text:
# Maximization of capacity and 𝑙_𝑝 norms for some product channels.

## 1 Introduction

A quantum channel is the mathematical description of a device which stores and transmits quantum states. Much work has been devoted to the study of particular quantum channels with highly non-classical properties, and also to general questions such as the information capacity of classes of channels. In this paper we will consider some problems of the second type, concerning additivity and multiplicativity properties that are believed to hold for all product channels.

The basic components of a quantum channel are a Hilbert space $``$ and a noise operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The quantum states are positive operators on $``$, with trace equal to one. The noise operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a completely positive, trace-preserving map which acts on the set of states. Positivity means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a positive operator on $`B()`$ (the algebra of bounded operators on $``$). Complete positivity means that the map $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also a positive operator on $`B(𝐂^K)`$ for every $`K`$.

When the channel $`(,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is used to store or transmit information, it is assumed that the information is encoded as a state on the product space $`^n`$ for some $`n`$, and that the noise acts on this state through the product operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n`$, thereby mimicking the action of a memoryless channel in classical information theory. The basic properties of such quantum memoryless channels have been studied by many authors , , , , . One outstanding problem is to determine the ultimate rate at which classical information can be transmitted through this channel, when no prior entanglement is available between sender and receiver. The protocol that achieves this capacity may require messages to be encoded using entangled states and/or decoded using collective measurements. It is conjectured that this ultimate capacity is given by the well-known Holevo bound

$`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\pi ,\rho }{sup}\left[S\left({\displaystyle \pi _i\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i)}\right){\displaystyle \pi _iS(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i))}\right],`$ (1)
where $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$ is the von Neumann entropy, and the $`sup`$ runs over all probability distributions $`\{\pi _i\}`$ and collections of states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ on $``$. This capacity conjecture is equivalent to the statement that there is no benefit gained when entangled states are used to encode messages for transmission through a quantum channel. As shown by Holevo  and Schumacher-Westmoreland , the ultimate rate for information transmission using non-entangled coding states is exactly $`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}`$. Thus the capacity conjecture is implied by the additivity conjecture for $`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}`$, which states that for any channels $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Omega })+C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (2)
Although the equality (2) has been shown in some special cases , , , , , it remains a challenging problem to prove this result for a general pair of channels $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Amosov, Holevo and Werner introduced a related conjecture, concerning the noncommutative $`l_p`$ norm of output states from a product channel  (this norm is defined below). In this paper we report progress toward establishing these conjectures for some special product channels, namely the cases when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is arbitrary and either (i) $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a CQ or QC channel (these are defined below), or (ii) $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a qubit channel. In the first case we establish both conjectures. In the second case we establish the Amosov, Holevo and Werner conjecture for integer values of $`p`$. A principal ingredient in our proof in the second case is a new bound concerning the $`l_p`$ norm of the output from a “half-noisy” channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$, for integer values of $`p`$. We conjecture that this bound holds for all $`p1`$, and we show that in some cases this conjecture implies additivity of the Holevo bound (2).

The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 contains a precise statement of the results, and the conjectured bound for half-noisy channels. In section 3 we review the relation of relative entropy and the Holevo bound. In sections 4 and 5 we prove the results for CQ and QC channels. Then in section 6 we prove the results for qubit channels, and in section 7 we prove the Corollaries of our new conjecture. In section 8 we give a summary and overview of the results in the paper. Finally the Appendix contains a proof by Lieb and Ruskai of a special case of the conjecture.

## 2 Statement of results

The noncommutative $`l_p`$ norm of a matrix $`A`$ is defined by

$`A_p=\left(\mathrm{Tr}|A|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}=\left[\mathrm{Tr}(A^{}A)^{\frac{p}{2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}`$ (3)
The corresponding maximal $`l_p`$ norm for a positive map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`B()`$ is

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\rho }{sup}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )_p`$ (4)
where the $`sup`$ runs over states in $``$ (this quantity was introduced in , where it was called the ‘maximal output purity’ of the channel). It is always true that for any maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and any $`p1`$

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (5)
The multiplicativity conjecture of  states that for any completely positive trace-preserving maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and for all $`p1`$,

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (6)
Equality always holds in (6) for $`p=1`$. It has been shown in several different ways that (6) holds for all $`p1`$ and all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=I`$ , , . Recently, it has been shown that (6) holds when both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are depolarizing channels, and $`p`$ is integer . In this paper we provide some further examples where it holds.

