots,6$,
430: that is, the Fisher information
431: matrix was dominated by $(N-1) H_{q}(x,y,z)$, but not by $(N-1.01)
432: H_{q}(x,y,z)$. The violations of these
433: {\it diminished} bounds occur for nearly pure states, that is
434: $r \approx 1$.
435:
436: Pursuing this line of thought,
437: if we restrict consideration to the more mixed states for which
438: $r < {1 \over 2}$, then for $N=7$ we have found that $3.9 H_{q}(x,y,z)$,
439: but not $3.85 H_{q}(x,y,z)$
440: bounds the Fisher information matrix for the optimal set of measurements.
441: Calculations suggest the hypothesis that in the neighborhood of
442: the fully mixed
443: state $r=0$, the bound
444: on the Fisher information matrices approaches from above
445: $N H_{q}(0,0,0)/2$, that is
446: ${N \over 2}$ times the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix.
447: Now, the fully mixed state is classical (binomial) in character, while the
448: pure states are quantum in nature. (It is interesting to note that Frieden
449: finds that in classical scenarios, only {\it one-half} of the bound or
450: phenomenological information $J$ is utilized in the intrinsic
451: quantum information $I$ \cite[eqs. (5.39), (6.55)]{frieden}.
452: ``In all covariant quantum theories (e. g., quantum mechanics, quantum
453: gravity) $I$ and $J$ are exactly equal. In deterministic classical theories
454: such as classical electromagnetics and general relativity $I=J/2$.
455: But in statistical classical theories $I=J$ again'' [e-mail message
456: from Frieden].)
457: \subsubsection{$N>7$}
458: We are not able to
459: proceed any further, that is for $N>7$, as there presently do not appear to be
460: corresponding
461: sets of optimal measurements. As a {\it caveat} to the reader,
462: let us point out that to recreate the optimal measurements for the
463: cases $N=6$ and 7 (which unlike the instances $N<6$, were not
464: formally demonstrated to be minimal in character),
465: it is necessary to rely upon the quant-ph preprint version
466: (9803066) of \cite{vidal2}, since there are certain errors (as confirmed
467: in an e-mail from R. Tarrach, though no formal {\it erratum} has
468: appeared) in the final, published paper.
469: \subsection{Properties of the Computed Fisher Information Matrices}
470: \subsubsection{{\it Diagonal} nature for {\it even} $N$
471: in spherical
472: coordinates} \label{dnfe}
473: We have found that the Fisher information matrices given above
474: for the optimal measuements of Vidal {\it
475: et al} \cite{vidal} for both $N=4$ and 6
476: are {\it diagonal} in spherical coordinates ($r,\theta,\phi$).
477: For $N=4$, this is
478: \begin{equation} \label{diagn=4}
479: {1 \over 12} \pmatrix{ {29 + 7 r^2 \over 1 - r^2} & 0 & 0 \cr
480: 0 & r^2 (29 - 5 r^2) & 0 \cr
481: 0 & 0 & r^2 (29 - 5 r^2) \sin^{2}{\theta} \cr},
482: \end{equation}
483: and for $N=6$,
484: \begin{equation} \label{diagn=6}
485: {1 \over 120} \pmatrix{ {475 + 172 r^2 - 47 r^4 \over 1 - r^2} & 0 & 0 \cr
486: 0 & r^2 (475 - 146 r^2 + 31 r^4) & 0 \cr
487: 0 & 0 & r^2 (475 -146 r^2 + 31 r^4) \sin^{2}{\theta} \cr}.
488: \end{equation}
489: For $N=2$, we also have a corresponding diagonal matrix, that is,
490: (\ref{sPh}).
491:
492: Cox and Reid \cite[p. 2]{cox} have listed three ``consequences of
493: orthogonality'' of the parameterization of a Fisher information matrix, such
494: as we have just observed.
495: These are that:
496: (i) the maximum likelihood estimates of the means of the parameters
497: are asymptotically independent; (ii) the asymptotic standard error for
498: estimating one parameter is the same whether the other parameters are treated
499: as known and unknown; and (iii) there may be simplifications in the numerical
500: determination of the means of the parameters.
501: ``While orthogonality can always be achieved locally, global orthogonality
502: is possible only in special cases'' \cite[p. 2]{cox}.
503: In accompanying discussions to \cite{cox}, Sweeting identifies four
504: advantages to orthogonalization --- computation, approximation, interpretation,
505: and elimination of nuisance parameters --- while Barndorff-Nielsen, as well as
506: Moolgavkar and Prentice,
507: explain parameter orthogonality in terms of Frobenius' Theorem. The latter
508: authors also
509: indicate that the theorem of de Rham \cite[p. 187]{kobayashi} gives
510: necessary and sufficient conditions for each
511: orthogonal parameter to be independent of
512: the others (as they are {\it not} in our three even-dimensional examples just
513: given).
514:
515: \subsubsection{Pure- and fully mixed state limits}
516: Again using spherical coordinates, it is interesting to note
517: that for the {\it odd} cases of $N=3,5,7$, in the pure state limit
518: ($r \rightarrow 1$), the off-diagonal elements of the corresponding
519: $3 \times 3$ Fisher information matrix converge to zero.
520: In all six (both odd and even) cases, in this same limit, the (1,1)-entries
521: are indeterminate, the (2,2)-entries are ${N \over 2}$ and the
522: (3,3)-entries are ${N \sin^{2}{\theta} \over 2}$.
523:
524: For the fully mixed state, $r=0$
525: (allowing the angular variables $\theta$ and $\phi$ to remain free),
526: the only non-zero entry is the (1,1)-cell.
527: For $N=2$ it is 1, for $N=3$ it is
528: \begin{equation}
529: {1 \over 6} \lgroup 10 + \sin{2 \theta} (\cos{\phi} +\sin{\phi}) +\sin^{2}{\theta}
530: \sin{2 \phi} \rgroup,
531: \end{equation}
532: for $N=4$ it is ${29 \over 12}$, for $N=5$, it is ${(103 + 5 \cos{2 \phi})
533: \over 32}$, for $N=6$ it is ${95 \over 24}$, and for $N=7$,
534: \begin{equation}
535: {1 \over 96} \lgroup 456 \cos^{2}{\theta} +7 \sin{2 \theta}
536: (\cos{\phi} +\sin{\phi}) + \sin^{2}{\theta} (456 + 7 \sin{2 \phi}) \rgroup.
