Quantum f -divergences and error correction
Fumio Hiai1,a, Milán Mosonyi2,3,b, Dénes Petz3,c and Cédric Bény2,d
1

arXiv:1008.2529v6 [math-ph] 27 Jun 2017

2

3

Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University
Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore
3 Science Drive 2, 117543 Singapore

Department of Analysis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Egry József u. 1., Budapest, 1111 Hungary

Abstract
Quantum f -divergences are a quantum generalization of the classical notion of f divergences, and are a special case of Petz’ quasi-entropies. Many well-known distinguishability measures of quantum states are given by, or derived from, f -divergences;
special examples include the quantum relative entropy, the Rényi relative entropies, and
the Chernoff and Hoeffding measures. Here we show that the quantum f -divergences are
monotonic under substochastic maps whenever the defining function is operator convex.
This extends and unifies all previously known monotonicity results for this class of distinguishability measures. We also analyze the case where the monotonicity inequality holds
with equality, and extend Petz’ reversibility theorem for a large class of f -divergences
and other distinguishability measures. We apply our findings to the problem of quantum
error correction, and show that if a stochastic map preserves the pairwise distinguishability on a set of states, as measured by a suitable f -divergence, then its action can be
reversed on that set by another stochastic map that can be constructed from the original
one in a canonical way. We also provide an integral representation for operator convex
functions on the positive half-line, which is the main ingredient in extending previously
known results on the monotonicity inequality and the case of equality. We also consider
some special cases where the convexity of f is sufficient for the monotonicity, and obtain the inverse Hölder inequality for operators as an application. The presentation is
completely self-contained and requires only standard knowledge of matrix analysis.

Keywords: relative entropy, quasi-entropy, f -divergences, Rényi relative entropies, Schwarz
maps, stochastic maps, substochastic maps, operator convex functions, Chernoﬀ distance,
Hoeﬀding distances
Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation 2010: 81P16, 81P50, 94A17, 62F03
a

E-mail:
E-mail:
c
E-mail:
d
E-mail:
b

hiai@math.is.tohoku.ac.jp
milan.mosonyi@gmail.com
petz@math.bme.hu
cedric.beny@gmail.com

1

1

Introduction

In the stochastic modeling of systems, the probabilities of the diﬀerent outcomes of possible
measurements performed on the system are given by a state, which is a probability distribution
in the case of classical systems and a density operator on the Hilbert space of the system in the
quantum case. In applications, it is important to have a measure of how diﬀerent two states are
from each other and, as it turns out, such measures arise naturally in statistical problems like
state discrimination. Probably the most important statistically motivated distance measure
is the relative entropy, given as
(
Tr ρ(log ρ − log σ), supp ρ ≤ supp σ,
S(ρkσ) :=
+∞,
otherwise,
for two density operators ρ, σ on a ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space. Its operational interpretation is given as the optimal exponential decay rate of an error probability in the state
discrimination problem of Stein’s lemma [7, 21, 38, 45], and it is the mother quantity for
many other relevant notions in information theory, like the entropy, the conditional entropy,
the mutual information and the channel capacity [7, 45].
Undisputably the most relevant mathematical property of the relative entropy is its monotonicity under stochastic maps, i.e.,
S(Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) ≤ S(ρkσ)

(1.1)

for any two states ρ, σ and quantum stochastic map Φ [45]. Heuristically, (1.1) means that
the distinguishability of two states cannot increase under further randomization. The monotonicity inequality yields immediately that if the action of Φ can be reversed on the set {ρ, σ},
i.e., there exists another stochastic map Ψ such that Ψ(Φ(ρ)) = ρ and Ψ(Φ(σ)) = σ, then Φ
preserves the relative entropy of ρ and σ, i.e., inequality (1.1) holds with equality. A highly
non-trivial observation, made by Petz in [43, 44], is that the converse is also true: If Φ preserves the relative entropy of ρ and σ then it is reversible on {ρ, σ} and, moreover, the reverse
map can be given in terms of Φ and σ in a canonical way. This fact has found applications in
the theory of quantum error correction [25, 26, 39], the characterization of quantum Markov
chains [18] and the description of states with zero quantum discord [10, 14], among many
others.
Relative entropy has various generalizations, most notably Rényi’s α-relative entropies [47]
that share similar monotonicity and convexity properties with the relative entropy and are also
related to error exponents in binary state discrimination problems [9, 35]. A general approach
to quantum relative entropies was developed by Petz in 1985 [41], who introduced the concept
of quasi-entropies (see also [42] and Chapter 7 in [40]). Let A := B(Cn ) denote the algebra of
linear operators on the ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space Cn (which is essentially the algebra of
n × n matrices with complex entries, and hence we also use the term matrix algebra). For a
positive A ∈ A and a strictly positive B ∈ A, a general K ∈ A and a real-valued continuous
function f on [0, +∞), the quasi-entropy is deﬁned as
SfK (AkB) := hKB 1/2 , f (∆ (A/B))(KB 1/2 )iHS = Tr B 1/2 K ∗ f (∆ (A/B))(KB 1/2 ),
where hX, Y iHS := Tr X ∗ Y, X, Y ∈ A, is the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, and ∆ (A/B) :
A → A is the so-called relative modular operator acting on A as ∆ (A/B) X := AXB −1 , X ∈
2

A. The relative entropy can be obtained as a special case, corresponding to the function
f (x) := x log x and K := I, and Rényi’s α-relative entropies are related to the quasi-entropies
corresponding to f (x) := xα .
The two most important properties of the quasi-entropy are its monotonicity and joint
convexity. Let Φ : A1 → A2 be a linear map between two matrix algebras A1 and A2 , and
let Φ∗ : A2 → A1 denote its dual with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner products. A
trace-preserving map Φ : A1 → A2 is called a stochastic map if Φ∗ satisﬁes the Schwarz
inequality Φ∗ (Y ∗ )Φ∗ (Y ) ≤ Φ∗ (Y ∗ Y ), Y ∈ A2 . The following monotonicity property of the
quasi-entropies was shown in [41, 42]: Assume that f is an operator monotone decreasing
function on [0, +∞) with f (0) ≤ 0 and Φ : A1 → A2 is a stochastic map. Then
Φ∗ (K)

SfK (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf

(AkB)

(1.2)

holds for any K ∈ A2 and invertible positive operators A, B ∈ A1 . If f is an operator convex
function on [0, +∞), then SfK (A, B) is jointly convex in the variables A and B [40, 41, 42],
i.e.,
X
X
 X
SfK
pi Ai
pi Bi ≤
pi SfK (Ai kBi )
i

i

i

for any ﬁnite set of positive invertible operators Ai , Bi ∈ A and probability weights {pi }.
Quasi-entropy is a quantum generalization of the f -divergence of classical probability distributions, introduced independently by Csiszár [8] and Ali and Silvey [1], which is a widely
used concept in classical information theory and statistics [31, 32]. This motivates the terminology “quantum f -divergence”, which we will use in this paper for the quasi-entropies with
K = I. Actually, our notion of f -divergence is also a slight generalization of the quasi-entropy
in the sense that we extend it to cases where the second operator is not invertible. This extension is the same as in the classical setting, and was already considered in the quantum
setting, e.g., in [51]. We give the precise deﬁnition of the quantum f -divergences in Section 2,
where we also give some of their basic properties, and prove that they are continuous in their
second variable; the latter seems to be a new result. In Section 3 we collect various technical
statements on positive maps, which are necessary for the succeeding sections. In particular,
we introduce a generalized notion of Schwarz maps, and investigate the properties of this class
of positive maps.
The monotonicity Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB) of the f -divergences was proved in [42] for
the case where f is operator monotone decreasing and Φ is a stochastic map, and where f is
operator convex and Φ is the restriction onto a subalgebra; in both cases B was assumed to
be invertible. This was extended in [30] to the case where f is operator convex, Φ is stochastic
and both A and B are invertible, using an integral representation of operator convex functions
on (0, +∞), and in [51] to the case where f is operator convex and Φ is a completely positive
trace-preserving map, without assuming the invertibility of A or B, using the monotonicity
under restriction onto a subalgebra and Lindblad’s representation of completely positive maps.
In Section 4 we give a common generalization of these results by proving the monotonicity
relation for the case where f is operator convex, Φ is a substochastic map which preserves
the trace of B, and both A and B are arbitrary positive semideﬁnite operators. This is
based on the continuity result proved in Section 2 and an integral representation of operator
convex functions on [0, +∞) that we provide in Section 8. To the best of our knowledge, this
representation is new, and might be interesting in itself.
It has been known [25, 26, 43] for the relative entropy and some Rényi relative entropies
that the monotonicity inequality for two operators and a 2-positive trace-preserving map
3

