text:
# On Quantum Channels.

## I Characterization of CP-maps

The most general evolution of a quantum system is described by a linear CP-map Kra83 . In this section we will give a self-contained description of CP-maps or quantum channels. Most of the mathematics presented originate from the seminal papers of de Pillis deP67  and Choi Cho75 . The fact that the evolution of quantum systems is described by linear completely positive maps is a consequence of the assumption of the linearity of the evolution (the complete positivity follows from consistency arguments once the linearity is accepted).

Let us now recall some notations and useful tricks. Consider a pure state $`|\chi `$ in a Hilbert space that is a tensor product of two Hilbert spaces of dimension $`n`$

$$|A=\underset{ij}{\overset{n}{}}a_{ij}|i|j.$$

Define

$$|I=\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}|i|i$$

an unnormalized maximally entangled state and $`A`$ the operator with elements $`i|A|j=a_{ij}`$, then

$$|A=AI_n|I.$$

Moreover it holds that

$$XY|A=XAY|I=XAY^TI_n|I=I_nYA^TX^T|I.$$

The symbol $`|I`$ will solely be used to denote the unnormalized maximally entangled state $`|I=_i|ii`$. We are now ready for the following fundamental Theorem of de PillisdeP67 :

###### Theorem 1

A linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acting on a matrix $`X`$ is Hermitian-preserving if and only if there exist operators $`\{A_i\}`$ and real numbers $`\lambda _i`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=\underset{i}{}\lambda _iA_iXA_i^{}$$

Proof: Suppose the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acts on a $`n\times n`$ matrix. Then due to linearity, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is completely characterized if we know how it acts on a complete basis of $`n\times n`$ matrices, for example on all matrices $`|e_ie_j|`$, $`1i,jn`$ with $`|e_i`$ a complete orthonormal base in Hilbert space. Let us define the $`n^2\times n^2`$ positive matrix

$$|II|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|e_1e_1|& \mathrm{}& |e_1e_n|\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ |e_ne_1|& \mathrm{}& |e_ne_n|\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
being the matrix notation of a maximally entangled state in a $`nn`$ Hilbert space. It follows that all the information of a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is encoded in the state

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=I_n\mathrm{\Phi }(|II|),$$
(2)
as the $`n^2`$ $`n\times n`$ blocks represent exactly the action of the map on the complete basis $`|e_ie_j|`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Hermitian-preserving, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|e_ie_j|)`$ has to be equal to the Hermitian conjugate of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|e_je_i|)`$, and this implies that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is Hermitian. Let us therefore consider the eigenvalue decomposition of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=_i\lambda _i|\chi _i\chi _i|`$. Using the trick $`|A=(AI)|I`$, we easily arrive at the conclusion that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=_i\lambda _iA_iXA_i^{}`$, where $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ are the eigenvalues and where the operators $`\{A_i^T\}`$ are the reshaped versions of the eigenvectors of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

A central ingredient in the proof was the introduction of the matrix

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=I_n\mathrm{\Phi }(|II|)$$

with $`|I=_i|i|i`$ a maximally entangled state. We define this Hermitian matrix $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as being the dual state corresponding to the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It was already explained that it encodes all the information about the map, and its eigenvectors give rise to the operators $`A_i`$. The above lemma characterizes all possible Hermitian preserving maps, and therefore surely all positive and completely positive maps. For example, let us consider the positive map that corresponds to taking the transpose of the density operators of a qubit:

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`1A_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`1A_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`1A_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (11)
$`\lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`1A_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (14)
Not all Hermitian-preserving maps are physical in quantum mechanics however: if a map acts on a subsystem, then it should conserve positivity of the complete density operator. This extra assumption leads to the condition of complete positivity, meaning that $`I_m\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive for all $`m`$. Of course, this implies that the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not only Hermitian but also positive (i.e. all its eigenvalues are positive), as it is defined as the action of the map $`I_n\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on a maximally entangled state. The positive eigenvalues can then be absorbed into the (Kraus) operators $`\{A_i\}`$, and we have therefore proven the Kraus representation Theorem (ChoiCho75 ):

###### Theorem 2

A linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acting on a density operator $`\rho `$ is completely positive if and only if there exist operators $`\{A_i\}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\underset{i}{}A_i\rho A_i^{}.$$

Remarks:

* A CP-map is trace-preserving iff $`_iA_i^{}A_i=I_n`$; this property is easily verified using the cyclicity of the trace. In terms of the (unique) dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ associated to the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, this trace-preserving condition amounts to:

$$Tr_2(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })=I_n.$$

Here the notation $`Tr_2`$ means the partial trace over the second subsystem. A CP-map is furthermore called bistochastic if also the condition

$$Tr_1(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })=I_n$$

holds; this property is equivalent to the fact that the map is identity-preserving, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(I_n)=I_n`$.
* The dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to a CP-map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is uniquely defined. The Kraus operators are obtained by considering the columns of a square root of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`A_i`$ is obtained by making a matrix out of the i’th column of a square root of $`X`$, with $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=XX^{}`$). As the square root of a matrix is not uniquely defined, the Kraus operators are not unique. Each different “square root” $`X`$ of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=XX^{}`$) gives rise to a different set of equivalent Kraus operators. This implies that all equivalent sets of Kraus operators are related by an isometry, and that the minimal number of Kraus operators is given by the rank of the density operator $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore we define the rank of a map to be the rank of the dual operator $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This rank is bounded above by $`n^2`$ with $`n`$ the dimension of the Hilbert space. A unique Kraus representation can be obtained by for example enforcing the Kraus operators to be orthogonal, as these would correspond to the unique eigenvectors of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Note that a similar reasoning applies to all Hermitian preserving and all positive maps, although there an additional sign should be taken into account.
* By construction, we have proven that a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acting on a n-dimensional Hilbert space is completely positive iff $`I_n\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive: there is no need to consider auxiliary Hilbert spaces with dimension larger than the original one. The reasoning is as follows: if $`I_n\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive, then $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a Kraus representation, which implies complete positivity.
* Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive but not completely positive. Then there exists a completely positive map $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and a positive scalar $`ϵ`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=(1+nϵ)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\rho )ϵ\mathrm{Tr}(\rho )I_n.$$

The proof of this fact is elementary: take $`ϵ`$ to be the opposite of the smallest eigenvalue of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (this eigenvalue is negative as otherwise $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would be completely positive), and define the CP-map $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\rho )=(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )+nϵ\mathrm{Tr}(\rho )I/n)/(1+nϵ)`$ (this map is completely positive because the dual state $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ associated to it is positive and has therefore a Kraus representation). Note that the whole reasoning is also valid for general Hermitian-preserving maps. As an example, consider again the transpose map on a qubit. Then it can be checked that the minimal value of $`ϵ`$ is $`1`$ (this is true for the PT operation in arbitrary dimensions) and that the Kraus operators corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ become

$$\{A_i\}=\{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)/\sqrt{2}\}.$$
* To make the duality between maps and states more explicit, it is useful to consider the following identity:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=Tr_2\left(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{T_1}(\rho I_n)\right),$$
(15)
where $`T_1`$ means partial transposition with relation to the first subsystem. This can be proven by explicitly writing the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into Kraus operator form, and exploiting the cyclicity of the trace. Due to the partial transpose condition of Peres Per96 , it is clear that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{T_1}`$ will typically not longer be positive. This identity is very useful, and was used in the section on optimal teleportation with mixed states.

## II Extreme points of CP-maps

The set of completely positive maps is a convex set: indeed, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are CP-maps, then so is $`x\mathrm{\Phi }_1+(1x)\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Due to the one to one correspondence between maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and states $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it is trivial to obtain the extreme points of the set of completely positive maps: these are the maps with one Kraus operator, corresponding to $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ having rank 1.

If however we consider the convex set of trace-preserving maps, the characterization of extreme points becomes more complicated. The knowledge of the set of extreme points of the trace-preserving CP-maps is very interesting from a physical perspective in the following way: suppose one has a multipartite state of qudits and one wants to maximize some convex functional of the state (e.g. the fidelity, …) by performing local operations. Due to convexity, the optimal operation will correspond to an extreme point of the set of trace-preserving maps.

Let us now characterize all extremal trace-preserving maps:

###### Theorem 3

Consider a TPCP-map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ acting on a Hilbert space of dimension $`n`$ and of rank $`m`$. Consider the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=XX^{}`$ with $`X`$ a $`n^2\times m`$ matrix, and the $`n^2`$ matrices $`X_i=X^{}(\sigma _iI_n)X`$ (the matrices $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ form a complete basis for the Hermitian $`n\times n`$ matrices). Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extremal if and only if $`mn`$ and if the set of linear equations $`i:\mathrm{Tr}(QX_i)=0`$ has only the trivial solution $`Q=0`$.

This condition is equivalent to the following one given by ChoiCho75 : given $`m^2`$ Kraus operators $`\{A_i\}`$ of a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then the map is extremal iff the $`m^2`$ matrices $`\{A_i^{}A_j\}`$, $`1i,jm`$ are linearly independent.

