2
$\begingroup$

The following problem which has been on my mind for a while now arises from the realm of quantum information involving quantum channels with a common fixed point of full rank, as well as majorization theory, but can really be boiled down to a problem in linear algebra.

One considers maps acting on complex $n\times n$ square matrices which are linear, trace-preserving and positive (more precisely "positivity-preserving", i.e. if $A\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ is positive semi-definite, then so is its image under the map in question). Let us denote the convex set of all such maps by $P(n)\subset\mathcal L(\mathbb C^{n\times n})$ where the latter is the vector space of all linear maps/operators on $\mathbb C^{n\times n}$.

Conjecture. Let $A,B,X\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ with $A,B$ hermitian and $X$ positive definite. If there exist $T_1,T_2\in P(n)$ with $$T_1(X)=T_2(X)=X,\quad T_1(A)=B\quad\text{and}\quad T_2(B)=A,$$ then there exists unitary $U\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ such that $[U,X]=0$ and $U^\dagger AU=B$.

The assumption of a common fixed point is essential. To see this, consider arbitrary $\rho_1,\rho_2\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ positive semi-definite and of trace $1$. The maps $T_i:\mathbb C^{n\times n}\to \mathbb C^{n\times n}$, $X\mapsto \rho_{2-i} \operatorname{tr}(X)$ are in $P(n)$ and satisfy $T_1(\rho_1)=\rho_2$, $T_2(\rho_2)=\rho_1$, but in general $\rho_1,\rho_2$ (of course) are not unitarily equivalent. So the common fixed point seems to rule out such "projective" maps from $P(n)$ which only have one-dimensional range.

Note that maps of the above form for example come up in majorization theory; for two hermitian matrices $A,B$ one can show that $A$ majorizes $B$ (comparison of the vectors of eigenvalues) if and only if there exists $T\in P(n)$ with $T(\operatorname{id})=\operatorname{id}$ and $T(A)=B$, cf. e.g. Theorem 7.1 in the linked manuscript. In such a framework (that is, $X=\operatorname{id}$ and $A,B$ hermitian), one quickly sees that the above conjecture in fact holds as then $\sigma(A)=\sigma(B)$. The arising difficulty for $X\neq \operatorname{id}$ in some sense comes from the loss os symmetry: a map $T\in\mathcal L(\mathbb C^{n\times n})$ is trace-preserving if and only if its dual $T^*$ (w.r.t. the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product) is unital/identity-preserving. Thus one may reformulate the conjecture as follows.

Conjecture (v2). Let $A,B,X\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ with $A,B$ hermitian and $X$ positive definite. If there exist positive, linear maps $T_1,T_2:\mathbb C^{n\times n}\to \mathbb C^{n\times n}$ such that $$T_1(X)=T_2(X)=X,\quad T_1^*(\operatorname{id})=T_2^*(\operatorname{id})=\operatorname{id},\quad T_1(A)=B\quad\text{and}\quad T_2(B)=A,$$ then there exists unitary $U\in\mathbb C^{n\times n}$ such that $[U,X]=0$ and $U^\dagger AU=B$.

One readily verifies that there is a one-to-one connection between unital maps from $P(n)$ (as used in majorization theory) and positive, linear maps satisfying $T(Y)=Y$ and $T^*(Y^{-1})=Y^{-1}$ for some $Y>0$ via the transformation $$ \Psi:\mathcal L(\mathbb C^{n\times n})\to P(n)\qquad T\mapsto Y^{-1/2}T(Y^{1/2}(\cdot)Y^{1/2})Y^{-1/2} $$ However, I do not see if and how this could be connected to the kind of maps from Conjecture (v2): $$ T(\operatorname{id})=T^*(\operatorname{id})=\operatorname{id} \overset\checkmark\leftrightarrow T(X^{1/2})=X^{1/2},T^*(X^{-1/2})=X^{-1/2} \overset?\leftrightarrow T(X)=X,T^*(\operatorname{id})=\operatorname{id} $$

As a final remark to this post: the above conjecture, if true, seems to be closely related to Wigner's theorem for state-automorphisms${}^1$ or more generally linear isometries between matrix algebras. I am also aware of results on quantum channels and full-rank fixed points, cf. Chapter 6.4 in this script on quantum channels & operations by M. Wolf as well as this paper. However, so far I was not yet able to solve this puzzle. Thanks in advance for any answer or comment!

P.S. I hope the tags I chose for this question are fitting - but I am of course welcoming any comment addressing whether the tags are suitable or not, or if they can be extended in a meaningful way!


Footnote ${}^1$: Another idea could be, starting from $T_1,T_2$, construct one map in $P(n)$ which maps $A$ to $B$, $B$ to $A$, $X$ to $X$ and acts bijectively on $\operatorname{span}\lbrace A,B,X\rbrace$ or perhaps on the convex, compact set of all density matrices (positive semi-def. & trace $1$). However, I do not see yet how one would go on about such a construction.