holds with equality if and only if the action of the map can be reversed on the given operators. We extend this result to a large class of f -divergences in Section 5, where we show
that if a stochastic map Φ preserves the f -divergence of two operators A and B corresponding
to an operator convex function which is not a polynomial then it preserves a certain set of
“primitive” f -divergences, corresponding to the functions ϕt (x) := −x/(x + t) for a set T of
t’s. Moreover, if this set has large enough cardinality (depending on A, B and Φ) and Φ is
2-positive then there exists another stochastic map Ψ reversing the action of Φ on {A, B},
i.e., such that Ψ(Φ(A)) = A and Ψ(Φ(B)) = B. In Section 6, we formulate equivalent conditions for reversibility in terms of the preservation of measures relevant to state discrimination,
namely the Chernoﬀ distance and the Hoeﬀding distances, and we also show that these measures cannot be represented as f -divergences. In Section 7 we apply the above results on
reversibility to the problem of quantum error correction, and give equivalent conditions for
the reversibility of a quantum operation on a set of states in terms of the preservation of pairwise f -divergences, Chernoﬀ and Hoeﬀding distances, and many-copy trace-norm distances.
Related to the latter, we also analyze the connection with the recent results of [6], where
reversibility was obtained from the preservation of single-copy trace-norm distances under
some extra technical conditions, and show that the approach of [6] is unlikely to be recovered
from our analysis of the preservation of f -divergences, as the quantum trace-norm distances
cannot be represented as f -divergences. This is in contrast with the classical case, and is
another manifestation of the signiﬁcantly more complicated structure of quantum states and
their distinguishability measures, as compared to their classical counterparts.
In our analysis of the monotonicity inequality Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB) and the case of
the equality, it is essential that f is operator convex; it is an open question though whether
this is actually necessary. In Appendix A we consider some situations where convexity of f is
suﬃcient; this includes the case of commuting operators, which is essentially a reformulation of
the classical case, and the monotonicity under the pinching operation deﬁned by the reference
operator B, which was ﬁrst proved in [14] for the Rényi relative entropies. Although both
of these cases are very special and their proofs are considerably simpler than the general
case, they are important for applications. As an illustration, we derive from these results the
exponential version of the operator Hölder inequality and the inverse Hölder inequality, and
analyse the case when they hold with equality.

2

Quantum f -divergences: definition and basic properties

Let A be a ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebra. Unless otherwise stated, we will always assume
that A is a C ∗ -subalgebra of B(H) for some ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space H, i.e., A is a
subalgebra of B(H) that is closed under taking the adjoint of operators. For simplicity, we
also assume that the unit of A coincides with identity operator I on H; if this is not the case,
we can simply consider a smaller Hilbert space. The Hilbert-Schmidt inner product on A is
deﬁned as
hA, BiHS := Tr A∗ B,
A, B ∈ A,
√
with induced norm kAkHS := Tr A∗ A, A ∈ A.
We will follow the convention that powers of a positive semideﬁnite operator are only taken
on its support; in particular, if 0 ≤ X ∈ A then X −1 denotes the generalized inverse of X and
X 0 is the projection onto the support of X. For a real t ∈ R, X it is a unitary on supp X but
4

not on the whole Hilbert space unless X 0 = I. We denote by log∗ the extension of log to the
d
domain [0, +∞), deﬁned to be 0 at 0. With these conventions, we have dz
X z z=0 = log∗ X.
We also set
0 · ±∞ := 0,
log 0 := −∞, and log +∞ := +∞.
For a linear operator A ∈ A, let LA , RA ∈ B(A) denote the left and the right multiplications by A, respectively, deﬁned as
LA : X 7→ AX,

RA : X 7→ XA,

X ∈ A.

Left and right multiplications commute with each other, i.e., LA RB = P
RB LA , A, B ∈ A.
If A, B are positive elements in A with spectral decompositions A =
a∈spec(A) aPa and
P
B =
spectrum of X ∈ A) then the spectral
b∈spec(B) bQb (where spec(X) denotes the P
P
−1
−1
decomposition of LA RB is given by LA RB = a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B) ab−1 LPa RQb , and for
any function f on {ab−1 : a ∈ spec(A), b ∈ spec(B)}, we have
X
X
(2.1)
f (ab−1 )LPa RQb .
f (LA RB−1 ) =
a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B)

(Note that we have 0−1 = 0 in the above formulas due to our convention.)
2.1 Definition. Let A and B be positive semideﬁnite operators on H and let f : [0, +∞) →
R be a real-valued function on [0, +∞) such that f is continuous on (0, +∞) and the limit
ω(f ) := lim

x→+∞

f (x)
x

exists in [−∞, +∞]. The f -divergence of A with respect to B is deﬁned as
Sf (AkB) := hB 1/2 , f (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS
when supp A ≤ supp B. In the general case, we deﬁne
Sf (AkB) := lim Sf (AkB + εI).
εց0

(2.2)

2.2 Proposition. The limit in (2.2) exists, and
lim Sf (AkB + εI) = hB 1/2 , f (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS + ω(f ) Tr A(I − B 0 ).

εց0

In particular, Deﬁnition 2.1 is consistent in the sense that if supp A ≤ supp B then
lim Sf (AkB + εI) = hB 1/2 , f (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS .

εց0

P
P
Proof. By (2.1), we have Sf (AkB + εI) = a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B) (b + ε)f (a/(b + ε)) Tr Pa Qb ,
and the assertion follows by a straightforward computation using that for any a, b ≥ 0,
(
bf (a/b), b > 0,
(2.3)
lim b̃f (a/b̃) =
aω(f ),
b = 0.
0<b̃→b

5

2.3 Corollary. For A, B and f as in Deﬁnition 2.1,
Sf (AkB) = hB 1/2 , f (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS + ω(f ) Tr A(I − B 0 )

= f (0) Tr B + hB 1/2 , (f − f (0)) (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS + ω(f ) Tr A(I − B 0 )

X 
X
=
bf (a/b) Tr Pa Qb + aω(f ) Tr Pa Q0 ,
a∈spec(A)

(2.4)
(2.5)
(2.6)

b∈spec(B)\{0}

and Sf (AkB) = hB 1/2 , f (LA RB−1 ) B 1/2 iHS if and only if supp A ≤ supp B or limx→+∞ f (x)
=
x
0.
2.4 Remark. Note that LA RB−1 = ∆ (A/B), given in the Introduction, and hence the f divergence is a special case of the quasi-entropy (with K = I) when supp A ≤ supp B or
limx→+∞ f (x)/x = 0
2.5 Corollary. Let A, A1 , A2 , B, B1 , B2 and f be as in Deﬁnition 2.1. We have the following:
(i) For every λ ∈ [0, +∞),

Sf (λAkλB) = λSf (AkB).