The first case we consider involves the CQ and QC channels introduced by Holevo , so we recall their definitions now. Let $`\{X_b\}`$ be a POVM on $``$ (so $`X_b0`$ and $`X_b=I`$) and let $`\{Q_b\}`$ be any collection of states. Then we can define a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by the formula

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(\rho X_b)Q_b}`$ (7)
Holevo considered two special cases of (7). First, if $`\{X_b=|e_be_b|\}`$ are projections onto an orthonormal basis $`\{|e_b\}`$ in $``$, then (7) is called a CQ channel. Second, if $`\{Q_b=|e_be_b|\}`$, then (7) is called a QC channel. Holevo proved the additivity result (2) when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is either a CQ or QC channel. Our first result generalises this by allowing an arbitrary channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CQ or QC channel. Then for any completely positive trace-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`l_p`$-multiplicativity (6) holds for all $`p1`$, and Holevo additivity (2) holds.

For our second set of results we restrict to channels on a two-dimensional Hilbert space. For brevity of notation we will say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a qubit map if it is a completely positive trace-preserving map on $`(𝐂^2)`$.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit channel. Then the equality (6) holds for $`p=2`$, that is $`\nu _2(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _2(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for all channels $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In order to state the next result we need to recall the classification of qubit maps. Any qubit map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be represented by a real $`4\times 4`$ matrix with respect to the basis $`I,\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices. In  it was explained that by using independent unitary transformations in its domain and range, this matrix can be put into the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ t_1& \lambda _1& 0& 0\\ t_2& 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
This form makes it easy to see how $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acts on the Bloch sphere. The sphere is first compressed to an ellipsoid with semi-major axes $`|\lambda _1|,|\lambda _2|,|\lambda _3|`$, and is then translated by the vector $`𝐭=(t_1,t_2,t_3)`$. There are constraints on the allowed values of these six parameters (coming from the requirements that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be completely positive and trace-preserving), and these constraints have been fully worked out in . If $`t_i=0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(I)=I`$, in which case $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a unital qubit map.

Our next result requires a slightly stronger condition on the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which we now state in terms of these parameters:

$`\mathrm{if}|\lambda _i|<|\lambda _j|<|\lambda _k|\mathrm{then}t_it_j=0`$ (9)
This condition can be stated in words as follows: the ellipsoid may be translated only in directions lying in the two planes that are perpendicular to its two smaller axes (if any two axes have equal length, there is no restriction).

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit channel satisfying the condition (9). Then $`l_p`$-multiplicativity (6) holds for all integer $`p`$, that is $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for all channels $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and all integers $`p`$.

The proofs of Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 make use of a bound for the $`l_p`$ norm of the output state from the half-noisy channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We believe that this bound holds for all $`p1`$, however we can prove it only for the cases listed in the Theorems. So we state the general bound as a conjecture.

###### Conjecture 4

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit channel, and let $`M0`$ be a $`2K\times 2K`$ matrix. Write $`M`$ in the form

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ Y^{}& Z\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are $`K\times K`$ matrices. Then for all $`p1`$

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\left(X_p+Z_p\right)`$ (11)
This conjecture has several important consequences, which we list in the next three Corollaries. In particular, the first Corollary shows that Conjecture 4 implies Theorems 2 and 3.

###### Corollary 5

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit channel, and suppose that (11) holds for all positive $`2K\times 2K`$ matrices $`M`$, for some $`p1`$. Then for any completely positive map $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`B(𝐂^K)`$, $`l_p`$-multiplicativity (6) holds for the same value of $`p`$.

In Section 5 we will prove that (11) holds for all qubit maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ when $`p=2`$, and also for the cases listed in Theorem 3. Combining this with Corollary 5 will prove Theorems 2 and 3.

Our next result concerns the additivity of minimal entropy. The minimal entropy of a completely positive trace-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined by

$`S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\rho }{inf}S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ))`$ (12)
The additivity of minimal entropy is the statement that

$`S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })=S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Omega })+S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (13)
###### Corollary 6

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit channel, and suppose that (11) holds for all positive $`2K\times 2K`$ matrices $`M`$, and for all $`p[1,s)`$ for some $`s>1`$. Then for any completely positive map $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`B(𝐂^K)`$, additivity of minimal entropy (13) holds.

For our last corollary, recall that a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unital if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(I)=I`$, which means roughly that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leaves unchanged the “noisiest” state through the channel.