Proof: The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extremal if and only if there does not exist a $`R`$ with the property that $`RR^{}I`$ and such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_2(XRR^{}X^{})=I`$. This condition is equivalent to the fact that the set of equations

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(X\underset{Q}{\underset{}{(RR^{}I)}}X^{}\sigma _iI\right)=0$$

does only have the trivial solution $`Q=0`$. As there are $`n^2`$ independent generators $`\sigma _i`$ and due to the fact that $`Q`$ has $`m^2`$ degrees of freedom, it is immediately clear that there will always be a non-trivial solution if $`m>n`$, ending the proof.

It remains to be proven that he condition obtained is equivalent to the one derived111Actually, Choi derived the different problem of characterizing the extremal points of the (not necessarily trace-preserving) CP-maps that leave the identity unaffected, but his arguments are readily translated to the present situation. Note also that his proof was much more involved. by Choi Cho75 . This can be seen as follows: the condition $`\mathrm{Tr}_2(XRR^{}X^{})=I`$ is equivalent to the condition $`_{jk}A_k^{}A_j(_iR_{ji}R_{ki}^{}\delta _{jk})=0`$ (this is readily obtained using the trick $`|A=AI|I`$). Therefore a nontrivial solution of $`Q`$ is possible iff the set of matrices $`\{A_i^{}A_j\}`$, $`1i,jm`$ are linearly dependent.

Note that the given proof is constructive and can therefore be used for decomposing a given TPCP-map into a convex combination of extremal maps: once a non-trivial $`Q`$ and therefore $`R`$ is obtained, one can scale it such that $`RR^{}I`$, and define another $`S=\sqrt{IRR^{}}`$. This $`S`$ is guaranteed to be another trace-preserving map up to a constant factor, and the original map is the sum of the maps parameterized by $`XRR^{}X^{}`$ and $`XSS^{}X^{}`$.

All TPCP maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of rank $`1`$ are of course extreme and correspond to unitary dynamics. One easily verifies that this implies that the dual $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a maximally entangled state. The intuition behind this is as follows: by equation (15), $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ characterizes the correlation between the output and the input of the channel. Maximal correlation happens iff the evolution occurs reversibly and thus unitarily, and therefore corresponds to maximal “entanglement” between in- and output. We will explore this connection between maps and entanglement more thoroughly in the following section.

One could go one step further, and try to characterize all extreme points of the convex set defined by all trace-preserving channels for which the extra condition holds that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _1)=\rho _2`$ with $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ given density operators. (Note that $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ can be chosen completely arbitrary, as there will always exist at least one TPCP-map that transforms a given state into another given one: consider for example the map with its associated dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=I\rho _2`$.) Bistochastic channels are a special subset of this convex set of maps (in that case $`\rho _1=\rho _2I`$). An adaption of Theorem 3 leads to the following:

###### Theorem 4

Consider the convex set of trace-preserving CP-maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _1)=\rho _2`$ with $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ given. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is of rank $`m`$, its dual state is $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=XX^{}`$ with $`X`$ a $`n\times n`$ matrix, and that there are $`m`$ Kraus operators $`\{A_i\}`$. Then this map is extremal if and only if the set of $`2m^2`$ linear equations

$$\mathrm{Tr}(QX^{}(\sigma _iI)X)=0\mathrm{Tr}(QX^{}(\rho _1^T\sigma _i)X)=0$$
(16)
has only the trivial solution $`Q=0`$, or equivalently if and only if the $`m^2`$ operators $`\{A_i^{}A_jA_j\rho _1A_i^{}\}`$ ($`1i,jm`$) are linearly independent.

Proof: The proof is completely analogous to the proof of Theorem 3, but here we have the extra condition

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(X(RR^{}I)X(\rho _1^T\sigma _i)\right)=0.$$

In terms of Kraus operators, this additional condition becomes

$$\underset{kj}{}A_j\rho _1A_k^{}(\underset{i}{}R_{ji}R_{ki}^{}\delta _{jk})=0$$

which ends the proof.

A similar Theorem was stated by Landau and Streater LS93  in the special case of bistochastic maps. In analogy with the conclusions of Theorem 3, we conclude that the number of Kraus operators in an extremal TPCP-map of the kind considered in the above Theorem is bounded by $`\sqrt{2n^2}`$.

Let us for example consider the case of qubits. Then the rank of an extremal $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is bounded by $`2`$, and extremal rank 2 TPCP-maps obeying the condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _1)=\rho _2`$ typically exist. There is however a notable exception if $`\rho _1=\rho _2=I/2`$ (i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is bistochastic): a bistochastic qubit map has a corresponding dual $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that is Bell-diagonal. A Bell-diagonal state is a convex sum of maximally entangled states, and therefore a rank 2 bistochastic map cannot be extremal. Note however that this is an accident, and for Hilbert space dimensions larger than 2 there exist extremal bistochastic channels that are not unitary LS93 . Sometimes the name “unital” is also used instead of “bistochastic”. The foregoing argument however shows that this terminology is not completely justified.

One could now add more constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{2i})=\rho _{2i+1}`$, and this would lead to similar conditions for extremality in terms of the Kraus operators. Note however that the $`\rho _i`$ appearing in the constraints cannot be chosen completely arbitrary, as in general non-compatible constraints can arise due to the complete positivity condition on the physical maps (Deciding whether a set of conditions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{2i})=\rho _{2i+1}`$ is physical can be solved using the techniques of semidefinite programming VB96 ).

Let us now formulate another interesting Theorem:

###### Theorem 5

Given a Hilbert space of dimension $`n`$ and a trace-preserving map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of rank $`mn`$, then there exist pure states $`|\psi `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi \psi |)`$ are states of rank $`m1`$.

Proof: Let us first consider the case $`m=n`$, and define $`m`$ Kraus operators $`\{A_i\}`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Given a pure state $`|\psi `$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maps this state to one that is not full rank iff there exists a pure state $`|\chi `$ such that

$$\chi |\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi \psi |)|\chi =0=\underset{i}{}|\chi |A_i|\psi |^2.$$

Writing $`|\chi =_iy_i|i`$, $`|\psi =_ix_i|i`$ and $`j|A_i|k=A_{ik}^j`$, then the previous equation amounts to solving the following set of bilinear equations:

$$i=1:n,\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m=n}{}}x_jA_{ik}^j)y_k=0.$$

This set of equations always has a non-trivial solution. Indeed, the parameters $`x_j`$ can always be chosen such that the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}=_jx_jA_{ik}^j`$ is singular (if all $`A_i`$ are full rank then this can be done by fixing all but one of them, and then choosing the remaining parameter such that the determinant vanishes; if one of the $`A_i`$ is rank deficient then the solution is of course direct). Then the parameters $`y_k`$ can be chosen such that the vector $`y`$ is in the right kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ (the right kernel is not zero-dimensional as the dimension of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is $`n\times n`$), and therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi \psi |)`$ is not full rank. If $`m<n`$, then the right kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is at least $`nm+1`$ dimensional, such that $`nm+1`$ linearly independent $`|\chi `$ can be found such that $`\chi |\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi \psi |)|\chi =0`$, which ends the proof.

In general , it is thus proven that one can always find states $`|\psi `$ such that the rank of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi \psi |)`$ is smaller than the rank of the map, which is surprising. Note that the bound in the Theorem is generically tight, i.e. the minimal rank of the output state will typically be $`m1`$; this follows from the fact that decreasing the rank of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with two units would need $`n(n1)/2`$ independent degrees of freedom, while there are only $`n1`$ available.

Note that extremal TPCP-maps always fulfil the conditions of the Theorem. In particular, extremal qubit channels are generically of rank 2, and the previous Theorem implies that there always exist pure states that remain pure after the action of a rank 2 extremal map (This was also observed by Ruskai et al.RSW02 ).

The above Theorem has also some consequences for the study of entanglement. Applying the foregoing proof to the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we can easily prove the following: if the rank of a mixed state $`\rho `$ defined in a $`n\times n`$ dimensional Hilbert space is given by $`mn`$, then there always exist at least $`(nm+1)`$ linearly independent product states orthogonal to it.

Let us now consider an example of the use of extremal maps. Suppose we want to characterize the optimal local trace-preserving operations that one has to apply locally to each of the qubits of a 2-qubit entangled mixed state, such as to maximize the fidelity (i.e. the overlap with a maximally entangled state). This problem is of interest in the context of teleportation BBC93 ; HHH99  as the fidelity of the state used to teleport is the standard measure of the quality of teleportation. Badziag and the Horodecki’s BHH00  discovered the intriguing property that the fidelity of a mixed state can be enhanced by applying an amplitude damping channel to one of the qubits. This is due to the fact that the fidelity is both dependent on the quantum correlations and on the classical correlations, and enhancing the classical correlations by mixing (and hence losing quantum correlations) can sometimes lead to a higher fidelity.

With the help of the previous analysis of extremal maps, we are in the right position to find the optimal trace-preserving map that maximizes the fidelity. Indeed, the optimization problem is to find the trace-preserving CP-maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A,\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ such as to maximize the fidelity $`F`$ defined as

$$F(\rho ,\mathrm{\Phi }_A,\mathrm{\Phi }_B)=\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B(\rho )|\psi =\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\rho \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}(|\psi \psi |)\right)\right\}$$
(17)
with $`|\psi `$ the maximally entangled state. This problem is readily seen to be jointly convex in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$, and therefore the optimal strategy will certainly consist of applying extremal (rank 2) maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A,\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$. As we just have derived an easy parametrization of these maps, it is easy to devise a numerical algorithm that will yield the optimal solution.