(ii) If A01 ∨ B10 ⊥ A02 ∨ B20 then
Sf (A1 + A2 kB1 + B2 ) = Sf (A1 kB1 ) + Sf (A2 kB2 ).
(iii) If V : H → K is a linear or anti-linear isometry then
Sf (V AV ∗ kV BV ∗ ) = Sf (AkB).
(iv) If x is a unit vector in some Hilbert space K then
Sf (A ⊗ |xihx|kB ⊗ |xihx|) = Sf (AkB).
Proof. Immediate from (2.6).
2.6 Remark. Note that if V is an anti-linear isometry then there exists a linear isometry
Ṽ and a basis B such that V AV ∗ = Ṽ AT Ṽ ∗ , A ∈ A+ , where the transposition is in the
basis B. Hence, (iii) of Corollary 2.5 is equivalent to the f -divergences being invariant under
conjugation by an isometry and transposition in an arbitrary basis.
2.7 Example. Let fα (x) := xα for α > 0, x ≥ 0. For α = 0, we deﬁne f0 (x) := 1, x >
0, f0 (0) := 0. A straightforward computation yields that


α 1−α
α−1
Tr A(I − B 0 )
(2.7)
+ lim x
Sfα (AkB) = Tr A B
x→+∞

for any A, B ∈ A+ , and hence, if 0 ≤ α < 1 then
Sfα (AkB) = Tr Aα B 1−α ,
whereas for α > 1 we have
(
Tr Aα B 1−α , supp A ≤ supp B,
Sfα (AkB) =
+∞,
otherwise.
6

The Rényi relative entropy of A and B with parameter α ∈ [0, +∞) \ {1} is deﬁned as
(
1
log Tr Aα B 1−α , supp A ≤ supp B or α < 1,
1
Sα (AkB) :=
log Sfα (AkB) = α−1
α−1
+∞,
otherwise.
The choice f (x) := x log x yields the relative entropy of A and B,
(
Tr A (log∗ A − log∗ B) , supp A ≤ supp B,
Sf (AkB) =
+∞,
otherwise,
x
where the second case follows from limx→+∞ x log
= +∞.
x

The following shows that the representing function for an f -divergence is unique:
2.8 Proposition. Assume that a function D : A+ × A+ → R can be represented as an
f -divergence. Then the representing function f is uniquely determined by the restriction of
D onto the trivial subalgebra as
f (x) = D(xIkI)/ dim H,

x ∈ [0, +∞).

(2.8)

In particular, for every D : A+ × A+ → R there is at most one function f such that D = Sf
holds.
Proof. Formula (2.8) is obvious from (2.6), and the rest follows immediately.
In most of the applications, f -divergences are used to compare probability distributions
in the classical, and density operators in the quantum case, and one might wonder whether
there is more freedom in representing a measure as an f -divergence if we are only interested
in density operators instead of general positive semideﬁnite operators. The following simple
argument shows that if a measure can be represented as an f -divergence on quantum states
then its values are uniquely determined by its values on classical probability
P distributions.
Given density operators ρ and σ with spectral decomposition ρ =
a∈spec(ρ) aPa and
P
σ = b∈spec(σ) bQb , we can deﬁne classical probability density functions (ρ : σ)1 and (ρ : σ)2
on spec(ρ) × spec(σ) as
(ρ : σ)1 (a, b) := a Tr Pa Qb ,

(ρ : σ)2 (a, b) := b Tr Pa Qb .

This kind of mapping from pairs of quantum states to pairs of classical states was introduced
in [37], and is one of the main ingredients in the proofs of the quantum Chernoﬀ and Hoeﬀding
bound theorems.
2.9 Lemma. For any two density operators ρ, σ and any function f as in Deﬁnition 2.1,
Sf (ρkσ) = Sf ((ρ : σ)1 k (ρ : σ)2 ).
Proof. It is immediate from (2.6).
2.10 Corollary. Let f and g be functions as in Deﬁnition 2.1. If Sf and Sg coincide on
classical probability distributions then they coincide on quantum states as well.
Proof. Obvious from Lemma 2.9.
7

2.11
p Example. For two density operators ρ, σ, their quantum fidelity is given by F (ρ, σ) :=
Tr ρ1/2 σρ1/2 [53]. For classical probability distributions, the ﬁdelity coincides with Sf1/2 ,
where f1/2 (x) = x1/2 . If the ﬁdelity could be represented as an f -divergence for quantum
states then the representing function should be f1/2 , due to Corollary 2.10. However, the
corresponding quantum f -divergence is Sf1/2 (ρkσ) = Tr ρ1/2 σ 1/2 , which is not equal to F (ρ, σ)
in general. This shows that the ﬁdelity of quantum states cannot be represented as an f divergence.
In Sections 6 and 7 we give similar non-represantability results for measures related to
state discrimination on the state spaces of individual algebras.
Our last proposition in this section says that when ω(f ) is ﬁnite, the f -divergence is
continuous in the second variable.
2.12 Proposition. Assume that ω(f ) is ﬁnite. Let A, B, Bk ∈ A with A, B, Bk ≥ 0 for all
k ∈ N, and assume that limk→∞ Bk = B. Then
lim Sf (AkBk ) = Sf (AkB).

k→∞

Proof. First, by the assumption on ω(f ) and Corollary 2.3, note that S(AkBk ) is ﬁnite for
any k. Then by the deﬁnition (2.2), we can choose a sequence εk > 0, k ∈ N, such that
limk→∞ εk = 0, and for all k ∈ N,
Sf (AkBk + εk I) −

1
1
< Sf (AkBk ) < Sf (AkBk + εk I) + .
k
k

Let B̃k := Bk + εk I, which is strictly positive for any k ∈ N. Obviously, limk→∞ B̃k = B, and
the assertion will follow if we can show that
lim Sf (AkB̃k ) = Sf (AkB).

k→∞

(2.9)

P
P
P
(k)
Let A = a∈spec(A) aPa , B = b∈spec(B) bQb and B̃k = c∈spec(B̃k ) cQc be the spectral
decompositions of the respective operators. Then
X
X
Sf (AkB̃k ) =
f (a/c)c Tr Pa Q(k)
c .
a∈spec(A) c∈spec(B̃k )

From the continuity of the eigenvalues and the spectral projections when B̃k → B, we see
that, for every δ > 0 with δ < 21 min{|b − b′ | : b, b′ ∈ spec(B), b 6= b′ }, if k is suﬃciently large,
then we have
[
spec(B̃k ) ⊂
(b − δ, b + δ)
(disjoint union)
b∈spec(B)

and moreover,

(k)

Q̂b :=

X

c∈spec(B̃k )
c∈(b−δ,b+δ)

Q(k)
c −→ Qb

as k → +∞, for all b ∈ spec(B).

Due to (2.3), for every ε > 0 there exists a δ > 0 as above such that, for a ∈ spec(A),
b ∈ spec(B) and c ∈ spec(B̃k ),
|cf (a/c) − bf (a/b)| < ε if b > 0 and c ∈ (b − δ, b + δ),
|cf (a/c) − aω(f )| < ε
if c ∈ (0, δ).
8

Hence, if k is suﬃciently large, then we have by (2.6)
|Sf (AkB̃k ) − Sf (AkB)|
≤

X

a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B)\{0}

X

+

a∈spec(A)

≤

X

X

c∈spec(B̃k )
c∈(b−δ,b+δ)

X

c∈spec(B̃k )
c∈(0,δ)





X

X

+



 X



a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B)\{0} 

X



cf (a/c) Tr Pa Q(k)
c − aω(f ) Tr Pa Q0

X

c∈spec(B̃k )
c∈(b−δ,b+δ)

a∈spec(A)  c∈spec(B̃k )

≤ ε Tr I +

X

c∈(0,δ)

cf (a/c) Tr Pa Q(k)
c − bf (a/b) Tr Pa Qb


(k)
bf
(a/b)
Tr
P
|cf (a/c) − bf (a/b)| Tr Pa Q(k)
+
a Q̂b − Qb
c


(k)
aω(f
)
Tr
P
|cf (a/c) − aω(f )| Tr Pa Q(k)
+
a Q̂0 − Q0
c

X

a∈spec(A) b∈spec(B)\{0}

(k)

|bf (a/b)| Q̂b − Qb

1

+

X

a∈spec(A)

(k)











|aω(f )| Q̂0 − Q0

1

.

This implies that
lim sup |Sf (AkB̃k ) − Sf (AkB)| ≤ ε Tr I
k→∞

for every ε > 0, and so (2.9) follows.
2.13 Remark. The ﬁniteness assumption on ω(f ) is essential in the above proposition. Indeed, take f such that ω(f ) = +∞ or −∞. Let A = B = |xihx| be a rank 1 projection,
and Bk = |xk ihxk | where kxk − xk → 0 and xk is not proportional to x for any k. Then
Sf (AkB) = f (1) while Sf (AkBk ) = +∞ or −∞, respectively. Note also that Sf (AkB) is not
continuous in the ﬁrst variable even when ω(f ) is ﬁnite, unless f is assumed to be continuous
at 0.