###### Corollary 7

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a unital qubit channel, and suppose that (11) holds for all positive $`2K\times 2K`$ matrices $`M`$, and for all $`p[1,s)`$ for some $`s>1`$. Then for any completely positive trace-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`B(𝐂^K)`$, Holevo additivity (2) holds.

Remarks.

1) There are two special cases where it is easy to verify Conjecture 4. First, if $`M`$ is a one-dimensional projection then the right side of (11) becomes $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{Tr}(M)`$, and then the result follows immediately from the definition (4). Second, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the identity map, so $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=1`$. Define the projections

$`P_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),P_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
Then convexity of the $`l_p`$ norm for $`p1`$ implies that

$`M_p=M^{1/2}(P_0+P_1)M^{1/2}_pM^{1/2}P_0M^{1/2}_p+M^{1/2}P_1M^{1/2}_p`$ (15)
Furthermore for any matrix $`A`$, the matrices $`AA^{}`$ and $`A^{}A`$ have the same spectrum, so we deduce that

$`M_pP_0MP_0_p+P_1MP_1_p=X_p+Z_p`$ (16)
(this derivation is a special case of a more general result for POVM’s which is described in ).

2) Lieb and Ruskai have recently established Conjecture 4, eq. (11) for a depolarizing channel in the special case $`X=Z`$, for all $`p1`$. Recall that the depolarizing channel is described by the parameter values $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=\lambda `$, and $`t_1=t_2=t_3=0`$, so that in this case the bound (11) becomes

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& \lambda Y\\ \lambda Y^{}& X\end{array}\right)_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\left(2X_p\right)`$ (17)
where

$`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda }{2}}\right)^p+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\lambda }{2}}\right)^p\right]^{1/p}`$ (18)
Their proof appears as an Appendix to this paper.

3) Theorem 3 was proved in  for unital maps in the case $`p=\mathrm{}`$, and our proof here extends this result to all integer values of $`p`$ (and to a larger class of maps). The class of qubit maps which satisfy (9) includes all unital qubit maps and many non-unital maps. In particular, our proof applies to any extreme point in the set of qubit maps (this refers to recent work in , and we discuss it more fully in section 3).

4) To prove Corollaries 6 and 7 we need only the derivative of (11) at $`p=1`$, which we now state as a separate bound. Assume that $`M`$ has the form (10) with $`\mathrm{Tr}(M)=1`$, and define the states

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}X}}X,\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}Z}}Z`$ (19)
Then taking the derivative of (11) at $`p=1`$ gives

$`S\left((I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)\right)S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{Tr}(X)S(\xi )+\mathrm{Tr}(Z)S(\zeta )`$ (20)
5) When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are both unital qubit maps, the additivity result (2) follows immediately from the additivity of minimal entropy (13), as was discussed in . This is also true if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is a product of unital qubit maps. Additivity of Holevo capacity (2) for the ‘half-noisy’ case $`\mathrm{\Phi }=I`$ was proved by Schumacher and Westmoreland , and their analysis underlies our proof of Corollary 7.

## 3 Relative entropy and the Holevo bound

The Holevo bound (1) can be re-expressed in terms of relative entropy in several ways (see for example the discussion in ). Here we will follow the approach of Ohya, Petz and Watanabe  and Schumacher and Westmoreland , who express (1) as an optimization of relative entropy.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a channel, and let $`=\{\pi _i,\rho _i\}`$ be an ensemble of input states for the channel. Define

$`\chi (\mathrm{\Phi };)=S\left({\displaystyle \pi _i\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i)}\right){\displaystyle \pi _iS(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i))}`$ (21)
Following the notation of , the Holevo capacity of the channel is denoted

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{}{sup}\chi (\mathrm{\Phi };)`$ (22)
As shown in  there is an ensemble which achieves this supremum. The ensemble may not be unique, however its average input state is unique. We let $`\rho ^{}=\pi _i\rho _i`$ denote this optimal average input state.

The relative entropy of a state $`\omega `$ with respect to a state $`\rho `$ is defined by

$`S(\omega |\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\omega (\mathrm{log}\omega \mathrm{log}\rho )`$ (23)
Relative entropy is non-negative: $`S(\omega |\rho )0`$, with equality if and only if $`\omega =\rho `$. There is a useful characterization of the capacity $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in terms of relative entropy, namely

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\rho }{inf}\underset{\omega }{sup}S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )|\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )\right)`$ (24)
This result was derived in  and also in . For our purposes it is convenient to restate it as follows:

for any state $`\rho `$,

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{\omega }{sup}S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )|\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ))`$ (25)
and equality holds in (25) if and only if $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$.