Edit: Due to the comment of Josiah Park, let me share my efforts on the case $n=2$. Let $A,B,X\in\mathbb C^{2\times 2}$ such that $A,B$ hermitian and $X>0$. Note that $T(A)=B$ (as well as $S(B)=A$) trivially implies $\operatorname{tr}(A)=\operatorname{tr}(B)=:c\in\mathbb R$ so using linearity of $T,S$ and the common fixed point $X$, we may go to the trace-less hyperplane of hermitian matrices via $$ T\big(\underbrace{A-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X}_{=:\hat A}\big)=\underbrace{B-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X}_{=:\hat B}\qquad S\big(B-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X\big)=A-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X\,. $$ As $\hat A,\hat B$ are hermitian and trace-less, there exist $a,b\geq 0$ and unitaries $V_a,V_b$ such that $\hat A=V_a\operatorname{diag}(a,-a)V_a^\dagger$ and $\hat B=V_b\operatorname{diag}(b,-b)V_b^\dagger$. Due to Theorem 3.1 in this paper by Perez-Garcia, Wolf, Petz and Ruskai $T,S$ for $n=2$ are $p$-norm contractive on the trace-less hermitian hyperplane for all $p\in[1,\infty]$. This yields $$ \|\hat B\|_\infty= \|T(\hat A)\|_\infty\leq \|T\|_{\infty\to\infty}\|\hat A\|_\infty =\|\hat A\|_\infty = \|S(\hat B)\|_\infty\leq \|S\|_{\infty\to\infty}\|\hat B\|_\infty =\|\hat B\|_\infty $$ so $a=\|\hat A\|_\infty=\|\hat B\|_\infty=b$ and $\hat A,\hat B$ are unitarily equivalent. This translates to the existence of unitary $U$ with $$ U^\dagger AU-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}U^\dagger XU=U^\dagger \big(A-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X\big) U=U^\dagger \hat A U=\hat B=B-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}X $$ so $$ U^\dagger AU=B-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}U^\dagger [U,X]\,. $$ If $X\propto\operatorname{id}$ we are done. However, if $X\not\propto\operatorname{id}$ then one yet has to show that the non-empty set $$ \lbrace U\in\mathcal SU(2)\,|\, U^\dagger AU=B-\tfrac{c}{\operatorname{tr}(X)}U^\dagger [U,X]\,\rbrace $$ also is non-empty under the additional constraint $[U,X]=0$ - or maybe the original $U$ for some reason already satisfies $[U,X]=0$? This I sadly do not see at the moment - on the other hand, the full-rank condition of $X$ did not yet come into play it seems as we only used $X$ positive semi-definite & $X\neq0$.

Anyways, this approach is very explicit as in low dimensions such calculations are quite simple and contractivity of positive, trace-preserving maps in the $\infty$-/operator norm holds for $n=2,3$ (but fails for $n>3$; however, all counter-examples to this I know of do not have any matrix of full rank in their range). Also given how I used it, I am not sure how useful the operator norm for larger $n$ is regardless.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Has the conjecture been verified for small $n$? $\endgroup$ – Josiah Park Dec 20 '18 at 7:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good point @JosiahPark! I in fact have not been able to prove this even for $n=2$, but I edited my post to share some of my efforts in this simpler case. $\endgroup$ – Frederik vom Ende Dec 21 '18 at 8:40
2
$\begingroup$

No, even on $D_3:={\mathbb C} \oplus {\mathbb C} \oplus {\mathbb C}$ (the diagonal of $M_3({\mathbb C})$. Let $e_0,e_1,e_2$ denote the standard basis for $D_3$ and put $T\colon e_0\mapsto \frac{1}{2}(e_1 + e_2),\, e_1\mapsto e_0,\,e_2\mapsto e_0$ on $D_3$ (or on $M_3({\mathbb C})$ by ignoring the off-diagonal entries). Then, $T$ is a trace-preserving positive map which fixes $\mathrm{diag}(2,1,1)$ and flips $\mathrm{diag}(2,0,0)$ and $\mathrm{diag}(0,1,1)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Splendid example, which (fun fact) even disproves an old result about vector-$d$-majorization when slightly modifying it: choose $d=(3,2,1)$ and $T(x,y,z):=(y+z,2x/3,x/3)$ so $Td=d$, $T$ is trace-preserving (i.e. preserves the sum of vector entries) but $T$ flips $(3,0,0)$ and $(0,2,1)$ which shows that $d$-majorization contrary to popular belief is not a partial ordering even if the entries of the weight vector $d$ are pairwise different. Anyways great work, thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – Frederik vom Ende Feb 7 at 8:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.