Note that the problem, although convex in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$, is bilinear and therefore can have multiple (local) maxima. This problem disappears when only one party (Alice or Bob) applies a map (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B=I`$). This problem was studied in more detail by Rehacek et al.RHF01 , where a heuristic algorithm was proposed to find the optimal local trace-preserving map to be applied by Bob. As the optimization problem is however convex, the powerful techniques of semidefinite programming VB96  should be applied, for which an efficient algorithm exists that is assured to converge to the global optimum. Indeed, due to linearity the problem now consists of finding the 2-qubit state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}0`$ with constraint $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{B}(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=I`$ such that the fidelity is maximized. As we already know, the algorithm will converge to a $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of maximal rank 2 in the case of qubits. Exactly the same reasoning holds for systems in higher dimensional Hilbert spaces: if only one party is to apply a trace-preserving operation to enhance the fidelity, the above semidefinite program will produce the optimal local map that maximally enhances the fidelity.

Other situations in which extremal maps will be encountered are for example the problem of optimal cloningBH96 ; Cer00 ; AD02 : given an unknown input state $`\rho `$, one wants to construct the optimal trace-preserving CP-map such as to yield an output for which the fidelity with $`\rho \rho `$ is maximal. This can again be rephrased as a semidefinite program whose unique solution will be given by an extremal trace-preserving CP-map.

## III Quantum channels and entanglement

The physical interpretation of the dual state corresponding to a CP-map or quantum channel is straightforward. It is the density operator that corresponds to the state that can be made as follows: Alice prepares a maximally entangled state $`|I`$, and sends one half of it to Bob through the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This results into $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

A perfect quantum channel is unitary and the corresponding state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a maximally entangled state. This corresponds to the case of perfect transmission of qudits, and indeed a maximally entangled state is the state with perfect quantum correlations. Consider now a completely depolarizing channel. In that case it is possible to transmit a classical bit perfectly, and indeed $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponds to a separable state with maximal classical correlations. As a third example, consider the complete amplitude damping channel. Then $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a separable pure state with no correlations whatever between Alice and Bob. It is therefore clear that the study of the character of correlation present in the quantum state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ tells us a lot about the character of the quantum channel.

This way of looking at quantum channels gives a nice way of unifying statics and dynamics in one framework: the future is entangled (or at least correlated) with the past. Just as a measurement in the future gives us information about the prepared system (through the use of the quantum Bayes rule), a measurement on Bob’s side enables Alice to refine her knowledge of her local system (through the use of the quantum steering Theorem)222In some sense one could argue that this was expected due to the fact that space and time play analogous roles in the theory of relativity. It is very nice however that in the non-relativistic case considered here, the duality is already present. This gives hope that it should be possible to generalize the current findings to the relativistic case.. It is therefore clear that the description of entanglement will shed new light on the question of describing correlations between the states of the same system at two different instants of time, and vice-versa. Therefore we expect that many useful results concerning entanglement can directly be applied to quantum channels. On the other hand, a lot of work has been done concerning the quantification of the classical capacity of a quantum channel. These results offer a nice starting point for the study of classical correlations present in a quantum state.

### III.1 Quantum capacity

The quantum capacity of a quantum channel is related to the asymptotic number of uses of the channel needed for obtaining states whose fidelity tends to one. To transmit quantum information with high fidelity, one indeed needs almost perfect singlets. It is immediately clear that ideas of entanglement distillation will be crucial: sending one part of an EPR through the channel will result in a mixed state, and these mixed states will have to be purified.

Let us first establish a result that was already intrinsically used by many BDS96 ; HHH99 ; Rai01 ; CDK01 :

###### Theorem 6

A quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be used to distribute entanglement if and only if $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entangled. If $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is separable, then the Kraus operators of the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be chosen to be projectors, and the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entanglement breaking.

Proof: The if part is obvious, as $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the state obtained by sending one part of a maximally entangled state through the channel. To prove the only if part, assume that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is separable. Then all Kraus-operators can be chosen to be projectors (corresponding to the decomposition with separable pure states), destroying all entanglement.

It is also possible to make a quantitative statement:

###### Theorem 7

Suppose we want to use the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to distribute entanglement by sending one part of an entangled state through the channel. The maximal attainable fidelity (i.e. overlap with a maximally entangled state) corresponds to the largest eigenvalue of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This maximal fidelity is obtained if Alice sends one half of the state described by the eigenvector of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to its largest eigenvalue.

Proof: Suppose Alice prepares the entangled state $`|\chi `$ and sends the second part to Bob through the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with Kraus-operators $`\{A_i\}`$. We want to find the state $`|\chi `$ such that

$$I|\underset{i}{}IA_i|\chi \chi |IA_i^{}|I=\chi |\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }|\chi $$
(18)
is maximized, which immediately gives the stated result.

The above result is amazing: it tells us that it is not always the best strategy to send one part of a maximally entangled state through the channel. It would be tempting to conjecture that the entanglement of distillation of the obtained state represents the quantum capacity of the given channel.

Note that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ got an appealing interpretation: these represent the fidelities that are obtained by sending one half of the eigenvectors through the channel. Note also that the reduction criterion HH99 ; CAG99 ,

$$I\mathrm{Tr}_2(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\mathrm{I}}{\mathrm{n}}\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }$$

implies that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entangled if its largest eigenvalue exceeds $`1/n`$. This is of course in complete accordance with the previous Theorem, as the maximal fidelity for a separable state is also given by $`1/n`$.

A more sophisticated treatment of the quantum capacity of a quantum channel would involve ideas of coding and of quantum error correction, although only partial results have been obtained yet; the following is an incomplete list of papers where interesting results have been obtained BDS96 ; Sch96 ; DSS98 ; Win99 ; BKN00 ; Ham01 ; Ham02 .

### III.2 Classical Capacity

Let us now move towards the well-studied problem of classical capacity of a quantum channel. The central result is the Holevo- Schumacher- Westmoreland Theorem Hol98 ; SW97 , which tells us that the classical product state capacity of a quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by

$$\chi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{p_j,\rho _j}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\underset{j}{}p_j\rho _j))\underset{j}{}p_jS(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _j))\right\}.$$
(19)
Let us now ask the following question: what would be the analogy and the interpretation of this formula in the dual picture of states $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$? Using formula (15), it holds that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _j)=\mathrm{Tr}_1(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _j^TI)).$$

Suppose Alice and Bob share the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then the above formula describes how Bob has to update his local density operator when Alice did a measurement with corresponding POVM-element $`\rho _j^T`$. Reasoning along the lines of the HSW-Theorem, the natural interpretation would now be that formula (19) will give us a measure of how much (secret) classical randomness Alice and Bob can create using the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$: if Alice implements a POVM measurement with elements $`\{p_j,\rho _j^T\}`$, this drives the system at Bob’s side into a particular direction, and a measurement of Bob will reveal some information about the (random) outcome of Alice. Note that we interpret the presence of a bipartite state as being a particular kind of quantum channel. Note that the question of creating shared randomness has also been discussed in THL02 ; CMS02 .

The foregoing discussion suggests the following definition for the classical random correlations $`C^{cl}`$ present in a quantum state $`\rho `$:

$`C_B^{cl}(\rho _{AB})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\{E_j\}}{\mathrm{max}}S(\rho _B){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jS(\rho _B^j)`$ (20)
$`p_j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho (E_jI)`$ (21)
$`\rho _B^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_j}}\mathrm{Tr}_1\left(\rho (E_jI)\right).`$ (22)
Here $`\{E_j\}`$ presents the elements of the POVM implemented by Alice. Observe that there is an asymmetry in the definition, in that $`C_A^{cl}`$ is not necessarily equal to $`C_B^{cl}`$. This definition coincides with the one given by Henderson and Vedral HV01 , where they introduced this measure because it fulfilled the condition of monotonicity under local operations.

In general, the classical mutual information obtained by the actions of Alice and Bob to obtain classical randomness will be smaller than the derived quantity (20), as coding is needed to achieve the Shannon capacity. This coding could be implemented by doing joint measurements, but we do not expect that the upper bound is tight; a better rate could be obtained if also public classical communication is allowed (A. Winter, unpublished).

## IV One-qubit channels

In the case of qubit channels, much more explicit results can be obtained, due to the fact that we have a fairly good insight into the properties of mixed states of two qubits. In this section we highlight some questions about qubit channels that can be solved analytically.

Recall formula (15)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=Tr_1\left(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{T_1}(\rho I_n)\right)$$
(23)
which is almost exactly the same expression as if Alice were measuring the POVM-element $`\rho `$ on the joint state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$; the difference it that the partial transpose of this state has to be taken. It is now natural to look at the R-picture of the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ associated to the map VDD01b , where $`\rho `$ is parameterized by a real $`4\times 4`$ matrix

$$R_{ij}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho \sigma _i\sigma _j\right),$$

$`0\sigma _i3`$. In the R-representation, a partial transpose corresponds to a multiplication of the third column or row with a minus sign. Let us therefore define $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be the parameterization of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{T_1}`$ in the $`R`$-picture, i.e. the R-picture of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in which the third row is multiplied by $`1`$. Note that the first row of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by $`[1;0;0;0]`$, as this corresponds to the trace-preserving condition.