537: \end{equation}
538: \subsubsection{Integrals over Bloch sphere of volume elements} \label{volel}
539: For $N=2$, the integral of the volume element of the
540: Fisher information matrix (that is, the square root of the determinant)
541: over the (Bloch sphere of)
542: two-level quantum systems is $\pi^2 \approx 9.8696$, for $N=3$ it is
543: 21.0235,
544: for $N=4$, it is
545: \begin{equation}
546: {1 \over 441} \sqrt{{29 \over 3}} \pi \lgroup 4705 E(-{7 \over 29})
547: -4194 K(-{7 \over 29}) \rgroup \approx 35.0281
548: \end{equation}
549: (where $E$ and $K$ denote the corresponding elliptic integrals),
550: for $N=5$, it is 51.0763,
551: for $N=6$, it is 69.1253, and for $N=7$, 88.8621.
552: These
553: particular results would be needed for the application to the
554: optimal measurements of Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal}
555: of the universal coding
556: theorem of Clarke and Barron \cite{cb1}, discussed
557: below in sec.~\ref{cuc}.
558:
559: \subsection{Gill-Massar Traces} \label{relations}
560: Let us first observe that Gill and Massar \cite[eq.(26)]{gill}
561: asserted that the upper (quantum [Helstrom] Cram\'er-Rao)
562: bound $N H_{q}$, was {\it not}, in general,
563: achievable in a multiparameter setting. This does appear to be
564: strictly the case.
565: However, our results for $N=2,\ldots,7$ for the
566: three-parameter $2 \times 2$ density matrices, indicate that --- using the
567: optimal measurements of Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal} --- one can,
568: by choosing $N$ large enough, come indefinitely close for
569: the nearly pure states to this
570: bound.
571:
572: To further relate to these analyses of Gill and Massar, we have computed for
573: $N=2,\ldots,7$, the traces of the product of $H_{q}(x,y,z)^{-1}$, given
574: in (\ref{inv}), and the Fisher information matrices
575: we have obtained using the optimal
576: measurements of Vidal {\it et al}. (The traces of Fisher information matrices
577: play a central role in the work of Frieden on the fundamental
578: equations of physics \cite[sec. 2.3.2]{frieden}.)
579: For the estimation
580: of pure states, Theorem I in \cite{gill}
581: asserts that this trace quantity
582: is bounded above by $N$, while Theorem II there says
583: that the same bound applies to mixed states, with the restriction
584: to {\it separable} measurements. It is also
585: demonstrated there that these bounds are attainable --- and for large $N$
586: {\it simultaneously} for {\it all} states.
587:
588: For $N=2$, it is easy to see, in the context of the
589: results above, that this
590: (``Gill-Massar'') trace result is simply 3. For $N=3$, we get another
591: constant, 5, for the trace.
592: For $N=4$, we obtain
593: \begin{equation}
594: GM_{4} = {29 - r^2 \over 4},
595: \end{equation}
596: which is 7 for pure states
597: and 7.25 for the fully mixed state.
598: For $N=5$, the Gill-Massar trace is
599: \begin{equation}
600: GM_{5} = {19 - r^2 \over 2},
601: \end{equation}
602: which is 9 for pure states and 9.5 for the fully
603: mixed state. For $N=6$, it is
604: \begin{equation}
605: GM_{6} = {95 - 8 r^2 + r^4 \over 8}.
606: \end{equation}
607: This last
608: expression is monotonically decreasing from ${95 \over 8} =11.875$ at $r=0$ to
609: 11, that is, $2 N -1$ at $r=1$. For $N=7$, the Gill-Massar trace is
610: \begin{equation}
611: GM_{7} = {57 - 6 r^2 + r^4 \over 4},
612: \end{equation}
613: which
614: equals ${57 \over 4} = 14.25$ at $r=0$ and 13 at $r=1$, being again
615: $2 N - 1$.
616: (In an earlier version of this paper, quant-ph/0002063, the results
617: given --- including Fig. 1, plotting the Gill-Massar trace --- for
618: $N=7$ were ``anomalous'', in this regard. We subsequently ascertained
619: that they were erroneous
620: in nature, due to a programming error.) In Fig.~\ref{gmt}, we plot
621: ${GM_{N} \over (2 N-1)}$ for $N=4,5,6$ and 7.
622: \begin{figure}
623: \centerline{\psfig{figure=GMtraces.eps}}
624: \caption{Gill-Massar traces for $N=4,5,6$ and 7
625: scaled by their values at the pure states, $r=1$, that is,
626: $2 N -1 $. The $y$-intercepts for $r=0$, corresponding to the
627: fully mixed state, increase with $N$.}
628: \label{gmt}
629: \end{figure}
630:
631: It is easy to see, then, that
632: in these six cases the Gill-Massar bound \cite[eq. (27)]{gill}
633: of $N$ is violated --- as Theorem III of their paper recognizes will occur
634: for {\it non-separable} measurements.
635: So, we obtain a simple pattern of $2 N -1$ for the
636: minimum of the trace quantity
637: in question.
638: In regards to these results, R. Gill remarked in an e-mail message
639: of Feb. 18, 2000 that
640: ``this is all very interesting. It means that there is a big discontinuity
641: at the surface of the Bloch sphere (where none of these $3 \times 3$ Fisher
642: information matrices is well-defined), and it means that the gain in using
643: joint measurements over separate measurements for mixed states is substantial
644: throughout the Bloch sphere''.
645: \subsection{Analyses for $m$-Level {\it Pure} States}
646: \subsubsection{$m=2$}
647: In a further effort to relate to the analyses of Gill and Massar
648: \cite{gill}, let us consider for the moment simply the two-level pure states,
649: so we set $r=1$. In terms of the polar coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$,
650: the Helstrom information matrix takes the form (cf. (\ref{sPh}),
651: \cite[p. 4238]{FUJI})
652: \begin{equation} \label{fgn}
653: \pmatrix{1 & 0 \cr
654: 0 & \sin^{2}{\theta} \cr}.