Our goal is the additivity result (2). By restricting to product states it is clear that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (26)
So to establish (2) it is sufficient to prove the bound

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (27)
For a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, denote the optimal average output state by

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ^{})`$ (28)
Then (25) implies that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{\tau }{sup}S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ (29)
Therefore in order to prove (27), and hence (2), it is sufficient to show that for any state $`\tau `$,

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (30)
## 4 Proof for CQ channel

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CQ channel on $`B(𝐂^N)`$, so that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(\rho X_b)Q_b},`$ (31)
where $`\{X_b\}`$ are one-dimensional orthogonal projections. It follows that for all $`b=1,\mathrm{},N`$,

$`Q_b=\mathrm{\Phi }(X_b)`$ (32)
Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a completely positive map on $`B(𝐂^K)`$. Then for any state $`\tau `$ in $`B(𝐂^K𝐂^N)`$,

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }\left(\mathrm{Tr}_2\left((IX_b)\tau \right)\right)Q_b}`$ (33)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}_2`$ is the trace over the second factor. For each $`b=1,\mathrm{},N`$ let

$`n_b=\mathrm{Tr}\left((IX_b)\tau \right),`$ (34)
and define the state

$`\tau _b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_b}}\mathrm{Tr}_2\left((IX_b)\tau \right)`$ (35)
Then (33) can be written

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )={\displaystyle n_b\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)Q_b}={\displaystyle n_b\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)\mathrm{\Phi }(X_b)}`$ (36)
where in the second equality we used (32).

Turning first to the $`l_p`$ norm result, it follows from (36) and the definition (4) that

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )_p{\displaystyle n_b\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })}=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (37)
and this proves (6).

Turning next to the channel capacity result, we will prove that (30) holds. Indeed (36) implies that

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right){\displaystyle n_b\left[S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)+S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(X_b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right]}`$ (38)
where we used the additivity of relative entropy for product states. Now (24) implies

$`S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }),S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(X_b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (39)
which proves the result.

## 5 Proof for QC channel

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a QC channel, so that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(\rho X_b)Q_b},`$ (40)
where $`\{Q_b\}`$ are one-dimensional orthogonal projections. For any state $`\tau `$,

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }\left(\mathrm{Tr}_2(IX_b)\tau \right)Q_b}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle n_b\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)Q_b}`$
where we use the definitions (34) and (35). Now define

$`\theta =\mathrm{Tr}_1(\tau ),`$ (42)
then it follows that

$`n_b=\mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)`$ (43)
and (5) can be written as

$`(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)\left(\mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)Q_b\right)}`$ (44)
First we prove the bound for the $`l_p`$ norm. Using the fact that $`\{Q_b\}`$ are orthogonal projections, we get

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|^p={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)|^p\left(\mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)\right)^p}`$ (45)
The definition of the $`l_p`$ norm implies that for any positive matrix $`A`$,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{Tr}(A)`$ (46)
and hence (45) implies that

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|^p\left(\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)^p{\displaystyle \left(\mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)\right)^p}`$ (47)
Furthermore, from (40) it follows that

$`\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )|^p={\displaystyle [\mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)]^p}`$ (48)
Combining (47) and (48) and taking the $`p^{\mathrm{th}}`$ root gives

$`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (49)
which then proves the result.

Turning now to the additivity of the channel capacity, we will again establish the bound (30). We claim that the following identity holds:

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}+S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )|\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ (50)
From the result (25) it follows that

$`S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta )|\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }),S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _b)|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (51)
Therefore (50) implies

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\right){\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}(\theta X_b)\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (52)
and this proves the result.

So it remains to verify the identity (50). This follows easily from the definition of relative entropy, and the fact that $`\{Q_b\}`$ are orthogonal projections.

## 6 Proofs for qubit channels

In this section we prove Theorems 2 and 3. We do this by establishing the bound (11), and then using Corollary 5, which will be proved in the next section.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a qubit map, and assume that bases have been chosen in its domain and range so that it has the form (8). Clearly, the maximal $`l_p`$ norm of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is invariant under permutations of the three coordinates. It is also invariant under the following symmetry operations.