If $`x`$ is the Bloch vector corresponding, then the action of the map with corresponding $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }^{T_1}`$ or $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the following:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x^{}\end{array}\right)=R_\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\end{array}\right)$$
(24)
. One can easily prove that the image of the Bloch sphere yields an ellipsoid, where the local density operator of Alice is represented by the center of the ellipsoid. This implies that the knowledge of the ellipsoid corresponds to the complete knowledge of the quantum channel up to local unitaries at the input. (Note that not all ellipsoids correspond to physical maps, but that there is some restriction on the ratio of the axis).

Let us now consider the analogue of local unitary (LU) and local filtering (SLOCC) equivalence classes as known for mixed states of two qubits VDD01b . What we are looking for are normal forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a map) such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=B\mathrm{\Omega }(A\rho A^{})B^{}`$ with $`A,BSU(2)`$ or $`SL(2,)`$.

The LU case is very easy: each $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be brought into the unique form

$$R_\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ x& \lambda _1& 0& 0\\ y& 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ z& 0& 0& \pm \lambda _3\end{array}\right)$$

by local unitary transformations, where $`\lambda _1\lambda _2|\lambda _3|`$ and $`x,y0`$; one just has to take the singular value decomposition of the lower $`3\times 3`$ block of $`R`$, taking into account that the orthogonal matrices have determinant $`+1`$ (see also Fujiwara and Algoet FA99  and King and Ruskai KR01  for a different approach but with the same result).

Let us next move to SLOCC equivalence classes; it is clear that the Lorentz singular value decomposition VDD01b  is all we need:

###### Theorem 8

Given a 1-qubit trace-preserving CP-map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and its dual $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then the SLOCC normal form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to one of the following unique normal forms:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& s_1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& s_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& s_3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& x/\sqrt{3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& x/\sqrt{3}& 0\\ 2/3& 0& 0& 1/3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`1s_1s_2|s_3|`$, $`1s_1s_2s_30`$ and $`0x1`$. For maps with a normal from of the first kind, one can choose the Kraus operators equal to

$$\{A_i\}=\{p_0A\sigma _0B,p_1A\sigma _1B,p_2A\sigma _2B,p_3A\sigma _3B\}$$
(25)
with $`A,B`$ complex $`2\times 2`$ matrices and $`p_i0`$, related to the $`\{s_i\}`$ by the formula relating the eigenvalues of a Bell diagonal state to its Lorentz singular values. The Kraus operators of maps with a normal form of the second kind can be chosen to be of the form

$$\left\{A_i\right\}=\{\sqrt{\frac{1+x}{2}}A\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)B,\sqrt{\frac{1x}{2}}A\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)B,\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}A\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)B\},$$
(26)
again with $`A,B`$ complex $`2\times 2`$ matrices. In the third case, the map is trivial as it maps everything to the same point. $`\{s_i\},x,A,B,\{p_i\}`$ can be calculated explicitly by calculating the Lorentz singular value decomposition of the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Proof: The proof is immediate given the Lorentz singular value decomposition. The first case corresponds to a diagonalizable $`R`$, and a diagonal $`R`$ corresponds to a bistochastic channel. The second and third case correspond to non-diagonalizable cases (note that there are $`2`$ normal forms in the case of states that do not apply here as they cannot lead to trace-preserving channels).

This gives a nice classification of all the classes of TPCP-maps on qubits: the generic class is the one that can be brought into unital form by adding appropriate filtering transformations $`A,B`$, i.e. the ellipsoid can be continuously deformed to an ellipsoid whose center is the maximally mixed state. The non-generic class however cannot be deformed in this way: it is easy to show that the ellipsoid corresponding to the normal form touches the Bloch sphere at one and only at one point; there is no filtering operation that can change this property. We conclude that the ellipsoids in the non-generic case are not (and cannot be made by filtering operations) symmetric around the origin and that they touch the Bloch sphere at exactly one point.

We depict both types of normal ellipsoids in figure 1. Note that this geometrical picture will be very useful in guessing input states that maximize the classical capacity of the state (see e.g. KR01 ).

### IV.1 Extremal maps for qubits

In the case of a qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a mixed state of two qubits. It is possible to obtain an explicit parameterization of all extremal qubit maps (see also Ruskai et al. RSW02  for a different approach):

###### Theorem 9

The set of dual states $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponding to extreme points of the set of completely positive trace preserving maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on 1 qubit is given by the union of all maximally entangled pure states, and all rank 2 states $`\rho `$ for which $`\mathrm{Tr}_2(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is equal and $`\mathrm{Tr}_1(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is not equal to the identity. The Kraus operators corresponding to the rank 1 extreme points are unitary, while the ones corresponding to the rank 2 extreme points have a representation of the form:

$$A_1=U\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_0& 0\\ 0& s_1\end{array}\right)V^{}A_2=U\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{1s_1^2}\\ \sqrt{1s_0^2}& 0\end{array}\right)V^{}$$
(27)
with $`U,V`$ unitary.

Proof: We have already proven that extremal TPCP-maps have maximal rank 2. Due to the duality between maps and states, it is sufficient to consider rank 2 density operators of two qubits $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for which $`Tr_2(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })=I_2`$. A real parameterization of all 2-qubit density operators $`\rho `$ is given by the real $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`R`$ with coefficients

$$R_{ij}=Tr\left(\rho \sigma _i\sigma _j\right)$$
(28)
where $`0i,j3`$. An appropriate choice of local unitary bases can always make the $`R_{1:3,1:3}`$ block diagonal, and the trace-preserving condition translates into $`R_{0,1:3}=0`$. Therefore $`R`$ is given by:

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ t_1& \lambda _1& 0& 0\\ t_2& 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ t_3& 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right).$$

The corresponding $`\rho `$ is given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1+t_3+\lambda _3& 0& t_1it_2& \lambda _1\lambda _2\\ 0& 1+t_3\lambda _3& \lambda _1+\lambda _2& t_1it_2\\ t_1+it_2& \lambda _1+\lambda _2& 1t_3\lambda _3& 0\\ \lambda _1\lambda _2& t_1+it_2& 0& 1t_3+\lambda _3\end{array}\right),$$

and the positivity of $`\rho `$ constrains the allowed range of the 6 parameters. Let us now impose that the rank of the corresponding $`\rho `$ is $`2`$. This implies that linear combinations of $`3\times 3`$ minors of $`\rho `$ be zero, and after some algebra one obtains the following conditions:

$`t_3(\lambda _3+\lambda _1\lambda _2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`t_2(\lambda _2+\lambda _1\lambda _3)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`t_1(\lambda _1+\lambda _2\lambda _3)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
These equations, supplemented with the fact that diagonal elements of a positive semidefinite matrix are always bigger than the elements in the same column, lead to the conclusion that all $`t_i`$ but one have to be equal to zero if $`\rho `$ is rank 2. Without loss of generality, we can choose $`t_1=t_2=0`$ and parameterize $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )`$, $`\lambda _2=\mathrm{cos}(\beta )`$. We thus arrive at the canonical form

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}(\alpha )& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}(\beta )& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\beta )& 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}(\beta )\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
Suppose that $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\beta )=0`$ (this condition is equivalent to $`Tr_1(\rho _\mathrm{\Phi })=I/2`$. Then the state corresponding to this $`R`$ is Bell-diagonal and thus a convex sum of two maximally entangled states, and therefore the map corresponding to this state cannot be extremal. In the other case, an extremal rank 2 TPCP-map is obtained, which can easily be shown to yield the given Kraus representation, where $`s_0=\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )/2}`$ and $`s_1=\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )}/2`$.

Note that the corresponding Theorem for bistochastic qubit channels is not very useful, as extremal TPCP qubit channels are always unitary. Theorem 5 however is very interesting, and indicates that there always exist pure states that remain pure after the action of the extremal qubit channel: indeed, if the basis vectors $`\{|i\}`$ are chosen according to the unitary $`V`$ in (27), then it is easily checked that the states $`|\psi s_2\sqrt{1s_2^2}|0\pm s_1\sqrt{1s_1^2}`$ remain pure by the action of the extremal map. Note that these two states are the only ones with this property, and note also that they are not orthogonal to each other.

### IV.2 Quantum capacity

Let us now move on to the relation between 1-qubit quantum channels and entanglement. We can now make use of the plethora of results derived for mixed states of two qubits. Let us first consider Theorem 6 about entanglement breaking channels. In the case of mixed states of two qubits, a state is entangled iff it violates the reduction criterion $`I\rho _B\rho 0`$. But in the case of the dual state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it holds that $`\rho _B=I/2`$, and therefore it holds that a quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be used to distribute entanglement iff the maximal eigenvalue of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ exceeds $`1/2`$ 333This was first observed by Michael Horodecki. In the light of Theorem 7, it follows that such a non-entanglement breaking channel can always be used to distribute an entangled state with fidelity larger than $`1/2`$, which implies on its turn that it can be used to distill entanglementBDS96 .