655: \end{equation}
656: Then, the Fisher information matrix for the optimal measurements of
657: $N$ copies \cite{vidal2} is simply ${N \over 2}$ times (\ref{fgn}), as we
658: have confirmed through computations for $N=2,\ldots,7$ (cf. \cite{gill}).
659: (So, in the pure state case, unlike the mixed state one,
660: the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound of $N$ times
661: (\ref{fgn}) is not asymptotically
662: approached --- though the Gill-Massar trace bound of $N$ is achievable.)
663: \subsubsection{$m=3$} \label{tl}
664: We have also verfied that the same basic additive
665: relation holds in the case of the {\it three}-level pure states for $N=2$,
666: using the formulas in \cite{acin}. Let us use the parameterization of
667: these states
668: in terms
669: of {\it four} angular variables ($\theta,\phi,\chi_{1},\chi_{2})$
670: employed in \cite[eq. (2.1)]{cavesv},
671: \begin{equation} \label{spin1param}
672: | \psi \rangle = \mbox{e}^{\mbox{i} \chi_{1}} \sin{\theta} \cos{\phi}
673: |1 \rangle + \mbox{e}^{\mbox{i} \chi_{2}} \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi}
674: |2 \rangle + \cos{\theta} |3 \rangle.
675: \end{equation}
676: Then, the Helstrom information matrix
677: is
678: \begin{equation} \label{kvi}
679: \pmatrix{4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
680: 0 & 4 \sin^{2}{\theta} & 0 & 0 \cr
681: 0 & 0 & a & -\sin^{4}{\theta} \sin^{2}{2 \phi} \cr
682: 0 & 0 & -\sin^{4}{\theta} \sin^{2}{2 \phi} & b \cr},
683: \end{equation}
684: where (cf. \cite{slatprep})
685: \begin{equation}
686: a = {1 \over 2} \lgroup 6 + 2 \cos{2 \theta} +
687: \cos{2 (\theta - \phi)} -2 \cos{2 \phi} +
688: \cos{2(\theta+\phi)} \rgroup \sin^{2}{\theta} \cos^{2}{\phi},
689: \end{equation}
690: \begin{displaymath}
691: b=-{1 \over 2} \lgroup -6 - 2 \cos{\theta} + \cos{2 (\theta - \phi)}
692: -2 \cos{2 \phi} +\cos{2(\theta +\phi)} \rgroup
693: \sin^{2}{\theta} \sin^{2}{\phi}.
694: \end{displaymath}
695: (Note that (\ref{kvi}) is free of the variables, $\chi_{1}$ and
696: $\chi_{2}$ --- as (\ref{sPh}) is free of $\phi$.)
697: So, for $N=2$ copies of a spin-1 system, the Fisher information matrix is
698: identically (\ref{kvi}), paralleling the specific results for both the pure
699: and mixed two-level quantum systems for $N=2$. We also intend to analyze
700: the case $N=3$, using the specific prescription for the corresponding
701: optimal measurements in \cite[sec. 6]{acin}.
702: \subsubsection{supplementary analysis for 3-level
703: {\it mixed} states} \label{uue}
704: We have attempted --- following the
705: general methodology laid out by Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal}
706: for the {\it two}-level mixed quantum systems --- to construct
707: an optimal measurement scheme for $N=2$ copies of mixed
708: {\it three}-level
709: systems. In doing so, we incorporated
710: the optimal measurements for $N=2$ copies of
711: {\it pure} three-level quantum systems presented
712: by Ac\'in, Latorre and Pascual in \cite[sec. 5]{acin}, that
713: were utilized immediately above. (J. Latorre informs me that he and his
714: co-authors ``did not find any manageable way to make progress'' in such
715: extended $m=3$
716: {\it mixed} cases, although he did point out that Arvind had recast and
717: further developed many of their results using Penrose rays --- in
718: apparently yet unpublished work.)
719: This led us to an oprom with {\it twelve} distinct outcomes, {\it nine}
720: corresponding
721: to the vectors explicitly presented in \cite[eqs. (39), (40)]{acin},
722: and the additional {\it three}
723: coming from our own orthogonal decomposition of the
724: associated rank three
725: ``residual'' projector
726: (cf. \cite[eq. (3.3)]{vidal}). (A weight of ${2 \over 3}$ was applied
727: to the subset of nine outcomes.)
728:
729: With this twelve-outcome oprom in hand, we found by {\it numerical} means
730: that the Gill-Massar trace
731: equalled a constant, 6 (while for $N=2$
732: copies of {\it two}-level systems this trace quantity
733: was found in sec.~\ref{relations} also to be a constant, 3).
734: (In \cite{slatprep}, we have
735: been investigating the possibility of {\it symbolically}
736: inverting the $8 \times 8$ Helstrom information matrix --- making use of
737: a recently-developed Euler angle parameterization of the $3 \times 3$
738: density matrices \cite{byrdslater}. The Gill-Massar trace would, of course,
739: be the
740: trace of the product of this inverse matrix and the Fisher information
741: matrix associated with the twelve-outcome oprom.)
742: This result and our earlier
743: ones for $m=2$, $N =2,\ldots,7$,
744: lead us to conjecture that for non-separable optimal
745: measurements of $N$ $m$-level
746: quantum systems, the Gill-Massar trace for all $m$ and $N$ is exactly
747: $(2 N-1) (m-1)$ in the pure state limit, and no less than this for any
748: mixed state.
749:
750: Now, for any measurement of a strictly
751: pure state itself, the Gill-Massar trace can not exceed $N(m-1)$ by
752: Theorem I of \cite{gill}.
753: (This bound is known to be achieveable for $m=2$ by Theorem VII
754: of \cite{gill}, and for mixed states using separable measurements by
755: Theorem VI.) So there is a clear discontinuity displayed
756: by {\it non-separable optimal}
757: measurements {\it near} the pure state boundary, as
758: well as considerable increased efficiency in estimating strictly mixed or
759: impure states through the use of such measurements.