###### Lemma 8

For every $`p`$, $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is invariant if the signs of any two of $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ are reversed, or if the signs of any two of $`(t_1,t_2,t_3)`$ are reversed.

The proof is easy: first notice that conjugation by $`\sigma _1`$ in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ switches the signs of $`\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ without any other changes, and similarly for conjugation by $`\sigma _2`$ and $`\sigma _3`$. Then notice that simultaneous conjugation by $`\sigma _1`$ in both the domain and range of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ switches the signs of $`t_2,t_3`$ without any other changes, and similarly for $`\sigma _2`$ and $`\sigma _3`$.

As a consequence, we will assume henceforth without loss of generality that

$`t_10,t_20,\mathrm{and}\lambda _1\lambda _20`$ (53)
Our first goal is to establish Conjecture 4 for $`p=2`$, for any map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We rewrite (10) more fully as

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y_1iY_2\\ Y_1+iY_2& Z\end{array}\right)`$ (54)
where $`X>0`$, $`Z>0`$ and $`Y_1`$, $`Y_2`$ are hermitian. Let $`W=(X+Z)/2`$. Then using the special form (8) we get

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)=`$ (55)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_{++}X+c_+Z& (t_1W+\lambda _1Y_1)i(t_2W+\lambda _2Y_2)\\ & \\ (t_1W+\lambda _1Y_1)+i(t_2W+\lambda _2Y_2)& c_{}X+c_+Z\end{array}\right)`$
where

$`c_{++}=(1+\lambda _3+t_3)/2,`$ $`c_+=(1\lambda _3+t_3)/2`$ (56)
$`c_+=(1+\lambda _3t_3)/2,`$ $`c_{}=(1\lambda _3t_3)/2`$
Note that since $`M0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a qubit map, it follows that $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)0`$ for all choices of $`X`$ and $`Z`$. Hence the four coefficients in (56) are positive, for all allowed values of $`t_3`$ and $`\lambda _3`$.

We consider first the case that $`p=2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is any qubit map. Taking the trace of the square of (55) gives

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(c_{++}X+c_+Z)^2+\mathrm{Tr}(c_+X+c_{}Z)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(t_1W+\lambda _1Y_1)^2+2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(t_2W+\lambda _2Y_2)^2`$
Define

$`x=X_2,z=Z_2,y_1=Y_1_2,y_2=Y_2_2`$ (58)
Then using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm, and our positivity condition (53) we get

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^2`$ $``$ $`(c_{++}x+c_+z)^2+(c_+x+c_{}z)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\left(t_1{\displaystyle \frac{(x+z)}{2}}+\lambda _1y_1\right)^2+2\left(t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(x+z)}{2}}+\lambda _2y_1\right)^2`$
Define the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& y_1iy_2\\ y_1+iy_2& z\end{array}\right)`$ (60)
Then (6) can be re-written as

$`I\mathrm{\Phi }(M)_2\mathrm{\Phi }(m)_2`$ (61)
The positivity of $`M`$ implies that

$`\mathrm{Tr}|Y_1iY_2|^2=y_1^2+y_2^2xz,`$ (62)
and hence that $`m`$ is positive. Therefore

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)_2\nu _2(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{Tr}(m)=\nu _2(\mathrm{\Phi })(x+z)=\nu _2(\mathrm{\Phi })(X_2+Z_2)`$ (63)
which establishes (11) for $`p=2`$, and hence by Corollary 5 proves Theorem 2.

In order to prove Theorem 3 we will assume that the condition (9) is satisfied. Without loss of generality, this condition can be rewritten as follows:

$`t_10\mathrm{and}t_2=0\mathrm{and}\lambda _1\lambda _20.`$ (64)
To see this, suppose first that $`|\lambda _i||\lambda _j|`$ for any $`i,j`$. Then the condition (9) implies that at least one of the $`t_i`$ is zero, and also that the corresponding $`|\lambda _i|`$ is not the largest. Hence by permuting coordinates we can arrange that $`t_2=0`$ and that $`|\lambda _1|>|\lambda _2|`$. By switching signs of pairs of parameters we can then re-state (9) as (64). Suppose now that $`|\lambda _i|=|\lambda _j|`$ for some $`i,j`$. By permuting coordinates we can assume that $`|\lambda _1|=|\lambda _2|`$, and by changing signs that $`\lambda _1=\lambda _20`$. This allows a further symmetry transformation, namely we can conjugate by a unitary matrix $`U=e^{i\theta \sigma _3}`$ in the range of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ without changing $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. With such a conjugation we can set $`t_2=0`$, and then the condition (64) again holds.