Consider now an entanglement breaking channel, i.e. a channel for which $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is separable. In this case all the Kraus operators can be chosen to be projectors. An explicit way of calculating this Kraus representation exists. Indeed, in the section about entanglement of formation of two qubits, a constructive way of decomposing a separable mixed state of two qubits as a convex combination of separable pure states was given. It was furthermore proven that a separable state of rank 2 or 4 can always be written as a convex combination of 2 respectively 4 separable pure states, thus giving rise to 2 respectively 4 rank one Kraus operators. Surprisingly, most separable rank 3 mixed states of two qubits can only be written as a convex combination of 4 separable pure states. This implies that a generic entanglement breaking channel of rank 3 needs 4 Kraus operators if these are to be chosen rank 1. Let us also mention that the set of separable states is not of measure zero, implying that the set of entanglement breaking channels is also not of measure zero.

The results of Wootters Woo98  can of course also be applied to non-entanglement-breaking channels. A direct application of the formalism of Wootters yields the following Theorem:

###### Theorem 10

Given a 1-qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ associated to it. If $`C`$ is the concurrence of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then the channel has a Kraus representation of the form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i(U_i\stackrel{~}{C}V_i)\rho (U_i\stackrel{~}{C}V_i)^{}`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1+C}+\sqrt{1C}& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{1+C}\sqrt{1C}\end{array}\right)`$ (33)
where $`U_i,V_i`$ are unitary matrices.

Proof: The Theorem is a direct consequence of the fact that a mixed state with concurrence $`C`$ can be written as a convex sum of pure states all with concurrence equal to $`C`$.

The geometrical meaning in the context of channels is the following: each trace-preserving CP-map is a convex combination of contractive maps in unique different directions, where each contraction has the same magnitude.

Let us next address the question of calculating the quantum capacity of the one-qubit channel. Clearly, Theorem 7 tells us what states to send through the channel such as to maximize the fidelity of the shared entangled states. In general, the quantum capacity cannot be calculated as we even don’t have a way of calculating the entanglement of distillation of mixed states of two qubits (which is a simpler problem).

In the case of unital channels of rank 2 however, the eigenvectors of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are maximally entangled and the quantum capacity can be calculated explicitly:

###### Theorem 11

Consider a bistochastic qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of rank 2. Then its quantum capacity is given by $`C_Q=1H(p)`$, where $`p`$ is the maximal eigenvalue of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`H(p)=p\mathrm{log}_2(p)(1p)\mathrm{log}_2(1p)`$.

Proof: A unital qubit channel exhibits the nice property that no loss whatever occurs by sending a maximally entangled state through the channel: it can easily be shown (see Bennett et al.BDS96 ) that sending a quantum system through the channel is equivalent to using the standard teleportation channel induced by the (non-maximally entangled state) $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Because we can use the state $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$, obtained by sending a Bell state through the channel, to perfectly simulate the channel, this is clearly the optimal thing to do, and the quantum capacity of the channel is therefore equal to the distillable entanglement of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Now Rains Rai99  has proven that the distillable entanglement of a Bell diagonal state of rank 2 is given by $`E_{dist}(\rho )=1S(\rho )`$, which ends the proof of the Theorem.

More general, the quantum capacity of bistochastic qubit channel is always equal to the entanglement of distillation of the corresponding dual states (due to the arguments in the previous proof).

As a last remark, we observe that the channels of the non-generic kind that touch the Bloch sphere at exactly one point are never entanglement-breaking: this follows from the fact that the concurrence of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ always exceeds $`0`$ in that case.

### IV.3 Classical capacity

Far more progress has been made concerning the classical capacity of quantum channels: it is known that the classical capacity using product inputs is given by the Holevo-$`\chi `$ quantity. Here the geometrical picture derived in section 6.4 can sharpen our intuition. Consider for example the case of a unital channel. It is immediately clear that Holevo-$`\chi `$ will be maximized by choosing a mixture of two states that lie on the opposite side of the major axis of the ellipsoid. This implies that the optimal input states are orthogonal. King and Ruskai KR01 ; Kin01  even proved that entangled inputs cannot help in the case of unital channels, and we conclude that the classical capacity of the unital channels is completely understood.

Consider however a non-unital channel of the generic kind. As proven before, this channel can be interpreted as the succession of a filter, a unital channel, and another filter. The critical source of noise or decoherence and irreversibility in a channel is the mixing, and the previous analysis tells us that this mixing can always be interpreted to happen in a unital way, whereas the in- and output of the unital channel is reversibly but non-orthogonally filtered. It follows that orthogonal inputs will not appear orthogonally in the unital channel, and typically orthogonal inputs will not achieve capacity. This strange fact was indeed discovered by Fuchs Fuc97 , and it appears to be generic for non-unital channels.

Let us now have a look at the non-generic family of channels, whose ellipsoids touch the Bloch sphere at exactly one point. It happens that the so-called stretched channel belongs to this family, and this channel has the property that its (product) capacity is only achieved for an input ensemble with three statesKNR02 . This is surprising but not too surprising given the geometrical picture, as one of the input states corresponds to the pure output state, while the other two ones are chosen to lie symmetric around the axis connecting the maximally entangled state with the pure output state. Note however that most of the non-generic states achieve capacity with 2 input states.

Let us now move to calculate the classical capacity of the extremal qubit channels. In the case of extremal qubit channels, it is possible to reduce the problem of calculating the classical (Holevo) capacity to an optimization problem over the ensemble average. The problem to be solved is as follows: find the optimal ensemble $`\{\rho _i,p_i\}`$ such that

$$S(\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i))\underset{i}{}p_iS(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i))$$

is maximized. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is rank 2 and therefore has a Kraus representation of the form (27). It is clear that only pure states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ have to be considered. It is easily seen that in the case of qubits, the entropy of a state is a convex monotonously increasing function of the determinant of the density operator: $`S(\rho )=H(1/2(1\sqrt{14det(\rho )^2}))`$ with $`H(p)=p\mathrm{log}(p)+(1p)\mathrm{log}(1p)`$ the Shannon entropy function. Inspired by the analysis of 2-qubit channels by Uhlmann in terms of anti-linear operators Uhl01 , we make the following observation:

$$det\left(A_1|\psi \psi |A_1^{}+A_2|\psi \psi |A_2^{}\right)=|\psi ^T(A_1^T\sigma _yA_2A_2^T\sigma _yA_1)\psi |.$$
(34)
Here $`\psi `$ is the vector notation (in the computational basis) of $`|\psi `$, and $`\sigma _y`$ is a Pauli matrix. Suppose now that we add an additional constraint to the problem, namely that the ensemble average $`\rho `$ is given. Taking a square root $`X`$ of $`\rho =XX^{}`$, all possible pure state decompositions can be written as $`X^{}=XU`$ with $`U`$ an arbitrary isometry (note that the columns of $`XU`$ represent all unnormalized pure states in the decomposition). With this additional constraint, the problem can be solved exactly as we solved the entanglement of formation problem. A constructive way of obtaining the optimal decomposition of $`\rho `$ is as follows: take a square root $`X`$ of $`\rho `$, and calculate the singular value decomposition of the symmetric matrix $`X^T(A_1^T\sigma _yA_2A_2^T\sigma _yA_1)X=V\mathrm{\Sigma }V^T`$. Call $`C=\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ the concurrence with $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ the singular values of the above symmetric matrix. Then the optimal decomposition is obtained by choosing $`U=V^{}O`$ with $`O`$ the real orthogonal matrix that is chosen such that the diagonal entries of the matrix $`R=O^T(\mathrm{Diag}[\sigma _1,\sigma _2]C\rho )O)`$ vanish. For given ensemble average $`\rho `$, the classical capacity is therefore given by the following formula: $`S(\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ))f(C)`$ (see also Uhlmann Uhl01 ).

To derive an explicit formula for the classical capacity of the extremal channels, we still have to do an optimization over all possible ensemble averages $`\rho `$. Note that the previous analysis already learned us that the capacity will always be reached with an ensemble of two input states. Both the terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ and $`C`$ can easily be extremized separately, but unfortunately even if the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ are fixed, the optimal eigenvectors for maximizing $`S(\rho )`$ and minimizing $`C`$ are not compatible. However, the capacity can easily be calculated numerically, as it just an optimization problem over three real parameters.

On the other hand, we have seen that the definition of the classical capacity had a direct counterpart in giving an appealing definition for the number of classical correlations present in a (mixed) bipartite state $`C_{cl}`$ (see 20). The techniques used in the foregoing paragraph are perfectly adequate to give an exact expression of this quantity if the shared quantum state is a rank 2 bipartite state $`\rho `$ of qubits. Indeed, a mixed bipartite state of two qubits can just be seen as a more general kind of quantum channel.

## V Conclusion

We have shown that the natural description of quantum channels or positive linear maps is given by a dual quantum state associated to the map. This dual state is defined over a Hilbert space that is naturally endowed with a tensor product structure of the in- and output of the channel. We showed that the techniques developed in the context of entanglement are of direct use in describing positive maps. We derived a characterization of the extreme points of the convex set of trace-preserving completely positive maps, and gave some generalizations. We discussed some new results about the classical and quantum capacity of a quantum channel, and in the case of one-qubit channels we showed how to exploit the duality between qubit channels and mixed states of two qubits to obtain useful parameterizations.


format: text

text:
# Time-Energy coherent states and adiabatic scattering

## 1. Introduction

Scattering from a slowly changing scatterer is described, to leading order, by a time independent scatterer frozen at the scattering time . Although this seems like stating the obvious, it turns out that in trying to make precise how accurate this approximation is, one encounters both conceptual and technical difficulties. Our aim is to describe these difficulties and explain how they are resolved.