760: \subsubsection{$m=4$} \label{fl}
761: We
762: have ascertained
763: the Helstrom information matrix for pure states of {\it four}-level
764: systems, making use
765: of the appropriate analogue of the parameterization (\ref{spin1param})
766: presented in \cite[eq. (13)]{venki}. The
767: six parameters naturally divide into two sets of three, and once again the
768: entries of the Helstrom
769: information matrix are free of the
770: (three) members of one of the two sets.
771: \section{Universal Coding} \label{uc}
772: We can also apply to the three-dimensional family of
773: quadrinomial probability distributions
774: (\ref{qpd}) certain important
775: (classical) asymptotic results of Clarke and Barron \cite{cb1}
776: pertaining to a number of problems, including those of universal
777: data compression and density estimation. Then,
778: we can compare their
779: formulas with those for the $2 \times 2$ density matrices
780: (\ref{bloch}), based on the extension to the quantum domain
781: of two-level systems by Krattenthaler
782: and Slater \cite{kratt,kratt2} of this work of Clarke and Barron
783: (cf. \cite{jozsa}). (In what follows, we will denote probability distributions
784: of a general nature by $w$ and more specific ones by $W$, and subscript
785: them --- as noted before --- by either $c$
786: or $q$ to denote a result stemming from an analysis
787: in the classical or
788: quantum domain.)
789: \subsection{Classical results of Clarke and Barron} \label{cuc}
790: Clarke and Barron examined the relative entropy
791: ($N \rightarrow \infty$)
792: between a true density
793: function and a joint (``Bayesian'') density function
794: for a sequence of $N$ random variables taken to be the average of the
795: possible densities (comprising a parameterized family) with respect to a
796: (prior) probability
797: distribution over this family of density functions.
798: The result of Clarke and Barron for the asymptotic relative entropy
799: (Kullback-Leibler index) between the true density and the mixture is
800: \begin{equation} \label{ios}
801: {d \over 2} \log{{N \over 2 \pi \mbox{e}}} +{1 \over 2} \log{|I_{c}(\alpha)|} -
802: \log{w_{c} (\alpha)} +o(1),
803: \end{equation}
804: where $\alpha$ denotes the $d$-vector of variables parameterizing the
805: family of
806: densities, $w_{c}(\alpha)$
807: a prior probability distribution used
808: to average the $N$-fold products of independent identical density functions,
809: and $I_{c}(\alpha)$ the associated $d \times d$ Fisher information matrix.
810: As applied to our particular
811: three-parameter ($d=3$) family of quadrinomial
812: distributions (\ref{qpd}), with $\alpha = (r,\theta,\phi)$,
813: we have
814: \begin{equation} \label{lcy}
815: |I_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)| = \lgroup {64 \over 1-r^2}
816: \rgroup r^4 \sin^{2} {\theta}.
817: \end{equation}
818: Then, if we choose for the probability distribution, $w_{c}(\alpha)$,
819: the particular one
820: \begin{equation} \label{bpr}
821: W_{c}(r,\theta,\phi) = \lgroup {1 \over \pi^{2} \sqrt{1-r^2}} \rgroup
822: r^2 \sin{\theta}
823: \quad
824: \propto \sqrt{|I_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)|},
825: \end{equation}
826: the asymptotic relative
827: entropy between the true density and its Bayesian
828: (mixture) average assumes the form
829: \cite[eq. (1.4)]{cb1}
830: \begin{equation} \label{out1}
831: {3 \over 2} \log{{N \over 2 \pi \mbox{e}}} +\log{8 \pi^{2}} + o(1).
832: \end{equation}
833: (Let us note that $r^2 \sin{\theta} \mbox{d} r \mbox{d} \theta
834: \mbox{d} \phi$ is the Jacobian
835: determinant of
836: the transformation from Cartesian to spherical coordinates or, equivalently,
837: the volume element in spherical coordinates.)
838: Our particular selection of $W_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)$
839: is ``Jeffreys' prior'' for this case, that
840: is the normalized (over the Bloch sphere) form
841: of the volume element ($\sqrt{|I_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)|}$)
842: of the Fisher information
843: metric (cf. sec.~\ref{volel}).
844: (The normalization factor, $8 \pi^{2}$, is evident
845: in (\ref{out1})). Jeffreys' priors, as shown by Clarke and Barron
846: \cite{cb1}, fulfill the desideratum of yielding
847: the common {\it minimax}
848: and {\it maximin} of the asymptotic relative entropy.
849: In the quantum analogue, though, (\ref{bpr}) does not play this
850: distinguished role,
851: although a close (``quasi-Bures'') relative of it does \cite{kratt2,slathall}.
852: This probability distribution is
853: \begin{equation} \label{qB}
854: W_{q}(r,\theta,\phi) =
855: .0832258 {\mbox{e} \over 1 -r^2} \lgroup
856: {1-r \over 1 +r} \rgroup^{1 \over 2 r}
857: r^2 \sin{\theta}.
858: \end{equation}
859: \subsection{Quantum Results of Krattenthaler and Slater for Two-Level Systems} \label{kssec}
860: Krattenthaler and Slater \cite{kratt,kratt2} have sought to extend the
861: general results of Clarke and Barron to the two-level {\it quantum}
862: systems (\ref{bloch}). They
863: averaged the $N$-fold
864: {\it tensor} products of identical $2 \times 2$ density matrices
865: (\ref{bloch}) (rather than averaging the simple
866: products of $N$ {\it random variables})
867: with respect to (spherically-symmetric/unitarily-invariant)
868: probability distributions
869: distributions of the form $w_{q}(r) r^2 \sin{\theta}$
870: (cf. \cite[eq. (1.4)]{vidal}).
871: The analogue (in terms of the {\it quantum} relative
872: [von Neumann]
873: entropy) of the Clarke-Barron result (\ref{ios})
874: is then ($d=3$)
875: \begin{equation} \label{pew}
876: {3 \over 2} \log{ {N \over 2 \pi \mbox{e}}} +
877: {1 \over 2} \log{I_{q}(r)} -\log{w_{q}(r)} + o(1),
878: \end{equation}
879: where (cf. (\ref{lcy}))
880: \begin{equation}
881: I_{q}(r) = {\mbox{e}^2 \over (1 -r^2)^{2}} \lgroup {1-r \over 1 +r}
882: \rgroup^{1 \over r}.