The condition (64) is clearly satisfied for all unital maps, since in that case $`t_i=0`$ for all $`i`$. It is also satisfied by all maps in the closure of the set of extreme points of the (convex) set of qubit maps. This fact follows from Theorem 4 in , where it was shown that all such maps have only one of the parameters $`t_1,t_2,t_3`$ being non-zero.

In order to prove (11), we re-write (55) as

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_{11}& R_{12}\\ R_{21}& R_{22}\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`R_{11}E_{11}+R_{12}E_{12}+R_{21}E_{21}+R_{22}E_{22}`$
where $`E_{ij}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix with $`1`$ in position $`(i,j)`$ and $`0`$ elsewhere, and where

$`R_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{++}X+c_+Z,`$ (66)
$`R_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(t_1W+\lambda _1Y_1)i\lambda _2Y_2,`$
$`R_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`(t_1W+\lambda _1Y_1)+i\lambda _2Y_2,`$
$`R_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{}X+c_+Z`$
(we have used the condition (64) to set $`t_2=0`$).

For integer $`p`$ we can evaluate $`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^p`$ by multiplying the right side of (6) with itself $`p`$ times, and taking the trace with respect to a product basis $`e_if_j`$ where $`\{e_i\}`$ span $`𝐂^K`$ and $`f_1,f_2`$ span $`𝐂^2`$. The result is

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^p={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}[E_{i_1j_1}E_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}E_{i_pj_p}]\mathrm{Tr}[R_{i_1j_1}R_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}R_{i_pj_p}]},`$ (67)
where the sum runs over all indices $`i_1,j_1,\mathrm{},i_p,j_p=1,2`$. The coefficient $`\mathrm{Tr}[E_{i_1j_1}E_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}E_{i_pj_p}]`$ in each of these terms is non-negative, since the matrices $`\{E_{ij}\}`$ are all non-negative. Furthermore, repeated application of Hölder’s inequality shows that

$`|\mathrm{Tr}A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_p|A_1_pA_2_p\mathrm{}A_p_p`$ (68)
for any product of $`p`$ matrices. Hence the sum in (67) is bounded above by

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^p{\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}[E_{i_1j_1}E_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}E_{i_pj_p}]R_{i_1j_1}_pR_{i_2j_2}_p\mathrm{}R_{i_pj_p}_p}`$ (69)
We define the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`m^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x^{}& y^{}\\ y^{}& z^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (70)
where now

$`x^{}=X_p,z^{}=Z_p,y^{}=Y_1iY_2_p`$ (71)
The matrix $`m^{}`$ is positive. This can be seen most easily by noting that the positivity of $`M`$ implies that $`Y_1iY_2=\sqrt{X}T\sqrt{Z}`$ where $`T`$ is a contraction , and hence by Hölder’s inequality $`y^{}\sqrt{x^{}z^{}}`$. Applying the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gives

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})`$ $`=`$ $`[c_{++}x^{}+c_+z^{}]E_{11}+[t_1(x^{}+z^{})/2+\lambda _1y^{}]E_{12}`$
$`+[t_1(x^{}+z^{})/2+\lambda _1y^{}]E_{21}+[c_{}x^{}+c_+z^{}]E_{22}`$
Applying the same method to evaluate $`\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})|^p`$ gives

$`\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})|^p={\displaystyle \mathrm{Tr}[E_{i_1j_1}E_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}E_{i_pj_p}]r_{i_1j_1}r_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}r_{i_pj_p}}`$ (73)
where

$`r_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{++}x^{}+c_+z^{},`$ (74)
$`r_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{21}=t_1\left(x^{}+z^{}\right)/2+\lambda _1y^{},`$
$`r_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{}x^{}+c_+z^{}`$
We now claim that

$`\mathrm{Tr}|(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)|^p\mathrm{Tr}|\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})|^p`$ (75)
If we assume for the moment that (75) is valid, then it implies

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)_p\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{Tr}(m^{})\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })(x^{}+z^{})`$ (76)
This proves (11), which by Corollary 5 implies Theorem 3.