One conceptual difficulty is to understand what the frozen S matrix—a function of energy and scattering time—means. Strictly speaking, a function of both time and energy is in conflict with the uncertainty principle. A wave that is sharp in energy will have an ill-defined scattering time and conversely, a wave with a well-defined scattering time is ill-defined in energy. What, then, is the meaning of the frozen S matrix?

The resolution of this problem is related to the fact that the adiabatic limit naturally leads to different parameterizations of time, and the right parameterization has small uncertainty. Specifically, the physical time $`t`$ will parameterize the intrinsic “fast” dynamics and has the usual time-energy uncertainty $`\mathrm{}`$. The slow variation in the external conditions will be parameterized by $`s`$. We refer to the latter as epoch. Since the epoch often plays a role of a parameter it is convenient to choose $`s`$ dimensionless. The two parameterizations are related by $`s=\omega t`$, with $`\omega `$ a slow frequency—the adiabaticity parameter. The epoch-energy uncertainty then takes the form $`\delta s\delta e\mathrm{}\omega `$ and so arbitrarily small in the adiabatic limit.

Coherent states provide a convenient basis to analyze the semi-classical limit . Semi-classical analysis is traditionally about the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit, but is equally valid when $`\mathrm{}`$ is fixed (and henceforth set equal to one) and $`\omega 0`$. Here we introduce coherent states labelled by points in the time-energy plane, with time being the scattering time. As we shall see, the frozen S matrix approximates the diagonal matrix elements of the dynamical scattering matrix in such coherent states. This reconciles the time-energy uncertainty with the frozen scattering data. In a further step, matrix elements of the frozen S matrix can be approximated by the on-shell data.

Another thorny issue that we address is when a description in terms of frozen data is meaningful and how accurate it is. The question can also be rephrased as a question about the intrinsic time scale relevant to scattering. If $`\tau `$ denotes this time scale, then $`\omega \tau `$ is the error in the frozen data and $`\omega \tau 1`$ characterizes the adiabatic regime.

The Wigner time delay $`\tau _w(E,s)`$ conveys information about the time the particle spends near the scatterer. It is a function of the energy $`E`$ and scattering epoch $`s`$. It is tempting to hope that $`\tau `$ might be estimated by $`\tau _w(E,s)`$, but there is no compelling argument for doing so. One cannot argue on the basis of dimensional analysis alone, since $`\dot{\tau }_w`$ and $`\sqrt{\tau _w^{}}`$, with dot a derivative with respect to the epoch and prime with respect to the energy, give additional and independent time scales. In fact, since Wigner time delay is a comparison of the arrival time at a faraway point, relative to the time of arrival in the free dynamics, it is not even positive-definite. This suggests that it cannot quite capture $`\tau `$, which is more closely related to the “dwell time” near the scatterer.

The way to determine $`\tau `$ is to consider the error in approximating the scattering data by the frozen data. The error is, to leading order, proportional to the adiabaticity parameter $`\omega `$. Since the error is, in general, complex, we identify $`\tau `$ with the absolute value of the error divided by $`\omega `$. Calculating the error, to leading order in $`\omega `$, is no harder, and reminiscent of, calculating the scattering in the lowest order of the Born approximation.

We shall see that, to leading order, the adiabatic time scale $`\tau `$ can be estimated from the scattering data and the derivative of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ with respect to the epoch, Eq. (7.3) below, but not from the Wigner time delay alone. We show this by considering an exactly soluble model where the dynamical S matrix can be computed explicitly.

We introduce the energy shift operator $``$. This is a measure of the energy change in time dependent scattering and is a natural dual of the Wigner time delay. As we shall see, in the case that the incoming state is $`\rho (H_0)`$, the outgoing state is $`\rho (H_0\omega )`$. In the adiabatic limit, the energy shift can be approximated by the frozen energy shift, which is related to the logarithmic derivative of the on-shell scattering matrix with respect to the epoch, Eq. (4.2). The energy shift then gives a handle on the exchange of energy  and the pumping of charge in adiabatic scattering .

## 2. Elements of scattering theory

Scattering theory is a comparison of dynamics: One is the actual dynamics generated by the time dependent $`H(t)=H_s,(s=\omega t)`$, the other is a fiducial dynamics generated by a time independent Hamiltonian $`H_0`$. The Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is the generator of dynamics for which there is trivial scattering and the S matrix is the identity.

The results of this section are true in general, without taking the adiabatic limit $`\omega 0`$. We shall assume that $`H`$ and $`H_0`$ admit good scattering. Namely, we assume the existence of wave operators and the unitarity of the S matrix. For explicit conditions on $`H_0`$ and $`H(t)`$ that guarantee this see e.g. .

### 2.1. The wave operator

Let $`U(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})`$ and $`U_0(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})=U_0(t^{\prime \prime }t^{})`$ denote the evolution from time $`t^{}`$ to $`t^{\prime \prime }`$, generated by $`H(t)`$ and the time-independent $`H_0`$ respectively.

###### Definition 2.1.

The wave operators, based at epoch $`s`$, are defined by the (strong) limit

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s;H,H_0)=\underset{t^{}\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}U(t,t^{})U_0(t^{}t),(s=\omega t).$$

The existence of the limit, and the equation of motion imply

###### Proposition 2.2.

The dependence of the wave operator on the base point $`s`$ satisfy the differential equation

(2.2)
$$i\omega \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm (s)=H_s\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s,H,H_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s,H,H_0)H_0.$$

As we shall presently see, the notion of wave operator based at epoch $`s`$ is only interesting in the case of a time dependent $`H(t)`$.

### 2.2. The frozen wave operators

The frozen Hamiltonian $`H_s`$ is *time independent* so $`U(t^{\prime \prime },t^{})=e^{iH_s(t^{\prime \prime }t^{})}`$, in this case and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s_0,H_s,H_0)`$ is independent of the base point $`s_0=\omega t_0`$. This follows from the existence of the limit in Eq. (2.1) since $`t^{}\pm \mathrm{}`$ is the same as $`t^{}t_0\pm \mathrm{}`$. To stress this we write $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (H_s,H_0)`$. From Eq. (2.2) then follows the standard intertwining relation of time-independent scattering theory:

###### Corollary 2.3.

The wave operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (H_s,H_0)`$ relating the frozen Hamiltonian at epoch $`s`$ and $`H_0`$ are independent of the base point, and intertwine the two dynamics:

(2.3)
$$H_s\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (H_s,H_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (H_s,H_0)H_0.$$

### 2.3. The dynamical S matrix

The (dynamical) scattering matrix based at epoch $`s`$ is defined by

(2.4)
$$𝒮_d(s;H,H_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}(s;H,H_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(s;H,H_0).$$

The S matrices based on different points in time are all related by conjugation generated by the free evolution. Namely:

###### Proposition 2.4.

Suppose that the wave operators exist. Then

(2.5)
$$𝒮_d(s;H,H_0)=e^{iH_0t}𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)e^{iH_0t},(s=\omega t).$$

This follows from $`U(s,t)\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s;H,H_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm (s;H,H_0)e^{iH_0(st)}`$. Under a change of the reference Hamiltonian, say to the frozen Hamiltonian $`H_s`$,

(2.6)
$$𝒮_d(s;H,H_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}(H_s,H_0)𝒮_d(s;H,H_s)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0).$$

### 2.4. The frozen S matrix

In the frozen S data the epoch is decoupled from time. As such it can also be studied using time independent methods, which are normally quite powerful . Its basic properties are in marked contrast with that of the dynamical S matrix, namely:

###### Corollary 2.5.

The frozen S matrix

(2.7)
$$𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}(H_s,H_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0)$$

is independent of the base point. It depends on the freezing time parametrically through $`H_s`$.

### 2.5. The on-shell S matrix

$`H_0`$ provides a basis that spans the Hilbert space of scattering states. Let $`|E,j)`$ denote the generalized eigenvectors of $`H_0`$:

(2.8)
$$H_0|E,j)=E|E,j),(E,j|E^{},j^{})=\delta (EE^{})\delta _{j,j^{}}.$$

$`E`$ is the energy and $`j`$ labels the scattering channels. $`𝒮_f`$ commutes with $`H_0`$, by Eq. (2.3), hence

(2.9)
$$(E,j|𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)|E^{},j^{})=\delta (EE^{})S_{jj^{}}(s,E).$$

$`S_{jj^{}}(s,E)`$ is the on-shell scattering matrix. Note that in the frozen Hamiltonian the physical time is decoupled from the epoch, which now has been relegated to the role of a parameter. The on-shell scattering matrix therefore is not in conflict with the uncertainty principle.