3

Preliminaries on positive maps

Let Ai ⊂ B(Hi ) be ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras with unit Ii for i = 1, 2. For a subset
B ⊂ Ai , we will denote the set of positive elements in B by B+ ; in particular, Ai,+ denotes
the set of positive elements in Ai . For a linear map Φ : A1 → A2 , we denote its adjoint with
respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner products by Φ∗ . Note that Φ and Φ∗ uniquely determine
each other and, moreover, Φ is positive/n-positive/completely positive if and only if Φ∗ is
positive/n-positive/completely positive, and Φ is trace-preserving/trace non-increasing if and
only if Φ∗ is unital/sub-unital.
For given B ∈ A1,+ and Φ : A1 → A2 , we deﬁne ΦB : A1 → A2 and Φ∗B : A2 → A1 as
ΦB (X) := Φ(B)−1/2 Φ(B 1/2 XB 1/2 )Φ(B)−1/2 ,

Φ∗B (Y ) := B 1/2 Φ∗ Φ(B)−1/2 Y Φ(B)−1/2 B 1/2 ,
9

X ∈ A1 ,

Y ∈ A2 .

(3.1)
(3.2)




With these notations, we have (ΦB )∗ = Φ∗B and (Φ∗B )∗ = ΦB .
For a normal operator X ∈ A1 , let P{1} (X) denote the spectral projection of X onto its
ﬁxed-point set. Note that if B ∈ A1,+ then B 0 is a projection in A1 and hence B 0 A1 B 0 is a
C ∗ -algebra with unit B 0 .
3.1 Lemma. If Φ : A1 → A2 is a positive map and A, B are positive elements in A1 such
that A0 = B 0 then Φ(A)0 = Φ(B)0 . In particular, Φ(B)0 = Φ(B 0 )0 for any positive B ∈ A1 .
Proof. The assumption A0 = B 0 is equivalent to the existence of strictly positive numbers
α, β such that αA ≤ B ≤ βA, which yields αΦ(A) ≤ Φ(B) ≤ βΦ(A) and hence Φ(A)0 =
Φ(B)0 .
3.2 Lemma. Let B ∈ A1,+ and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a positive map such that Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) ≤ I1
(in particular, this is the case if Φ is trace non-increasing). Then
Tr Φ(B) ≤ Tr B,
and the following are equivalent:
(i) Tr Φ(B) = Tr B.
(ii) For any function f on spec(B) such that f (0) = 0 if 0 ∈ spec(B), we have
f (B)Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )f (B) = f (B).
(iii) B 0 ≤ P{1} (Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )).
(iv) Φ is trace-preserving on B 0 A1 B 0 . (In particular, if A ∈ A1,+ is such that A0 ≤ B 0 then
Tr Φ(A) = Tr A.)
(v) For the map Φ∗B given in (3.2), we have
Φ∗B (Φ(B)) = B.
Proof. By assumption, Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) ≤ I1 and hence,
0 ≤ Tr(I1 −Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ))B = Tr B −Tr Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B = Tr B −Tr Φ(B)0 Φ(B) = Tr B −Tr Φ(B).
If Tr Φ(B) = Tr B then (I1 − Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ))B = 0, i.e., B = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B, so we get B n =
Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B n , n ∈ N, which yields (ii). Hence, the implication (i)=⇒(ii) holds. If (ii) holds
then we have B 0 = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 0 and hence, for any x ∈ H such that B 0 x = x, we have
x = B 0 x = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 0 x = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )x, or equivalently, x ∈ ran P{1} (Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )). This
yields (iii), and the converse direction (iii)=⇒(ii) is obvious. Assume now that (ii) holds. If
X ∈ B 0 A1 B 0 , then XB 0 = B 0 X = X, and
Tr Φ(X) = Tr Φ(X)Φ(B)0 = Tr XΦ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) = Tr XB 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) = Tr XB 0 = Tr X,
showing (iv). The implication (iv)=⇒(i) is obvious.
Assume that (ii) holds. Then Φ∗B (Φ(B)) = B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) B 1/2 = B, showing (v).
On the other hand, if (v) holds then B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) B 1/2 = B, and hence 0 = B 1/2 (I1 −
Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ))B 1/2 . Since I1 − Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ) ≥ 0, we obtain B 1/2 (I1 − Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 ))1/2 = 0, which
in turn yields B = BΦ∗ (Φ(B)0 ). From this (ii) follows as above.
10

3.3 Corollary. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ , and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a trace non-increasing positive
map. Then Φ is trace-preserving on (A + B)0 A1 (A + B)0 if and only if
Tr Φ(A) = Tr A

and

Tr Φ(B) = Tr B.

Proof. Obvious from Lemma 3.2.
3.4 Corollary. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a trace non-increasing positive map
such that Tr Φ(A) = Tr A. Then
Tr Φ(B)Φ(A)0 ≥ Tr BA0

and

Tr Φ(B)(I2 − Φ(A)0 ) ≤ Tr B(I1 − A0 ).

Note that the ﬁrst inequality means the monotonicity of the Rényi 0-relative entropy S0 (AkB) ≥
S0 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) under the given conditions.
Proof. Due to Lemma 3.2, the assumptions yield that A0 ≤ P{1} (Φ∗ (Φ(A)0 )) ≤ Φ∗ (Φ(A)0 ),
and hence 0 ≤ Tr B(Φ∗ (Φ(A)0 ) − A0 ) = Tr Φ(B)Φ(A)0 − Tr BA0 . The second inequality
follows by taking into account that Tr Φ(B) ≤ Tr B.
The following lemma yields the monotonicity of the Rényi 2-relative entropies, and is
needed to prove the monotonicity of general f -divergences. The statement and its proof can
be obtained by following the proofs of Theorem 1.3.3, Theorem 2.3.2 (Kadison’s inequality)
and Proposition 2.7.3 in [5] using the weaker conditions given here. For readers’ convenience,
we include a self-contained proof here.
3.5 Lemma. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ and Φ : A1 → A2 be a positive map. Then
Φ(B 0 AB 0 )Φ(B)−1 Φ(B 0 AB 0 ) ≤ Φ(B 0 AB −1 AB 0 ).

(3.3)

In particular, if A0 ≤ B 0 then
Φ(A)Φ(B)−1 Φ(A) ≤ Φ(AB −1 A).

(3.4)

If, moreover, Φ is also trace non-increasing then
Sf2 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Tr Φ(A)2 Φ(B)−1 ≤ Tr A2 B −1 = Sf2 (AkB).

(3.5)

1/2
1/2
−1/2
Proof. Deﬁne
AB −1/2 and
P Ψ : A1 → A2 as Ψ(X) := Φ(B XB ), X ∈ A1 . Let X := B
let X = x∈σ(X) xPx be its spectral decomposition. Then


X x2 x
Ψ(X 2 ) Ψ(X)
⊗ Ψ(Px ) ≥ 0,
=
X̂ :=
x 1
Ψ(X) Ψ(I1 )
x∈σ(X)

and hence we have

Ψ(X 2 ) − Ψ(X)Ψ(I1)−1 Ψ(X) Ψ(X)(I2 − Ψ(I)0 )
,
0 ≤ Ŷ X̂ Ŷ =
(I2 − Ψ(I1 )0 )Ψ(X)
Ψ(I1 )
∗

where




I2 −Ψ(X)Ψ(I1 )−1
.
Ŷ :=
0
I2


Hence Ψ(X 2 ) ≥ Ψ(X)Ψ(I1 )−1 Ψ(X), which is exactly (3.3). The inequalities in (3.4) and (3.5)
follow immediately.
11

We say that a map Φ : A1 → A2 is a Schwarz map if
kΦkS := inf{c ∈ [0, +∞) : Φ(X)∗ Φ(X) ≤ cΦ(X ∗ X), X ∈ A} < +∞.
Obviously, if Φ is a Schwarz map then Φ is positive, and we have kΦk = kΦ(I1 )k ≤ kΦkS .
(Note that kΦk = kΦ(I1 )k is true for any positive map Φ [5, Corollary 2.3.8]). We say that
Φ is a Schwarz contraction if it is a Schwarz map with kΦkS ≤ 1. A Schwarz contraction Φ
is also a contraction, due to kΦk ≤ kΦkS . Note that a positive map Φ is a contraction if and
only if it is subunital, which is equivalent to Φ∗ being trace non-increasing. We say that a map
Φ between two ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras is a substochastic map if its Hilbert-Schmidt
adjoint Φ∗ is a Schwarz contraction, and Φ is stochastic if it is a trace-preserving substochastic
map. Note that in the commutative ﬁnite-dimensional case substochastic/stochastic maps are
exactly the ones that can be represented by substochastic/stochastic matrices.
It is known that if Φ is 2-positive then it is a Schwarz map with kΦkS = kΦk. In general,
however, we might have kΦk < kΦkS < +∞, as the following example shows. In particular,
not every Schwarz map is 2-positive.
3.6 Example. Let H be a ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space, and for every ε ∈ R, let Φε :
B(H) → B(H) be the map
Φε (X) := (1 − ε)X T + ε(Tr X)I/d,