883: \end{equation}
884: So,
885: \begin{equation}
886: I_{q}(r) r^4 \sin^{2}{\theta} = 144.372 W_{q}(r,\theta,\phi)^{2} ,
887: \end{equation}
888: which can be compared with its classical counterpart,
889: \begin{equation}
890: |I_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)| = 64 \pi^{4} W_{c}(r,\theta,\phi)^2,
891: \end{equation}
892: where $64 \pi^{4} \approx 6234.18$.
893:
894: As noted \cite{kratt2}, the quasi-Bures probability distribution, $W_{q}
895: (r,\theta,\phi)$, given by (\ref{qB}),
896: fulfills in the quantum domain of two-level systems
897: (\ref{bloch}), the distinguished role --- in yielding the common
898: asymptotic minimax and maximin --- of the Jeffreys' prior (that is, the
899: volume element of the Fisher information metric) in the classical sector.
900: In Fig.~\ref{nwz} we plot the term ${1 \over 2} \log{I_{q}(r)}$,
901: present in (\ref{pew}), along with the comparable
902: (but always larger for $r<1$)
903: classical term, ${1 \over 2} \log{64 \over 1-r^2}$, in (\ref{lcy}).
904: The units of the vertical axis are, then, ``nats'' of information. (A nat
905: is equal to $1/ \log_{e}{2} \approx$ 1.4427 bits.)
906: So, in the example above, one achieves a lower relative entropy (redundancy)
907: by proceeding in the quantum domain, as opposed to the classical one.
908:
909: \begin{figure}
910: \centerline{\psfig{figure=nat.eps}}
911: \caption{Quantum asymptotic relative entropy
912: term --- ${1 \over 2} \log{I_{q}(r)}$ --- and its
913: {\it larger} classical
914: counterpart, ${1 \over 2} \log{{64 \over 1-r^2}}$, plotted against radial
915: distance ($r$) in the Bloch sphere of two-level systems}
916: \label{nwz}
917: \end{figure}
918: In the case $r=0$ (the fully mixed state), the
919: quantum (Krattenthaler/Slater) asymptotics is given by the expression
920: \begin{equation}
921: {3 \over 2} \log{{N \over 2 \pi \mbox{e}}} -\log{w_{q}(0)} + o(1).
922: \end{equation}
923: For a pure state ($r=1$), in the case that $w_{q}(r)$
924: is {\it continuous} and nonzero
925: at $r=1$, the asymptotics is given, in general, by \cite{kratt2}
926: \begin{equation}
927: 2 \log{N} -3 \log{2} -\log{\pi} -\log{w_{q}(1)} + o(1).
928: \end{equation}
929: However, for the particular case of the
930: Jeffreys' prior (\ref{bpr}), which is {\it singular} at
931: $r =1$, we have \cite[eq. (2.53)]{kratt}
932: \begin{equation}
933: {3 \over 2} \log{N} +{1 \over 2} \log{\pi} -2 \log{2}.
934: \end{equation}
935:
936: It would be of interest to ascertain if one can construct a
937: probability distribution for which the (classical) Fisher information
938: matrix is equal (in spherical coordinates) to \cite[eq. (3.17)]{petzsudar}
939: \begin{equation} \label{bwo}
940: I_{quasi-Bures} (r,\theta,\phi)
941: = \pmatrix{{1 \over 1 - r^2} & 0 & 0 \cr
942: 0 & {r^2 g(s) \over 1 + r} & 0 \cr
943: 0 & 0 & {r^2 g(s) \sin^{2}{\theta} \over 1 + r}},
944: \end{equation}
945: where $s= {1 -r \over 1 + r}$ and $g(s) = \mbox{e} s^{{s \over 1 -s}}$.
946: (If we employ $g(s) = {2 \over 1 + s}$ in
947: (\ref{bwo}), we obtain the Helstrom
948: information matrix $H_{q}(r,\theta,\phi)$ \cite{petzsudar}.)
949: This would yield the {\it quantum} (but non-Helstrom)
950: information matrix, the square root of the determinant of which is
951: proportional to the quasi-Bures probability
952: distribution (\ref{qB}). This probability distribution
953: (rather than (\ref{bpr}), as originally conjectured \cite{kratt})
954: has been shown to yield
955: the common minimax and maximin in the universal coding of the two-level
956: quantum systems \cite{kratt2}.
957:
958: \subsection{Relations between {\it Monotone Metrics} and the
959: Fisher Information Matrices Computed in
960: Sec.~\ref{omer} } \label{fishmono}
961: It would be of considerable interest to
962: determine the precise nature $N \rightarrow \infty$
963: of the Fisher information matrices
964: corresponding to the use of optimal measurements \cite{vidal}.
965: (``For the case of mixed states of spin 1/2 particles, or for higher spins
966: we do not know what the `outer' boundary of the set of (rescaled) achievable
967: Fisher information matrices based on arbitrary (non separable) measurements
968: of $N$ systems looks like. We have some indications about the shape of this
969: set\ldots and we know that it is convex and compact'' \cite[p. 19]{gill}.)
970: In particular,
971: we would like to ascertain whether or not there is convergence in
972: form (to a diagonal matrix in spherical coordinates) between even and
973: odd values of $N$, as numerical evidence indicates,
974: and whether or not the Fisher information matrices are asymptotically
975: simply proportional to some specific
976: member (\ref{bwo}) of a broad class of natural
977: metric tensors (which includes the Bures and quasi-Bures metrics
978: discussed in Sec.~\ref{kssec})
979: for the quantum states associated
980: with operator monotone functions $f(s) = {1 \over g(s)}$ \cite{petzsudar}.
981: \subsubsection{The (2,2)- and (3,3)-entries of the diagonal
982: Fisher information matrices for even $N$}
983: In fact, if we equate the (2,2)-entries of the diagonal Fisher information
984: matrices given in sec.~\ref{dnfe}
985: for the optimal measurements for $N=4$ and $N=6$ to the (2,2)-cell
986: of $N$ times the general matrix (\ref{bwo}) and solve for $g(s)$,
987: recalling that $s = {1-r \over 1 +r}$, we obtain for
988: $N=4$,
989: \begin{equation} \label{g(s)4}
990: g(s) = {1 \over 6 (1+ s)^3} (6 + 17 s + 6 s^2)
991: \end{equation}
992: and for $N=6$,
993: \begin{equation} \label{g(s)6}
994: g(s) = {1 \over 45 (1+s)^5} (45 + 222 s + 416 s^2 + 222 s^3 + 45 s^4).