So it sufficient to demonstrate (75). From (69) and (73) it is sufficient to show that

$`R_{ij}_pr_{ij}`$ (77)
for all $`i,j=1,2`$. First, using the positivity of $`c_{++}`$ etc we have

$`R_{11}_p`$ $`=`$ $`c_{++}X+c_+Z_pc_{++}x^{}+c_+z^{}=r_{11}`$
$`R_{22}_p`$ $`=`$ $`c_+X+c_{}Z_pc_+x^{}+c_{}z^{}=r_{22}`$
The remaining bound also follows easily, since

$`R_{12}_p`$ $`=`$ $`t_1{\displaystyle \frac{(X+Z)}{2}}+\lambda _1Y_1i\lambda _2Y_2_p`$
$``$ $`t_1{\displaystyle \frac{(X+Z)}{2}}_p+(\lambda _1\lambda _2)Y_1+\lambda _2(Y_1iY_2)_p`$
$``$ $`t_1(x^{}+z^{})/2+(\lambda _1\lambda _2)Y_1_p+\lambda _2Y_1iY_2_p`$
where in the last line we used (53). Furthermore

$`Y_1_p`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_1iY_2)/2+(Y_1+iY_2)/2_p`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_1iY_2_p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_1+iY_2_p`$
$`=`$ $`y^{}`$
Hence (6) becomes

$`R_{12}_pt_1(x^{}+z^{})/2+(\lambda _1\lambda _2)y^{}+\lambda _2y^{}=t_1(x^{}+z^{})/2+\lambda _1y^{}=r_{12}`$ (79)
which establishes the result.

## 7 Proofs of Corollaries

### 7.1 Corollary 5

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be any completely positive map on $`(𝐂^K)`$, and let $`\tau `$ be a state on $`(𝐂^K𝐂^2)`$ of the form

$`\tau =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B^{}& C\end{array}\right)`$ (80)
where $`A,B,C`$ are $`K\times K`$ matrices, with $`A0`$, $`C0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(A+C)=1`$. Then $`M=(\mathrm{\Omega }I)(\rho )`$ has the form (10) with $`X=\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$, $`Y=\mathrm{\Omega }(B)`$ and $`Z=\mathrm{\Omega }(C)`$. Hence from the definition of the maximal $`l_p`$ norm it follows that

$`X_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{Tr}(A),Z_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{Tr}(C)`$ (81)
Applying (11) and using the facts that $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)=(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho )`$ and
$`\mathrm{Tr}(A)+\mathrm{Tr}(C)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho )=1`$ we immediately deduce Corollary 5.

### 7.2 Corollary 2

Recall that the entropy of a state $`\rho `$ is defined by

$`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$ (82)
Using $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho =1`$ it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\left(\rho _p\right)_{p=1}=S(\rho ),`$ (83)
and hence that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\left(\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)_{p=1}=S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (84)
Therefore taking the derivative of (6) at $`p=1`$ yields immediately (13).

### 7.3 Corollary 3

From the results of Section 2, it is sufficient to establish the bound (30). For any states $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ we have

$`\mathrm{log}(\omega \rho )=\mathrm{log}\omega I+I\mathrm{log}\rho `$ (85)
Furthermore since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a unital qubit map it follows that its optimal average output state is

$`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I`$ (86)
Since $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{2}I)=\mathrm{log}(2)I`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\rho )=1`$ it follows that the left side of (30) can be written as

$`S\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })I\right)+\mathrm{log}(2)`$ (87)
Define

$`\omega =\mathrm{Tr}_2\tau `$ (88)
Then the second term in (87) is equal to

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (89)
Also, the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unital implies that

$`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{log}(2)S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (90)
Hence to prove (30) it is sufficient to prove that

$`S((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau ))\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (91)
Now we use the bound (20), which is implied by (11). Again let $`\tau `$ have the form (80), so that $`M=(\mathrm{\Omega }I)(\tau )`$ has the form (10) with $`X=\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ and $`Z=\mathrm{\Omega }(C)`$. Let $`a=\mathrm{Tr}A=\mathrm{Tr}X`$, and define the states

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}A}}A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}A,\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}C}}C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1a}}C`$ (92)
Then using the notation of (19), $`\xi =\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )`$ and $`\zeta =\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma )`$, and (20) can be written

$`S((\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi })(\tau ))S_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{\Phi })+aS(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ))+(1a)S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma ))`$ (93)
Comparing with (91), it is sufficient to prove that

$`aS(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha ))(1a)S(\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma ))\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )\mathrm{log}(\rho _\mathrm{\Omega })\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (94)
Since $`\omega =a\alpha +(1a)\gamma `$, we can rewrite the left side of (94) as

$`aS\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)+(1a)S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ (95)
Since $`\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the optimal output state for the channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it follows from (24) that

$`S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ $``$ $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (96)
$`S\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma )|\rho _\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ $``$ $`\chi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (97)
Combining (94), (95) and (96) yields the result.