X ∈ B(H),

where d := dim H > 1 and X T denotes the transpose of X in some ﬁxed basis {e1 , . . . , ed } of
H. It was shown in [52] that Φε is positive if and only if 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/(d − 1), for k ≥ 2 it
is k-positive if and only
1/(d + 1)
 if 1 −
 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/(d − 1), and it is a Schwarz contraction
p
if and only if 1 − 1/ 1/2 + d + 1/4 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/(d − 1). This already shows that there
are parameter values ε for which Φε is a Schwarz contraction but not 2-positive. Moreover, if
ε ∈ [0, 1) then for every c ∈ [0, +∞) we have
cΦε (X ∗ X) − Φε (X ∗ )Φε (X)

= c(1 − ε)(X ∗ X)T + cε(Tr X ∗ X)I/d − (1 − ε)2 (X ∗ )T X T

− ε(1 − ε)(Tr X)(X ∗ )T /d − ε(1 − ε)(Tr X ∗ )X T /d − ε2 | Tr X|2I/d2
i
h
√
≥ (Tr X ∗ X)I/d cε − d(1 − ε)2 − 2ε(1 − ε) d − ε2 ,

where we used that | Tr X|2 ≤ (Tr I)(Tr X ∗ X) and X ∗ X ≤ kXk2 I ≤ (Tr X ∗ X)I. This
√ shows
that Φε is a Schwarz map for every ε ∈ (0, 1) and kΦε kS ≤ (1/ε)(d(1 − ε)2 + 2ε(1 − ε) d + ε2).
Note that for X := |e1 ihe2 | we have
0 ≤ he1 , (kΦε kS Φε (X ∗ X) − Φε (X ∗ )Φε (X)) e1 i = kΦε kS ε/d − (1 − ε)2 ,
which yields that kΦε kS ≥ d(1 − ε)2 /ε. In particular, limεց0 kΦε kS = +∞. Since Φε is
a positive unital map for every ε ∈ [0, 1 + 1/(d − 1)], we have kΦε k = 1 for every ε ∈
[0, 1 + 1/(d − 1)], while kΦε kS > 1 and hence kΦε k < kΦε kS whenever (1 − ε)2 /ε > d.
Similarly, it was shown in [52] that the map
Ψε (X) := (1 − ε)X + ε(Tr X)I/d,

X ∈ B(H),

is completely positive if and only if 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/(d2 − 1), for 1 ≤ k ≤ d − 1 it is kpositive if and only if 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/(dk − 1), and it is a Schwarz contraction if and only if
12

0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 + 1/d. A similar computation as above shows that Ψε is a Schwarz map if and only
if 0 ≤ ε < 1 + 1/(d − 1), and limεր1+1/(d−1) kΨε kS = +∞.
Finally, the map
Λε (X) := (1 − ε)X T + εX,
X ∈ B(H),
positive if and only if 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1, for each k ≥ 2 it is k-positive if and only if ε = 1, and it is
a Schwarz contraction if and only if ε = 1 [52]. Moreover, for X := |e1 ihe2 | and every c ∈ R
we have he1 , (cΛε (X ∗ X) − Λε (X ∗ )Λε (X)) e1 i = −(1 − ε)2 , and hence Λε is a Schwarz map if
and only if ε = 1.
3.7 Lemma. Let Φ : A1 → A2 be a substochastic map, and assume that there exists a
B ∈ A1,+ \ {0} such that Tr Φ(B) = Tr B. Then kΦ∗ kS = kΦ∗ k = 1.
Proof. Let Ã1 := B 0 A1 B 0 , Ã2 := Φ(B)0 A2 Φ(B)0 , and deﬁne Φ̃ : Ã1 → Ã2 as Φ̃(X) :=
Φ(B 0 XB 0 ) = Φ(X), X ∈ Ã1 . Then Φ̃∗ (Y ) = B 0 Φ∗ (Y )B 0 , Y ∈ Ã2 , and Lemma 3.2 yields
that Φ̃∗ (Φ(B)0 ) = B 0 , i.e., Φ̃∗ is unital. Hence, 1 = kΦ̃∗ k ≤ kΦ∗ k ≤ kΦ∗ kS ≤ 1, from which
the assertion follows.
3.8 Lemma. The set of Schwarz maps is closed under composition, taking the adjoint, and
positive linear combinations. Moreover, for α ≥ 0 and Φ, Φ1 , Φ2 : A1 → A2 ,
kαΦkS = α kΦkS ,

kΦ1 + Φ2 kS ≤ kΦ1 kS + kΦ2 kS .

(3.6)

Proof. The assertion about the composition is obvious. To prove closedness under the adjoint,
assume that Φ : A1 → A2 is a Schwarz map. Our goal is to prove that Φ∗ is a Schwarz map,
too. Let ιk be the trivial embedding of Ak into B(Hk ) for k = 1, 2. The adjoint πk := ι∗k of ιk is
the trace-preserving conditional expectation (or equivalently, the Hilbert-Schmidt orthogonal
projection) from B(Hk ) onto Ak . Since ιk is completely positive, so is πk , and since πk is unital,
it is also a Schwarz contraction. Let Φ̃ := ι2 ◦ Φ ◦ π1 , the adjoint of which is Φ̃∗ = ι1 ◦ Φ∗ ◦ π2 .
Note that Φ̃ is a Schwarz map, too, with kΦ̃kS = kΦkS , since for any X ∈ B(H1 ),
Φ̃(X ∗ )Φ̃(X) = ι2 (Φ(π1 (X ∗ ))Φ(π1 (X))) ≤ kΦkS ι2 Φ (π1 (X ∗ )π1 (X)) ≤ kΦkS Φ̃(X ∗ X).
1
Hence, for any vector v ∈ H1 and any orthonormal basis {ei }di=1
in H1 , we have

kΦkS Φ̃(|vihv|) ≥ Φ̃(|vihei |)Φ̃(|ei ihv|),

i = 1, . . . , d1 ,

where d1 := dim H1 . Let Y ∈ A2 be arbitrary. Multiplying the above inequality with Y from
the left and Y ∗ from the right, and taking the trace, we obtain
kΦkS hv, Φ̃∗ (Y ∗ Y )vi = kΦkS Tr Y Φ̃(|vihv|)Y ∗ ≥ Tr Y Φ̃(|vihei |)Φ̃(|ei ihv|)Y ∗ .
Note that Tr : A2 → C is completely positive, and hence it is a Schwarz map with kTrkS =
kTr(I2 )k = d2 := dim H2 . Hence, the above inequality can be continued as
d2 kΦkS hv, Φ̃∗ (Y ∗ Y )vi ≥ Tr Y Φ̃(|vihei |) Tr Φ̃(|ei ihv|)Y ∗ = hv, Φ̃∗ (Y ∗ )ei ihei , Φ̃∗ (Y )vi,
and summing over i yields
d1 d2 kΦkS hv, Φ̃∗ (Y ∗ Y )vi ≥ hv, Φ̃∗ (Y ∗ )Φ̃∗ (Y )vi.
13

Since the above inequality is true for any v ∈ H1 , and Φ̃∗ (Y ) = Φ∗ (Y ) for any Y ∈ A2 , the
assertion follows.
The assertion on positive linear combinations follows from (3.6), and the ﬁrst identity
in (3.6) is obvious. To see the second identity, assume ﬁrst that Φ1 and Φ2 are Schwarz
contractions. Then, for any ε ∈ [0, 1] and any X ∈ A1 we have
((1 − ε)Φ1 + εΦ2 ) (X ∗ X) − ((1 − ε)Φ1 + εΦ2 ) (X ∗ ) ((1 − ε)Φ1 + εΦ2 ) (X)
= (1 − ε) [Φ1 (X ∗ X) − Φ1 (X ∗ )Φ1 (X)] + ε [Φ2 (X ∗ X) − Φ2 (X ∗ )Φ2 (X)]
+ ε(1 − ε) [(Φ1 (X) − Φ2 (X))∗ (Φ1 (X) − Φ2 (X))] ≥ 0,
and hence (1 − ε)Φ1 + εΦ2 is a Schwarz contraction for any ε ∈ [0, 1]. Finally, let Φ1 , Φ2 :
A1 → A2 be non-zero Schwarz maps. Then Φ̃k := Φk / kΦk kS is a Schwarz contraction for
k = 1, 2, and choosing ε := kΦ2 kS / (kΦ1 kS + kΦ2 kS ), we get
kΦ1 + Φ2 kS = (kΦ1 kS + kΦ2 kS ) k(1 − ε)Φ̃1 + εΦ̃2 kS ≤ kΦ1 kS + kΦ2 kS .
Lemma 3.9 and Corollary 3.10 below are well-known when Φ and γ are unital 2-positive
maps. Their proofs are essentially the same for Schwarz contractions, which we provide here
for the readers’ convenience.
3.9 Lemma. Let Φ : A1 → A2 be a Schwarz map, and let
MΦ := {X ∈ A1 : Φ(X)Φ(X ∗ ) = kΦkS Φ(XX ∗ )}.
Then
X ∈ MΦ

if and only if

Φ(X)Φ(Z) = kΦkS Φ(XZ), Z ∈ A1 .