995: \end{equation}
996: Both these symmetry-exhibiting
997: functions, (\ref{g(s)4}) and (\ref{g(s)6}), as well as
998: the corresponding
999: (Bures/minimal monotone) result (the equation of a hyperbola)
1000: for $N=2$, that is,
1001: \begin{equation} \label{g(s)2}
1002: g(s) = {1 \over 1 +s}
1003: \end{equation}
1004: are monotonically-decreasing on the positive real axis
1005: (Fig.~\ref{gole}), but we are
1006: presently not aware (for the cases $N=4$ and 6, that is)
1007: if the reciprocals, $f(s) = 1/g(s)$, are {\it operator}
1008: monotone functions, as required for membership in the class of monotone
1009: metrics of Petz and Sud\'ar \cite{petzsudar} \cite{les}.
1010: (A function $f(s)$, mapping
1011: the nonnegative real axis to itself, is called operator monotone if the
1012: relation $0 \leq K \leq H$ implies $0 \leq f(K) \leq f(H)$ for all matrices
1013: $K$ and $H$ of any order. The relation $K \leq H$ implies that all the
1014: eigenvalues of $H-K$ are nonnegative.)
1015: \begin{figure}
1016: \centerline{\psfig{figure=PairMonotone.eps}}
1017: \caption{Monotonically-decreasing functions $g(s)$, that is
1018: (\ref{g(s)4}),
1019: (\ref{g(s)6}) and (\ref{g(s)2}), obtained by equating
1020: the (2,2)-entries of the computed
1021: Fisher information matrices (\ref{diagn=4}),
1022: (\ref{diagn=6}) and (\ref{sPh}) for $N=4,6$ and 2, respectively, with
1023: $N$ times the
1024: (2,2)-entry of the general matrix (\ref{bwo}) for a monotone metric.
1025: The curve for $N=6$ dominates that for $N=4$, which in turn
1026: dominates the hyperbola
1027: for $N=2$.}
1028: \label{gole}
1029: \end{figure}
1030:
1031: If we were to include in Fig.~\ref{gole}
1032: the corresponding function for the {\it quasi-Bures}
1033: monotone metric, that is
1034: \begin{equation}
1035: g(s) = {e s^{s \over 1 -s} \over 2},
1036: \end{equation}
1037: it would be essentially indistinguishable from the hyperbola for $N=2$
1038: (corresponding to the Bures/minimal monotone metric).
1039: \subsubsection{The (1,1)-entries of the diagonal Fisher information matrices
1040: for even $N$}
1041: If, pursuing these lines of thought, one could develop a formula for arbitrary
1042: (even) $N$ for the (2,2)-entry of the Fisher information matrix for optimal
1043: measurements, and
1044: obviously easily then for the (3,3)-entry (which would be
1045: the (2,2)-entry multiplied by $\sin^{2}{\theta}$), the remaining question, of
1046: course,
1047: would be to obtain a general formula for the (1,1)-entry. In this regard,
1048: the apparent general result
1049: (established above for $N=2,\ldots,7$)
1050: that the Gill-Massar trace is $2 N -1$ in the
1051: pure state limit might prove helpful. But since the (1,1)-entry of the metric
1052: tensor for any monotone metric (\ref{bwo})
1053: is always simply ${1 \over 1-r^2}$, it would
1054: apparently be necessary to have some {\it asymptotic} convergence to this
1055: expression, being that the results
1056: in the computed Fisher information matrices
1057: (\ref{diagn=4}) and (\ref{diagn=6})
1058: for $N=4$ and 6 (and presumably for
1059: arbitrary even $N$) contain polynomials in $r$ in their numerators, and not
1060: simply a constant term.
1061: In Fig.~\ref{11entry} we plot the (1,1)-entries divided by
1062: $N$ of the computed Fisher
1063: information matrices, in spherical coordinates, for $N=2,4$ and 6.
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: \centerline{\psfig{figure=11entry.eps}}
1066: \caption{(1,1)-entries divided by $N$ of the
1067: computed diagonal Fisher information matrices (\ref{sPh}), (\ref{diagn=4})
1068: and (\ref{diagn=6}) for $N=2,4$ and 6, respectively. The value at $r=.9$ is
1069: greatest for $N=6$ and least for $N=2$.}
1070: \label{11entry}
1071: \end{figure}
1072: \subsubsection{{\it Modified} Gill-Massar traces based on the
1073: Yuen-Lax (maximal monotone) and quasi-Bures information matrices}
1074: In sec.~\ref{relations}, we defined the Gill-Massar trace as the trace of the
1075: product of the inverse of the quantum {\it Helstrom} information matrix
1076: and the Fisher information matrices we had computed
1077: (sec.~\ref{omer}) based on the optimal
1078: (in terms of {\it fidelity}) measurements of Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal}
1079: for $N=2,\ldots,7$. Now the quantum
1080: Helstrom information matrix corresponds to the use of the {\it minimal}
1081: monotone
1082: (Bures) metric, as well as the {\it symmetric} logarithmic derivative. Now,
1083: we replace this with the {\it maximal} monotone metric, corresponding
1084: to the {\it right} logarithmic derivative \cite[eq. (4.27)]{helstrom},
1085: associated with Yuen and Lax \cite{yuen}.
1086: This can be accomplished by using
1087: $g(s) = {(1+s)/ (2 s)}$ in
1088: the (diagonal/orthogonal)
1089: metric tensor (\ref{bwo}) rather than $g(s) = {2 \over 1+t}$ (which gives the
1090: quantum Helstrom information matrix).
1091: Then, we find that in the pure state limit ($r \rightarrow 1$) the values of
1092: the so-modified traces are exactly $N-1$ --- rather than $2 N - 1$ --- for
1093: all our six cases
1094: $N=2,\ldots,7$.