## 8 Summary

The results in this paper all concern product channels of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where in every case $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an arbitrary channel. For these product channels we prove a variety of results involving different measures of the purity of output states from the channel.

The first set of results apply when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a CQ or QC channel. Recall that the CQ channel first maps an input state to a letter in a classical alphabet, and then maps this to a quantum state at the output. The QC channel measures the input state with some POVM, and assigns different results to orthogonal output states. In both cases we prove that the output state with maximal $`l_p`$ norm is a product state, and also that the Holevo capacity is achieved on a product state. In other words, the maximal $`l_p`$ norm of the product channel is multiplicative and the Holevo capacity is additive. These results were previously shown to be true in the case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the identity map (and the additivity of the Holevo capacity also when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$).

The second set of results apply when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a qubit map, that is a map on states in $`𝐂^2`$. We prove multiplicativity for the $`p=2`$ norm, for any qubit map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We also prove multiplicativity for the $`l_p`$ norm when $`p`$ is any integer, and with some restrictions on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The class of maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfying the restrictions includes all unital qubit maps.

The third set of results revolves around a conjectured bound (11) for the $`l_p`$ norm of any output state from the half-noisy channel $`I\mathrm{\Phi }`$, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a qubit channel. We show that this bound implies multiplicativity of the $`l_p`$ norm for any product channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We also show that when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is unital the bound implies additivity of the Holevo capacity of the product channel $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore we believe that this conjecture provides a new and useful approach to the conjecture that the Holevo capacity is universally additive. In a hopeful sign of future progress on this important problem, Lieb and Ruskai have established Conjecture 4 in one non-trivial case (their proof appears as the Appendix below).

Acknowledgment: The author thanks M. B. Ruskai for useful discussions and comments. The author is also grateful to E. H. Lieb and M. B. Ruskai for allowing their proof of a special case of Conjecture 4, eq. (11) to appear as an Appendix to this paper. This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-97-05779.

## Appendix A Appendix: Theorem of Lieb and Ruskai

Let $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ Y^{}& Z\end{array}\right)`$ and recall that $`M`$ is positive semi-definite if and only $`Y=\sqrt{X}R\sqrt{Z}`$ with $`R`$ a contraction. Moreover, any contraction can be written as a convex combination of unitary matrices. (See  or  for details and further references.) Hence, by the convexity of the $`p`$-norm, it suffices to prove (17) under the assumption that $`Y=\sqrt{X}V\sqrt{Z}`$ with $`V`$ unitary.

We now consider the special case $`X=Z`$ and note that we can write

$`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& \lambda Y\\ \lambda Y^{}& X\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{F}G\sqrt{F}`$ (98)
with $`F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& 0\\ 0& X\end{array}\right)`$ and $`G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \lambda V\\ \lambda V^{}& I\end{array}\right)`$. We will use a result of Lieb and Thirring (Appendix B of ) that, for $`p1`$ and $`F,G0`$,

$`\text{Tr}(F^{1/2}GF^{1/2})^p\text{Tr}(F^pG^p).`$ (99)
The critical feature is to note that $`G`$ has eigenvalues $`(1\pm \lambda )`$. Moreover,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& \lambda V\\ \lambda V^{}& I\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& V\\ V^{}& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+\lambda )I& 0\\ 0& (1\lambda )I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& V\\ V^{}& I\end{array}\right)`$ (100)
Thus

$`\text{Tr}[(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)]^p`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& V\\ V^{}& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}X^p& 0\\ 0& X^p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& V\\ V^{}& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+\lambda )^pI& 0\\ 0& (1\lambda )^pI\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(1+\lambda )^p\text{Tr}\frac{1}{2}(X^p+VX^pV^{})+(1\lambda )^p\text{Tr}\frac{1}{2}(X^p+V^{}X^pV)`$
$`=`$ $`[2\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })]^pX_p^p.`$
Taking the p-th root gives the desired result, $`(I\mathrm{\Phi })(M)_p\nu _p(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}X_p`$.