(3.7)

Moreover, the set MΦ is a vector space that is closed under multiplication.
Proof. We may assume that kΦkS > 0, since otherwise Φ = 0 and the assertions become
trivial. Deﬁne γ(X1 , X2 ) := kΦkS Φ(X1 X2∗ ) − Φ(X1 )Φ(X2 )∗ , X1 , X2 ∈ A1 . Let X ∈ MΦ ,
Z ∈ A1 and t ∈ R. Then
0 ≤ γ(tX + Z, tX + Z) = t2 γ(X, X) + t[γ(X, Z) + γ(Z, X)] + γ(Z, Z)
= t[γ(X, Z) + γ(Z, X)] + γ(Z, Z).
Since this is true for any t ∈ R, we get γ(X, Z)+γ(Z, X) = 0, and repeating the same argument
with iZ in place of Z, we get γ(X, Z) − γ(Z, X) = 0. Hence, Φ(X)Φ(Z) = kΦkS Φ(XZ). The
implication in the other direction is obvious. The assertion about the algebraic structure of
MΦ follows immediately from (3.7).
For a map γ from a C ∗ -algebra into itself, we denote by ker (id −γ) the set of ﬁxed points
of γ.
3.10 Corollary. Let γ : A → A be a Schwarz contraction, and assume that there exists
a strictly positive linear functional α on A such that α ◦ γ = α. Then kγkS = kγk = 1,
ker (id −γ)Pis a non-zero C ∗ -algebra, γ is a C ∗ -algebra morphism on ker (id −γ), and γ∞ :=
limn→∞ n1 nk=1 γ k is an α-preserving conditional expectation onto ker (id −γ).
14

Proof. The assumption α ◦ γ = α is equivalent to γ ∗ (A) = A, where α(X) = Tr AX, X ∈ A,
and A is strictly positive deﬁnite. Thus 1 is an eigenvalue of γ ∗ and therefore also of
γ. Hence, the ﬁxed-point set of γ is non-empty, and it is obviously a linear subspace
in A, which is also self-adjoint due to the positivity of γ. If X ∈ ker (id −γ) then 0 ≤
α (γ(X ∗ X) − γ(X ∗ )γ(X)) = α (γ(X ∗ X)) − α(X ∗ X) = 0, and hence γ(X ∗ X) = γ(X ∗ )γ(X) =
X ∗ X, i.e., X ∗ X ∈ ker (id −γ). The polarization identity then yields that ker (id −γ) is closed
also under multiplication, so it is a C ∗ -subalgebra of A. Let I˜ be the unit of ker (id −γ); then
˜ = kγ(I)k
˜ ≤ kγk ≤ kγk ≤ 1, so kγk = 1. Repeating the above argument with
1 = kIk
S
S
∗
X yields that ker (id −γ) ⊂ Mγ ∩ M∗γ , where Mγ is deﬁned as in Lemma 3.9. Moreover,
by Lemma 3.9, γ is a C ∗ -algebra morphism on Mγ ∩ M∗γ , and hence also on ker (id −γ).
Note that hX, Y i := α(X ∗ Y ) deﬁnes an inner product on A with respect to which γ is a
contraction, and hence γ∞ exists and is the orthogonal projection onto ker (id −γ), due to von
Neumann’s mean ergodic theorem. By Lemma 3.9 we have γ(XY ) = γ(X)γ(Y ) = Xγ(Y ) for
any X ∈ ker (id −γ) and Y ∈ A, which yields that γ∞ is a conditional expectation.
3.11 Lemma. Let B1 := B ∈ A1,+ be non-zero, and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a trace nonincreasing 2-positive map such
L that Tr Φ(B) = Tr B. Let B2 := Φ(B). Then there exist
decompositions supp Bm = rk=1 Hm,k,L ⊗ Hm,k,R , m = 1, 2, invertible density operators ωB,k
on H1,k,R and ω̃B,k on H2,k,R , and unitaries Uk : H1,k,L → H2,k,L such that
ker (id −Φ∗B

◦ Φ)+ =

r
M
k=1

B(H1,k,L )+ ⊗ ωB,k ,

Φ(A1,k,L ⊗ ωB,k ) = Uk A1,k,L Uk∗ ⊗ ω̃B,k ,

A1,k,L ∈ B(H1,k,L ).

(3.8)

Proof. Let Ã1 := B 0 A1 B 0 , Ã2 := Φ(B)0 A2 Φ(B)0 , and deﬁne Φ̃ : Ã1 → Ã2 as Φ̃(X) :=
Φ(B 0 XB 0 ) = Φ(X), X ∈ Ã1 . Then Φ̃∗ (Y ) = B 0 Φ∗ (Y )B 0 , Y ∈ Ã2 , and a straightforward
computation veriﬁes that Φ̃B (X) := Φ̃(B)−1/2 Φ̃(B 1/2 XB 1/2 )Φ̃(B)−1/2 = ΦB (X), X ∈ Ã1 ,
and Φ̃∗B (Y ) := B 1/2 Φ̃∗ (Φ̃(B)−1/2 Y Φ̃(B)−1/2 )B 1/2 = Φ∗B (Y ), Y ∈ Ã2 . Let γ1 := Φ̃∗ ◦ Φ̃B and
γ2 := Φ̃B ◦ Φ̃∗ . Obviously, γ1 and γ2 are again 2-positive and, since
γ1 (B 0 ) = Φ̃∗ (Φ(B)0 ) = B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 0 = B 0 ,
γ2 (Φ(B)0 ) = Φ(B)−1/2 Φ(B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 1/2 )Φ(B)−1/2 = Φ(B)0
due to Lemma 3.2, they are also unital. Hence, kγi kS = kγi k = 1, i = 1, 2. Note that if
A1 := A ∈ ker (id −Φ∗B ◦ Φ)+ then A0 ≤ B 0 and hence A ∈ Ã1 , and
γ1∗ (A + B) = Φ∗B (Φ(A + B)) = A + B,

γ2∗ (Φ(A + B)) = Φ(Φ∗B (Φ(A + B))) = Φ(A + B).

Let A2 := Φ(A1 ). By the above, γm leaves the faithful state αm with density (Am +
Bm )/ Tr(Am + Bm ) invariant,
(id −γm ) is a C ∗ -algebra
Lrand hence, by Corollary 3.10,Lker
r
Im,k,R , where
of the form ker (id −γm ) =
k=1 Hm,k,L ⊗ Hm,k,R is a dek=1 B(Hm,k,L ) ⊗ P
k
composition of supp Bm . Moreover, limn→∞ n1 nk=1 γm
gives an αm -preserving conditional
expectation onto ker (id −γm ), for m = 1, 2. Hence, by Takesaki’s theorem [50], (Am +
Bm )it ker (id −γm ) (Am + Bm )−it = ker (id −γm ). Now the argument of Section 3 in [34] yields
the existence of invertible density operators
Lr ωA,B,k on H1,k,R and positive deﬁnite operators
X1,k,L,A,B on H1,k,L such that A + B = k=1 X1,k,L,A,B ⊗ ωA,B,k . By Theorem 9.11 in [40], we
have (A+B)it B −it ∈ ker (id −γ1 ) for every t ∈ R, which yields that ωA,B,k is L
independent of A,
∗
and hence that every A ∈ ker (id −ΦB ◦ Φ)+ can be written in the form A = rk=1 A1,k,L ⊗ωB,k
15

with ωB,k := ωA,B,k and
positive semideﬁnite operators A1,k,L on H1,k,L . This shows that
Lsome
r
∗
ker (id −ΦB ◦ Φ)+ ⊂
k=1 B(H1,k,L )+ ⊗ ωB,k . For the proof of (3.8), we refer to Theorem
4.2.1 in [33]. Finally, L
the decomposition B = ⊕rk=1 B1,k,L ⊗ ωB,k together with (3.8) shows that
ker (id −Φ∗B ◦ Φ)+ ⊃ rk=1 B(H1,k,L )+ ⊗ ωB,k .