1095: For $N=2$, this is
1096: \begin{equation}
1097: \tilde{GM}_{2} = 3 - 2 r^2,
1098: \end{equation}
1099: for $N=4$,
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: \tilde{GM}_{4} = {1 \over 12} (87 - 61 r^2 + 10 r^4),
1102: \end{equation}
1103: and for $N=6$,
1104: \begin{equation}
1105: \tilde{GM}_{6} = {1 \over 120} (1425 -1070 r^2 + 307 r^4 - 62 r^6).
1106: \end{equation}
1107: These three functions, scaled by their value at $r=1$, that is $N-1$, are
1108: plotted in Fig.~\ref{yleps}.
1109: \begin{figure}
1110: \centerline{\psfig{figure=YLtrace.eps}}
1111: \caption{Traces --- scaled by $N - 1$ --- for $N=2,4$ and 6
1112: based on the Yuen-Lax/maximal monotone metric analysis.
1113: The $y$-intercepts for $r=0$
1114: increase with $N$.}
1115: \label{yleps}
1116: \end{figure}
1117: The traces $\tilde{GM}_{N}$ for $N=3$ and 7 are (three-line)
1118: functions of not only $r$, as previously,
1119: but of
1120: $\theta$ and $\phi$ as well.
1121: For $N=5$, we have
1122: \begin{equation}
1123: \tilde{GM}_{5} =
1124: {1 \over 16} ( 147 - 96 r^2 + 13 r^4 + {10 (r^2-1)^3 \over r^2 + r^2
1125: \cos{2 \theta} -2}).
1126: \end{equation}
1127: In the fully mixed state limit ($r \rightarrow 0$),
1128: the values of the traces are 3, 5, 7.25, 9.5, 11.875 and 11.1875.
1129:
1130: If we alternatively employ the quasi-Bures metric, using
1131: $g(s) = e s^{{s \over 1-s}}$, then, in the pure state limit for
1132: $N=2,4$ and 6 we get traces equalling $(4 +e)/e \approx 2.47152$,
1133: $3 + 8/e \approx 5.94304 $ and $5 + 12 / e \approx 9.41455$,
1134: respectively.
1135: (These results are intermediate, then, between those for the minimal
1136: and maximal monotone metrics.) For $r=0$, the corresponding outcomes
1137: are the same as in the two situations above. In Fig.~\ref{qbtrace}, we plot
1138: these three traces scaled by the noted values at $r=1$.
1139: \begin{figure}
1140: \centerline{\psfig{figure=qbtrace.eps}}
1141: \caption{Traces --- scaled by their
1142: values at $r=1$ --- for $N=2,4$ and 6
1143: based on the quasi-Bures
1144: monotone metric analysis. The $y$-intercepts for $r=0$ increase with $N$.}
1145: \label{qbtrace}
1146: \end{figure}
1147: The curves for $N=2$ and 4 intersect at $r=.395121$.
1148:
1149: \section{Concluding Remarks}
1150:
1151: We have explicitly constructed the
1152: $3 \times 3$ Fisher information matrices for the optimal
1153: measurements of Vidal {\it et al} \cite{vidal} for
1154: $N=2,\ldots,7$,
1155: found that they are tightly
1156: bounded by $(N-1) H_{q}$ near the pure state boundary, and
1157: conjectured that they converge from above to
1158: ${N \over 2}$ times the identity matrix at the fully mixed state ($r=0$).
1159: As our main finding, we have uncovered (sec.~\ref{relations}) an
1160: interesting (less strict)
1161: analogue for non-separable
1162: measurements of a ``new quantum Cram\'er-Rao inequality'' of
1163: Gill and Massar \cite[eq. (27)]{gill}. The possibility of extending it to
1164: the cases $N>7$ appears to be a challenging problem.
1165: Also, the development of optimal measurement schemes for multiple copies of
1166: $m$-level systems, $m>2$, and the subsequent evaluation of their Fisher
1167: information characteristics, merits investigation
1168: (cf. \cite{acin}). In this regard, we have presented in sec.~\ref{uue}
1169: additional evidence --- for an optimal
1170: measurement we devised for the case $m=3$, $N=2$ --- that
1171: has led us to the conjecture that for optimal non-separable measurements of
1172: $N$ copies of $m$-level quantum systems, the ``Gill-Massar trace''
1173: equals $(2 N-1) (m-1)$ in the pure state limit for {\it all} $m$ and $N$.
1174:
1175: Additionally,
1176: it would be of interest to study the Fisher information matrices associated
1177: with
1178: optimal measurements based on {\it continuous}
1179: oproms \cite[p. 386]{peres} \cite{slaterperes}.
1180: The relation between optimal measurements (sec.~\ref{nce}) and
1181: universal quantum
1182: coding (sec.~\ref{kssec})--- both
1183: involving averaging with respect to isotropic prior
1184: probability distributions by projecting onto total spin
1185: eigenstates --- appears to be worthy of
1186: further consideration. (Fischer and Freyberger recently compared
1187: the use of single adaptive measurements --- which possess certain
1188: practical advantages --- with the use of non-separable ones
1189: \cite{fischer}.)
1190:
1191:
1192: We have also investigated here several related topics, all pertaining to the
1193: information-theoretic properties of the two-level quantum systems.
1194: We have posed the problem of constructing an operator-valued
1195: probability measure (oprom) for
1196: the smallest number possible of copies $N \geq 4$
1197: which yields the quadrinomial probability
1198: distribution (\ref{qpd}), the Fisher information matrix
1199: for which is
1200: simply four times the quantum (Helstrom) information matrix (\ref{qpd}).
1201: Also, we discuss in sec.~\ref{ssecn7}
1202: what appears to be an intriguing connection between our results
1203: and the work of Frieden \cite{frieden} concerning differences between
1204: classical and quantum information.
1205:
1206:
1207: \acknowledgments
1208:
1209: I would like to express appreciation to the Institute for Theoretical Physics
1210: for computational support in this research, as well as
1211: to M. J. W. Hall, G. Vidal,
1212: R. Tarrach,
1213: R. Gill and B. R. Frieden for various forms of assistance and advice.