## 3. The energy shift

By taking the $`s`$-derivatives of Eq. (2.5) one gets

(3.1) $`i\omega \dot{𝒮}_d(s)𝒮_d(s)^{}=H_0𝒮_d(s)H_0𝒮_d(s)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[H_0,𝒮_d(s)]𝒮_d^{}(s)`$
$`=`$ $`[H_0,𝒮_d(s)𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)]𝒮_d^{}(s).`$
This equation may interpreted as follows. If we think of $`H_0`$ as the asymptotic observable associated with the outgoing energy, then $`H_{0,in}=𝒮_d(s)H_0𝒮_d(s)^{}`$ represents the asymptotic observable  corresponding to the incoming energy. This motivates calling

(3.2)
$$_d(s)=i\dot{𝒮}_d(s)𝒮_d^{}(s).$$

the operator of energy shift.

The energy shift vanishes for time independent scattering, as it must. It gives a handle on changes in (certain) quantum states. By the functional calculus applied to Eq. (3.1), for any function $`\rho `$:

(3.3)
$$𝒮_d(s)\rho (H_0)𝒮_d(s)^{}=\rho \left(H_0\omega _s(s)\right).$$

This is interpreted as follows: If $`\rho (H_0)`$ is the incoming state, then the corresponding outgoing state is $`\rho \left(H_0\omega _s(s)\right).`$ The energy shift is a first order quantity in the adiabaticity parameter and, as we shall see, it can be approximated, to leading order by the frozen data. This then gives a handle on the outgoing state $`\rho `$ to first order in the adiabaticity parameter.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The energy shift based on time $`s`$ is conjugate to the energy shift based on time zero

(3.4)
$$_d(s)=e^{iH_0t}_d(0)e^{iH_0t},(s=\omega t).$$

This follows directly from Eq. (2.5) and Eq. (3.1).

## 4. The problem of adiabatic scattering

The dynamical S matrix has qualitatively different properties from the frozen S matrix: The dynamical S matrix has no freezing time—It does not “know” when the incoming wave is going to hit the scatterer. It does depend however, by conjugation, on a choice of a base point. In contrast, the frozen S matrix is independent of the choice of a base point and depends non-trivially on the freezing time—The frozen scattering data for one epoch know nothing a-priori about the corresponding data at any other epoch.

Matrix elements of the scattering matrix carry information about the time that the wave is near the scatterer. For such matrix elements, the adiabatic limit can be expressed in terms of the corresponding frozen matrix elements. However, the introduction of wave packets promotes the epoch from playing the role of a parameter, to that of real, albeit slow, time. One then needs to confront the uncertainty principle. We do that by considering matrix elements between coherent states labelled by points in the energy time plane.

### 4.1. The Wigner time delay

The Wigner time delay is defined in terms of the on-shell scattering matrix. When this definition is transcribed to the frozen, on-shell, S matrix it reads

(4.1)
$$\tau _w(s,E)=iS^{}(s,E)S^{}(s,E).$$

Prime denotes partial derivative with respect to the energy. With this definition, the Wigner time-delay is a Hermitian matrix.

### 4.2. The frozen energy shift

For the frozen, on-shell, Hamiltonian one can associate a matrix of energy shift which is a natural conjugate of the Wigner time delay:

(4.2)
$$(s,E)=i\dot{S}(s,E)S^{}(s,E),$$

where dot denotes derivative with respect to the epoch.

### 4.3. Time scales

The frozen on-shell S matrix defines several time scales. Among them: $`\tau _w`$ and the (dimensionless) time scale $`^1`$. The coherent states provide us with yet another time scale related to the time-width of the coherent states. One of the problems of adiabatic scattering is to study the relation between these time scales and the time scale $`\tau `$ such that $`\omega \tau 1`$ characterizes the adiabatic regime.

## 5. Time-Energy Coherent states

### 5.1. The role of dispersion

For a particle moving on the line, its energy and the time that it crosses the origin are canonical coordinates. One can therefore construct energy-time coherent states in analogy with the usual phase space coherent states. The explicit construction, however, depends on the dispersion law. For linear dispersion the construction is particularly simple.

Consider a classical particle with dispersion law $`e(p)`$ moving freely on the line. The velocity of the particle is $`e^{}(p)`$ so the time of passage through the origin is $`t=\frac{q}{e^{}(p)}`$. Time-energy are (local) canonical coordinates since

(5.1)
$$dedt=dqdp.$$

The global aspects of the energy-time phase space can be complicated. For example, for a free (massive) particle, with quadratic dispersion $`e(p)=p^2`$ the energy-time phase space is made of two copies of the half plane $`e0`$ depending on the direction of crossing of the origin.

A simpler situation is obtained in the case of linear dispersion, $`e(p)=p`$. There is now no ambiguity in the direction of crossing and the energy-time phase space is again the plane. The map $`(q,p)(e,t)`$ is, in fact, the identity

(5.2)
$$e=p,t=q.$$

The usual coherent states are then also the coherent states on the energy-time plane.

### 5.2. Coherent states for linear dispersion

The time-energy coherent states are

(5.3)
$$|t,e;\epsilon =e^{i(tP+eX)}|g_\epsilon ,[P,X]=i,$$

with $`g_\epsilon `$ Gaussian:

(5.4)
$$p|g_\epsilon =\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi \epsilon ^2}}e^{\frac{p^2}{2\epsilon ^2}}.$$

They have the following properties :

* The states $`|t,e;\epsilon `$ are normalized.
* $`|t,e;\epsilon `$ have Gaussian localization in time and energy near the point $`(t,e)`$ with width

$$\delta e\epsilon ,\delta t\frac{1}{\epsilon },\delta s\frac{\omega }{\epsilon }.$$

Hence $`\omega `$ plays the role of $`\mathrm{}`$ in the epoch-energy plane.
* $`H_0`$ is the generator of shifts of the coherent states:

$$e^{iH_0t^{}}|t,e;\epsilon =e^{it^{}e/2}|tt^{},e;\epsilon .$$
* The overlap of coherent states is:

$$t,e,\epsilon |t^{},e^{},\epsilon =e^{\frac{(ee^{})^2}{4\epsilon ^2}}e^{\frac{\epsilon ^2(tt^{})^2}{4}}e^{i\frac{et^{}e^{}t}{2}}.$$
* The coherent states give a resolution of the identity

$$\frac{dtde}{2\pi }|t,e;\epsilon t,e;\epsilon |=1.$$
* The scalar product between coherent states and the eigenstates of $`H_0=P`$ is

$$(E|t,e;\epsilon =e^{ite/2}e^{itE}\frac{e^{(Ee)^2/2\epsilon ^2}}{\sqrt[4]{\pi \epsilon ^2}}.$$

## 6. Scattering between channels with linear dispersion

Linear dispersion approximates the low energy physics of electrons in one dimensional channels provided the Fermi energy is large. The price one pays is that the “ultraviolet” properties are pathological. In particular, the spectrum is unbounded below and this then leads to certain anomalies which must be correctly interpreted. With linear dispersion one can also solve certain models with interacting electrons .

In the following we shall study adiabatic scattering for non interacting particles with linear dispersion. The particles move on a collection of lines and are allowed to “hop” from one line to the other and scatter. Each line serves as an incoming and outgoing channel since the flow on it is uni-directional. An example with two channels is shown in Fig. 1. (Such models bear some resemblance to Schrödinger operators on graphs .) The Hilbert space is $`_{j=1}^nL^2()`$, a finite direct sum. $`j`$ labels the scattering channels. $`H_0`$ is then

$$\left(H_0\psi \right)(x,j)=i\psi ^{}(x,j),x,1jn.$$

For the interaction one may take, for example,

$$\left(\left(H(s)H_0\right)\psi \right)(x,j)=\underset{j^{}}{}v_{j,j^{}}(x,s)\psi (x,j^{})$$

with $`v_{jj^{}}`$ hermitian, and compactly supported. Alternatively, one may consider finite rank perturbations.

### 6.1. A soluble model

Here we describe a simple, time dependent, model for which the calculation of both the dynamical and frozen scattering matrices is reduced to quadrature.

Consider scattering on the line with

$$H_0=P=i,H_s=P+f(s)V,s=\omega t$$

with $`\left(V\psi \right)(x)=v(x)\psi (x)`$ a potential (multiplication operator) which is sufficiently regular and short range so that $`\left|v(x)\right|𝑑x,\left|xv(x)\right|𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$ . The model has one channel and should not be confused with the 2-channel example pictured in Figure 1.

To calculate the dynamical S matrix note that

(6.1)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t,t^{}):=U(t,t^{})U_0(t^{}t),$$

satisfies the Volterra type equation:

(6.2)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(t,t^{})}{t^{}}=if(\omega t^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(t,t^{})V(tt^{}),\mathrm{\Omega }(t^{},t^{})=1,$$

with $`V(t)`$ the (backward) free Heisenberg evolution of the potential, i.e.