4

Monotonicity

Now we turn to the proof of the monotonicity of the f -divergences under substochastic maps.
Let Ai ⊂ B(Hi ) be ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras for i = 1, 2. Recall that we call a map
Φ : A1 → A2 substochastic if Φ∗ satisﬁes the Schwarz inequality
Φ∗ (Y ∗ )Φ∗ (Y ) ≤ Φ∗ (Y ∗ Y ),

Y ∈ A2 ,

and Φ is called stochastic if it is a trace-preserving substochastic map.
For a B ∈ A1,+ and a substochastic map Φ : A1 → A2 , we deﬁne the map V : A2 → A1
as
V (X) := Φ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 )B 1/2 ,
X ∈ A2 .
(4.1)

Note that V = RB1/2 ◦ Φ∗ ◦ RΦ(B)−1/2 and hence V ∗ = RΦ(B)−1/2 ◦ Φ ◦ RB1/2 , which yields
V ∗ (B 1/2 ) = Φ(B)1/2 .

(4.2)

4.1 Lemma. We have the following equivalence:
V (Φ(B)1/2 ) = B 1/2

if and only if

Tr Φ(B) = Tr B.

Proof. By deﬁnition,
V (Φ(B)1/2 ) = Φ∗ (Φ(B)1/2 Φ(B)−1/2 )B 1/2 = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 1/2 .
Hence, if Tr Φ(B) = Tr B then V (Φ(B)1/2 ) = B 1/2 due to Lemma 3.2. On the other hand,
B 1/2 = V (Φ(B)1/2 ) = Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B 1/2 yields Φ∗ (Φ(B)0 )B n = B n , n ∈ N, and hence also (ii)
of Lemma 3.2, which in turn yields Tr Φ(B) = Tr B.
4.2 Lemma. The map V is a contraction and
V ∗ (LA RB−1 ) V ≤ LΦ(A) RΦ(B)−1 .

(4.3)

Moreover, when Φ∗ is a C∗ -algebra morphism, V is an isometry if Φ(B) is invertible, and (4.3)
holds with equality if B is invertible.
Proof. Let X ∈ A2 . Then,
kV Xk2HS = Tr(V X)∗ (V X) = Tr B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )Φ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 )B 1/2
≤ kΦ∗ kS Tr B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 XX ∗ Φ(B)−1/2 )B 1/2
∗

= kΦ kS Tr Φ(B)Φ(B)
∗

∗

−1/2
∗

≤ kΦ kS Tr XX = kΦ

∗

XX Φ(B)

kS kXk2HS

16

≤

−1/2

∗

0

= kΦ kS Tr Φ(B) XX

kXk2HS

.

(4.4)

∗

(4.5)

If Φ∗ is a C∗ -algebra morphism then kΦ∗ kS = 1 and the inequality in (4.4) holds with equality,
and if Φ(B) is invertible then and the inequality in (4.5) holds with equality. Similarly,
hX, V ∗ (LA RB−1 ) V XiHS = Tr(V X)∗ A(V X)B −1

= Tr B 1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )AΦ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 )B 1/2 B −1
= Tr AΦ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 )B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )

≤ Tr AΦ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 )Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )

(4.6)

≤ kΦ∗ kS Tr AΦ∗ (XΦ(B)−1/2 Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )
(4.7)
∗
−1 ∗
∗
= kΦ kS Tr Φ(A)XΦ(B) X = kΦ kS hX, LΦ(A) RΦ(B)−1 XiHS
(4.8)
≤ hX, LΦ(A) RΦ(B)−1 XiHS .
If Φ∗ is a C∗ -algebra morphism then kΦ∗ kS = 1 and the inequalities in (4.7) and (4.8) hold
with equality, and if B is invertible then (4.6) holds with equality.
Recall that a real-valued function f on [0, +∞) is operator convex if f (tA + (1 − t)B) ≤
tf (A) + (1 − t)f (B), t ∈ [0, 1], for any positive semi-deﬁnite operators A, B on any ﬁnitedimensional Hilbert space (or equivalently, on some inﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space). For a
continuous real-valued function f on [0, +∞), the following are equivalent (see [13, Theorem
2.1]): (i) f is operator convex on [0, +∞) and f (0) ≤ 0; (ii) f (V ∗ AV ) ≤ V ∗ f (A)V for
any contraction V and any positive semi-deﬁnite operator A. The function f is operator
monotone decreasing if f (A) ≥ f (B) whenever A and B are such that 0 ≤ A ≤ B. If f is
operator monotone decreasing on [0, +∞) then it is also operator convex (see the proof of
[13, Theorem 2.5] or [4, Theorem V.2.5]). A function f is operator concave (resp., operator
monotone increasing) if −f is operator convex (resp., operator monotone decreasing). An
operator convex function on [0, +∞) is automatically continuous on (0, +∞), but might be
discontinuous at 0. For instance, a straightforward computation shows that the characteristic
function 1{0} of the set {0} is operator convex on [0, +∞). It is easy to verify that the
functions
x
t
ϕt (x) := −
= −1 +
(4.9)
x+t
x+t
are operator monotone decreasing and hence operator convex on [0, +∞) for every t ∈ (0, +∞).
4.3 Theorem. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ , let Φ : A1 → A2 be a substochastic map such that Tr Φ(B) =
Tr B, and let f be an operator convex function on [0, +∞). Assume that
Tr Φ(A) = Tr A

or

0 ≤ ω(f ).

(4.10)

Then,
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB).

(4.11)

Proof. First we prove the theorem when f is continuous at 0. Due to Theorem 8.1, we have
the representation


Z
x
2
f (x) = f (0) + ax + bx +
+ ϕt (x) dµ(t), x ∈ [0, +∞),
1+t
(0,∞)
where b ≥ 0 and ϕt (x) is given in (4.9). Deﬁne
∆ := LA RB−1

and
17

˜ := LΦ(A) RΦ(B)−1 .
∆

Then
Sf (AkB) =f (0) Tr B + a Tr AB 0 + b Tr A2 B −1


Z
Tr AB 0
+
+ Sϕt (AkB) dµ(t) + ω(f ) Tr A(I − B 0 ).
1
+
t
(0,+∞)

(4.12)

Note that Tr B = Tr Φ(B) by assumption and, since b ≥ 0, we have b Tr A2 B −1 ≥
b Tr Φ(A)2 Φ(B)−1 due to Lemma 3.5. Since ϕt is operator convex, operator monotonic decreasing and ϕt (0) = 0, we have
˜
V ∗ ϕt (∆)V ≥ ϕt (V ∗ ∆V ) ≥ ϕt (∆)

(4.13)

for the contraction V deﬁned in (4.1), due to (4.3) and [13, Theorem 2.1] as mentioned above.
Hence, by Lemma 4.1,
Sϕt (AkB) = hB 1/2 , ϕt (∆)B 1/2 iHS = hV Φ(B)1/2 , ϕt (∆)V Φ(B)1/2 iHS
1/2
˜
≥ hΦ(B)1/2 , ϕt (∆)Φ(B)
iHS = Sϕt (Φ(A)kΦ(B)). (4.14)
Therefore, in order to prove the monotonicity inequality (4.11), it suﬃces to prove the monotonicity of the remaining terms in (4.12).
Assume ﬁrst that supp A ≤ supp B, and hence also Tr Φ(A) = Tr A (see Lemma 3.2). Then
Tr AB 0 = Tr A = Tr Φ(A) = Tr Φ(A)Φ(B)0 , which also yields Tr A(I1 − B 0 ) = Tr Φ(A)(I2 −
Φ(B)0 ). Hence, all the terms in (4.12) are monotonic non-increasing under Φ, and therefore
we have the inequality (4.11).
If ω(f ) = +∞, then either supp A  supp B, in which case
Sf (AkB) = +∞ ≥ Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)),
or we have supp A ≤ supp B, and hence (4.11) follows by the previous argument.
Next, assume that Tr Φ(A) = Tr A, and deﬁne Bε := B + εA, ε > 0. Then Tr Φ(Bε ) =
Tr Φ(B) + ε Tr Φ(A) = Tr B + ε Tr A = Tr Bε , and supp A ≤ supp Bε . Hence, by the previous
argument,
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(Bε )) ≤ Sf (AkBε ).