1214:
1215: \begin{references}
1216: \bibitem{vidal} G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual, and R. Tarrach,
1217: Phys. Rev. A 60, 126 (1999).
1218: \bibitem{gill} R. D. Gill and S. Massar,
1219: Phys. Rev. A 61, 042312/1-16 (2000).
1220: \bibitem{fischer} D. G. Fischer and M. Freyberger, {\it Estimating Mixed
1221: Quantum States}, quant-ph/0005090.
1222: \bibitem{helstrom} C. W. Helstrom,
1223: {\it Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory},
1224: (Academic, New York, 1976).
1225: \bibitem{gill2} R. Gill, {\it Asymptotics in Quantum Statistics},
1226: (Mathematical Institute, University of Utrecht, 1999). available at
1227: WWW: http://math.uu.nl/people/gill/Preprints/paper.ps.gz.
1228: \bibitem{busch} P. Busch, G. Cassinelli, and P. J. Lahti,
1229: Revs. Math. Phys. 7, 1105 (1995).
1230: \bibitem{tarvid} R. Tarrach and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A 60, R3339 (1999).
1231: \bibitem{vidal2} J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual, and R. Tarrach,
1232: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1351 (1998).
1233: \bibitem{acin} A. Ac\'in, J. I. Latorre, and P. Pascual, Phys. Rev. A
1234: 61, 022113/1-7 (2000).
1235: \bibitem{uhlmann} A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976).
1236: \bibitem{jozsa} R. Jozsa, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2315 (1994).
1237: \bibitem{petzsudar} D. Petz and C. Sud\'ar, J. Math. Phys. 37, 2662 (1996).
1238: \bibitem{bc} S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1239: 72, 3439 (1994).
1240: \bibitem{paulpla} P. B. Slater, Phys. Lett. A 247, 1 (1998).
1241: \bibitem{bm} S. L. Braunstein and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 51,
1242: 1820 (1995).
1243: \bibitem{belt} E. G. Beltrametti and G. Cassinelli, {\it The Logic of Quantum
1244: Mechanics}, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1981).
1245: \bibitem{slatjmp} P. B. Slater, J. Math. Phys. 37, 2682 (1996).
1246: \bibitem{cb1} B. S. Clarke and A. R. Barron, IEEE Info. Th. 36, 453 (1990).
1247: \bibitem{kratt} C. Krattenthaler and P. B. Slater, Trans. IEEE Info. Th. 46,
1248: 801 (2000).
1249: \bibitem{kratt2} H. Grosse, C. Krattenthaler, and P. B. Slater,
1250: {\it Asymptotic Redundancies for Universal Quantum Coding. II}
1251: (in preparation).
1252: \bibitem{jozsa2} R. Jozsa, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki,
1253: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1714 (1998).
1254: \bibitem{ditt1} J. Dittmann, Sem. Sophus Lie, 3, 73 (1993).
1255: \bibitem{ditt2} J. Dittmann, J. Phys. A 32, 2663 (1999).
1256: \bibitem{barn} O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and R. D. Gill, J. Phys. A 33, 4481
1257: (2000).
1258: \bibitem{hub1} M. H\"ubner, Phys. Lett. A 163, 239 (1992).
1259: \bibitem{hub2} M. H\"ubner, Phys. Lett. A 179, 226 (1993).
1260: \bibitem{fuji} A. Fujiwara and H. Nagaoka, Phys. Lett. A 201, 119 (1995).
1261: \bibitem{tod} K. P. Tod, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 1693 (1992).
1262: \bibitem{frieden} B. R. Frieden, {\it Physics from Fisher Information: A
1263: Unification}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
1264: \bibitem{murray} M. K. Murray and J. W. Rice, {\it Differential Geometry
1265: and Statistics}, (Chapman and Hall, London, 1993).
1266: \bibitem{kass} R. E. Kass, Statist. Sci. 4, 188 (1989).
1267: \bibitem{kagan} A. M. Kagan, Probl. Pered. Inform. 12(2), 20 (1976).
1268: \bibitem{chentsov} N. N. Chentsov, in {\it Encyclopaedia of Mathematics},
1269: edited by M. Hazewinkel (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990), vol. 5, p. 78.
1270: \bibitem{kagan2} A. M. Kagan and Z. Landsman, Stat. Prob. Lett. 32, 175 (1997).
1271: \bibitem{rao} C. R. Rao, {\it Linear Statistical Inference and Its
1272: Applications} (Wiley, New York, 1973).
1273: \bibitem{bennett} C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor,
1274: E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters,
1275: Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999).
1276: \bibitem{cox} D. R. Cox and N. Reid, J. R. Statist. Soc. B 49, 1 (1987).
1277: \bibitem{kobayashi} S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, {\it Foundations of
1278: Differential Geometry. Vol. 1}, (Interscience, New York, 1963).
1279: \bibitem{les} A. Lesniewski and M. B. Ruskai, J. Math. Phys. 40, 5702 (1999).
1280: \bibitem{FUJI} A. Fujiwara and H. Nagaoka, J. Math. Phys. 40, 4227 (1999).
1281: \bibitem{cavesv} C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Opt. Commun. 179, 439 (2000).
1282: \bibitem{slatprep} P. B. Slater, {\it Bures Geometry of the Three-Level
1283: Quantum Systems}, quant-ph/0008069.
1284: \bibitem{byrdslater} M. S. Byrd and P. B. Slater, {\it Bures Measures
1285: over the Spaces of Two and Three-Dimensional Density Matrices},
1286: quant-ph/0004055 (to appear in Phys. Lett. A).
1287: \bibitem{venki} V. E. Mkrtchian and V. O. Chaltykian, Opt. Commun.
1288: 63, 239 (1987).
1289: \bibitem{slathall} P. B. Slater, J. Phys. A 32, 8231 (1999).
1290: \bibitem{yuen} H. P. Yuen and M. Lax, Trans. IEEE Info. Th. 19, 740 (1973).
1291: \bibitem{peres} A. Peres, {\it Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods},
1292: (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995).
1293: \bibitem{slaterperes} P. B. Slater, J. Math. Phys. 38, 2274 (1997).
1294: \end{references}
1295:
1296: \listoffigures
1297: \end{document}