(6.3)
$$V(t):=U_0(t)VU_0(t).$$

Since $`H_0=P`$ is the generator of shifts, $`V(t)`$ is the shifted potential:

(6.4)
$$\left(V(t)\psi \right)(x)=v(xt)\psi (x).$$

In particular, $`V(t)`$ at different times commute, and the solution of the Volterra type problem is given simply by

(6.5)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t,t^{})=e^{i_0^{tt^{}}f(s\omega t^{\prime \prime })V(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }},s=\omega t.$$

From the definition of the wave operators based on time $`s`$, Eq. (2.1), we obtain for the dynamical wave operators:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(s;H,H_0)=e^{i_0^{\mathrm{}}f(s\omega t^{})V(t^{})𝑑t^{}},\mathrm{\Omega }_+(s;H,H_0)=e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^0f(s\omega t^{})V(t^{})𝑑t^{}}.$$

From this we obtain for the dynamical scattering matrix

(6.6)
$$S_d(s,H,H_0)=e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(s\omega t^{})V(t^{})𝑑t^{}}.$$

The dynamical scattering matrix, as well as the wave operators, are local gauge transformations, i.e. multiplication by a function of position, of modulus one.

The wave operators and the S matrix reduce to the frozen ones upon replacing the function $`f(s\omega t^{})`$ by its frozen value $`f(s)`$, hence:

(6.7)
$$S_f(H_s,H_0)=e^{if(s)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V(t)𝑑t}=e^{if(s)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}V_+(t)𝑑t},$$

where $`2V_+(t)=V(t)+V(t)`$. $`S_f`$ is just a number, not a function of position.

The frozen scattering matrix provide very little information on the potential $`v(x)`$, for it depends one just one number—the total weight of the potential111This is in sharp contrast with scattering problems where $`H_0`$ is the Laplacian .. The dynamical S matrix, in contrast, provides independent information about the potential for each value of $`s`$.

Since the frozen S matrix is independent of the incident energy, the Wigner time delay vanishes identically in this model: $`\tau _w=0`$. The (frozen) energy shift is just a real number (a multiple of the identity)

$$_f=\dot{f}(s)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}v(x)𝑑x.$$

In contrast, the dynamical energy shift, is the multiplication operator:

(6.8)
$$_d=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\dot{f}(s\omega t^{})V(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$

### 6.2. The on-shell scattering matrix and coherent states

For later purposes we shall need the matrix elements of the frozen S matrix. Since $`𝒮_f`$ commutes with $`H_0`$, the matrix elements are independent of $`t`$ and are related to the on-shell matrix by

(6.9) $`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)\right|t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\epsilon }}{\displaystyle 𝑑ES_{jj^{}}(s,E)e^{\frac{(Ee)^2}{\epsilon ^2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`S_{jj^{}}(s,e)+O(\epsilon ^2_{EE}S).`$
The estimate is obtained by observing that $`S_{jj^{}}(s,E)S_{jj^{}}(s,e)`$ does not contribute to the integral to first order in $`Ee`$. Since

$$\left(_{EE}S\right)S^{}=\tau _w^2+i\tau _w^{},$$

(with prime denoting the derivative with respect to the energy) we see that the on-shell S matrix approximates the diagonal entries of the frozen S matrix, provided the Wigner time delay and its energy dependence are both small:

(6.10)
$$\epsilon ^2(\tau _w^2+\left|\tau _w^{}\right|)1.$$

## 7. The adiabatic time scale $`\tau `$

In this section we compute, to leading order, the time scale $`\tau `$ relevant to adiabatic scattering. This time scale is defined so that $`\omega \tau 1`$ characterizes the adiabatic regime in the sense that the frozen scattering data approximate the dynamical scattering data.

There are two results in this section, one positive and one negative. The positive result says that, at least to leading order, $`\tau `$ can be computed from time independent quantities alone, Eq. (7.3) below. The negative result is that $`\tau `$ cannot be computed from the on-shell scattering matrix and its derivatives. In particular, the Wigner time delay alone does not determine $`\tau `$.

Using Eqs. (2.5,2.6,2.7) and property 5.2.C one finds

(7.1) $`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|\left(𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)\right)\right|t,e,j^{};\epsilon =`$
$`0,e,j;\epsilon \left|\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}(H_s,H_0)\left(𝒮_d(s;H,H_s)1\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0)\right|0,e,j;\epsilon .`$
The correction to the leading order of the S matrix can be approximated by an analog of the Born series :

$$𝒮_d(s;H,H_s)1i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{iH_st^{}}\left(H_{s+\omega t^{}}H_s\right)e^{iH_st^{}}𝑑t^{}.$$

Since $`H_{s+\omega t^{}}H_s`$ is supported near the origin, only small $`t^{}`$ contribute to the matrix elements in Eq. (7.1). More precisely, this depends only on the time localization property of either the bra or the ket. We can therefore approximate $`H_{s+\omega t^{}}H_s\omega t^{}\dot{H}_s`$. Using property 5.2.C

$$e^{iH_st}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0)|0,e,j;\epsilon =e^{iet/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0)|t,e,j;\epsilon $$

we finally get

(7.2) $`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|\left(𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)\right)\right|t,e,j^{};\epsilon i\omega \tau (e,s;\epsilon )`$
where

(7.3)
$$\tau (e,s;\epsilon )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}t^{},e,j;\epsilon \left|\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{}(H_s,H_0)\dot{H}_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(H_s,H_0)\right|t^{},e,j;\epsilon t^{}𝑑t^{}.$$

$`\tau (e,s;\epsilon )`$ involves the frozen wave operators and the rate of change of the Hamiltonian at the epoch $`s`$. In particular, one can use methods of time-independent scattering theory to compute it. It is in general complex. The adiabatic time scale, $`\tau =\left|\tau (e,s;\epsilon )\right|`$ is a measure of the error. $`\omega \tau 1`$ then clearly characterizes the adiabatic regime.

Propagation estimates can, and have been, used  to bound the error in the frozen data. These estimates yield bounds on $`\tau `$.

### 7.1. Example: the soluble model.

For the case of one channel scattering with $`H(s)=P+f(s)V`$, by Eq. (6.6,6.7)

(7.4) $`S_d(s;H,H_0)S_f(H_s,H_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(f(s\omega t)f(s)\right)V(t)𝑑t}1\right)S_f(H_s,H_0)`$
$``$ $`i\omega \dot{f}(s)\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}tV(t)𝑑t\right)S_f(H_s,H_0).`$
The adiabatic time scale $`\tau `$ is, in analogy with Eq. (7.2), the multiplication operator:

(7.5) $`\tau \dot{f}(s)\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}tV(t)𝑑t\right)S_f(H_s,H_0)=\dot{f}(s)\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}tV_{}(t)𝑑t\right)S_f(H_s,H_0);`$
$`2V_{}(t)=V(t)V(t).`$
By Eq. (6.7) the frozen S matrix only depends on $`V_+`$, while the error only depends on $`V_{}`$. Since $`V_{}`$ and $`V_+`$ are independent this shows that the error term in the adiabatic expansion cannot be estimated in terms on the frozen scattering data alone.

Combining Eqs. (6.9) and (7.2) we obtain a relation between matrix elements of the dynamical S matrix and the on-shell S matrix:

(7.6)
$$t,e,j;\epsilon \left|𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)\right|t,e,j^{};\epsilon =S_{jj^{}}(s,e)+O\left(\epsilon ^2(\tau _w^2+\left|\tau _w^{}\right|)+\omega \tau (e,s;\epsilon )\right),$$

## 8. The energy shift

The energy shift is a first order quantity, nevertheless, it is determined, to leading order, by the frozen data:

(8.1) $`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|_d(0)\right|t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$ $``$ $`i\left(\dot{S}(s,e)S^{}(s,e)\right)_{jj^{}},(s=\omega t).`$
We first remark that (7.2,7.3) generalize to off-diagonal matrix elements, i.e., the time $`t`$ in the ket $`|t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$ may be shifted to $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (resp. $`t^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in (7.3)) while leaving the bra unchanged. By the translation property of coherent states, property 5.2.C, multiplication by $`H_0`$ can be traded for derivative with respect to time. Hence

(8.2) $`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|[H_0,𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)]\right|t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$
$`=`$ $`i_tt,e,j;\epsilon \left|𝒮_d(0;H,H_0)\right|t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$
$``$ $`i_tt,e,j;\epsilon \left|𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)\right|t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$
$`=`$ $`i\omega t,e,j;\epsilon \left|\dot{𝒮}_f(H_s,H_0)\right|t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,e,j^{};\epsilon .`$
In principle, the order of the error in the frozen data in the passage from the second to the third line does not determine the order of the error in derivatives, but this can be justified in the present case. The last identity in the equation above can be seen from

$`t,e,j;\epsilon \left|𝒮_f(H_s,H_0)\right|t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,e,j^{};\epsilon `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\epsilon }}{\displaystyle 𝑑ES_{jj^{}}(s,E)e^{\frac{(Ee)^2}{\epsilon ^2}}e^{i(\mathrm{\Delta }t)e/2}e^{i(\mathrm{\Delta }t)E}}.`$
We then multiply (8.2) with the complex conjugate of the mentioned generalization of (7.2) and integrate over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ using property 5.2.E. The result then heuristically follows from Eq. (3.1) and the statement for $`_f`$ analogous to (6.9).222 An alternate derivation of 8.1 can be made, more directly, starting from the rhs of Eq. 3.1 and using Born’s expansion.

The energy shift plays a role in the theory of adiabatic quantum pumps. In particular, the pumped charge, the entropy production and noise generation in quantum pumps can all be expressed in terms of the energy shift . It is remarkable that basic properties of adiabatic quantum pumps can be understood, to leading order, in terms of the frozen scattering data alone.