(4.15)

By the previous paragraph, it is suﬃcient to consider the case where ω(f ) is ﬁnite, and
therefore Proposition 2.12 can be used to obtain (4.11) by taking the limit ε ց 0 in (4.15).
Finally, assume that 0 ≤ ω(f ) < +∞. By Proposition 8.4, this yields the representation
Z
f (x) = f (0) + ω(f )x +
ϕt (x) dµ(t),
(0,∞)

and hence
0

Sf (AkB) = f (0) Tr B + ω(f ) Tr AB +
Z
= f (0) Tr B + ω(f ) Tr A +

Z

(0,+∞)

Sϕt (AkB) dµ(t) + ω(f ) Tr A(I − B 0 )

Sϕt (AkB) dµ(t).

(0,+∞)

Since Tr Φ(A) ≤ Tr A, inequality (4.11) follows.
18

So far, we have proved the theorem for the case where f is continuous at 0. Consider the
functions f˜α (x) := −xα , x ≥ 0, 0 < α < 1. Then f˜α is operator convex, continuous at 0 and
ω(f˜α ) = 0 for all α ∈ (0, 1). Hence, by the above, we have
− Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α = Sf˜α (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf˜α (AkB) = − Tr Aα B 1−α ,

α ∈ (0, 1). (4.16)

Taking the limit α ց 0, we obtain
Tr Φ(A)0 Φ(B) ≥ Tr A0 B,

(4.17)

which in turn yields
S1{0} (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Tr Φ(B) − Tr Φ(A)0 Φ(B) ≤ Tr B − Tr A0 B = S1{0} (AkB).

(4.18)

Assume now that f is an operator convex function on [0, +∞), that is not necessarily
continuous at 0. Convexity of f yields that f (0+ ) := limxց0 f (x) is ﬁnite, and α := f (0) −
f (0+ ) ≥ 0. Note that f˜ := f −α1{0} is operator convex and continuous at 0, ω(f˜) = ω(f ), and
Sf (AkB) = Sf˜(AkB) + αS1{0} (AkB) for any A, B ∈ A1,+ . Applying the previous argument
to f˜ and using (4.18), we see that
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Sf˜(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) + αS1{0} (Φ(A)kΦ(B))
≤ Sf˜(AkB) + αS1{0} (AkB) = Sf (AkB)
if any of the conditions in (4.10) holds, completing the proof of the theorem.
4.4 Remark. Note that supp A ≤ supp B is also suﬃcient for (4.11) to hold, due to Lemma
3.2.
4.5 Example. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ and Φ : A1 → A2 be a substochastic map such that
Tr Φ(B) = Tr B. Let sgn x := x/|x|, x 6= 0, and deﬁne f˜α := sgn(α − 1)fα , 0 < α 6= 1, where
fα is given in Example 2.7. Since f˜α is operator convex, and ω(f˜α ) ≥ 0 for all α ∈ [0, 2] \ {1},
Theorem 4.3 yields that
sgn(α − 1) Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α = Sf˜α (Φ(A)kΦ(B))

≤ Sf˜α (AkB) = sgn(α − 1) Tr Aα B 1−α

(4.19)

when α ∈ (1, 2] and supp A ≤ supp B. (Note that Sf˜α (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf˜α (AkB) = +∞ is
trivial when α ∈ (1, 2] and supp A  supp B.) The same inequality has been shown in the
proof of Theorem 4.3 for α ∈ [0, 1); see (4.16) and (4.17). This yields the monotonicity of the
Rényi relative entropies,
Sα (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =

1
1
log Sfα (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤
log Sfα (AkB) = Sα (AkB)
α−1
α−1

(4.20)

for α ∈ [0, 2] \ {1}.
Since ω(f ) ≥ 0 for f (x) := x log x, Theorem 4.3 also yields the monotonicity of the relative
entropy,
S(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ S(AkB).

19

4.6 Remark. In the proof of Theorem 4.3 it was essential that f is operator convex, but it is
not known if it is actually necessary. See Appendix A for some special cases where convexity
of f is suﬃcient.
Theorem 4.3 yields the joint convexity of the f -divergences:
4.7 Corollary. Let Ai , Bi ∈ A+ and pi ≥ 0 for i = 1, . . . , r, and let f be an operator convex
function on [0, +∞). Then
X
 X
X
Sf
pi Ai
pi Bi ≤
pi Sf (Ai kBi ).
i

i

i

Proof. Let δ1 , . . . , δr bePa set of orthogonal rank-one projections on Cr , and deﬁne A :=
P
r
r
r
i=1 pi Ai ⊗ δi , B :=
i=1 pi Bi ⊗ δi . The map Φ : A ⊗ B(C ) → A, given by Φ(X ⊗
Y ) := X Tr Y, X ∈ A, Y ∈ B(Cr ), is completely positive and trace-preserving and hence, by
Theorem 4.3,
X

X
X
Sf
pi Ai
pi Bi = Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB) =
pi Sf (Ai kBi ),
(4.21)
i

i

i

where the last identity is due to Corollary 2.5.

4.8 Remark. For an operator convex function f on [0, +∞) let Mf (A1 , A2 ) denote the set
of positive linear maps Φ : A1 → A2 such that the monotonicity Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB)
holds for all A, B ∈ A1 . The joint convexity of the f -divergences shows that Mf (A1 , A2 ) is
convex. Indeed, if Φ1 , Φ2 ∈ Mf (A1 , A2) then Corollary 4.7 yields
Sf ((1 − λ)Φ1 (A) + λΦ2 (A)k(1 − λ)Φ1 (B) + λΦ2 (B))
≤ (1 − λ)Sf (Φ1 (A)kΦ1 (B)) + λSf (Φ2 (A)kΦ2 (B))
≤ (1 − λ)Sf (AkB) + λSf (AkB) = Sf (AkB)
for any λ ∈ [0, 1] and A, B ∈ A1 . Note also that if Φ1 ∈ Mf (A1 , A2 ) and Φ2 ∈ Mf (A2 , A3 )
then Φ2 ◦ Φ1 ∈ Mf (A1 , A3 ).
We say that a linear map Φ : A1 → A2 is a co-Schwarz map if there is a c ∈ [0, ∞) such
that
Φ(X ∗ )Φ(X) ≤ cΦ(XX ∗ ),
X ∈ A1 ,

and it is a co-Schwarz contraction if the above inequality holds with c = 1. It is easy to see
that a linear map Φ : A1 → A2 is a co-Schwarz map (resp., a co-Schwarz contraction) if
and only if there is a Schwarz map (resp., a Schwarz contraction) Φ̃ : AT
1 → A2 such that
T
Φ = Φ̃ ◦ T , where T (X) := X denotes the transpose of X ∈ A1 with respect to a ﬁxed
T
orthonormal basis of H1 , and AT
: X ∈ A1 } ⊂ B(H1 ). Furthermore, we say that Φ
1 := {X
is co-substochastic (resp., co-stochastic) if Φ∗ is a a co-Schwarz contraction (resp., a unital coSchwarz contraction). Theorem 4.3 holds also when Φ : A1 → A2 is a co-substochastic map.
This follows immediately from Theorem 4.3 and the fact that transpositions leave every f divergences invariant (see (iii) of Corollary 2.5). Alternatively, this can be proved by replacing
the operator V deﬁned in (4.1) with the conjugate-linear map
V̂ (X) := Φ∗ (Φ(B)−1/2 X ∗ )B 1/2 ,

X ∈ A2 ,

and following the proofs of Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 4.3 with V̂ in place of V .
20

(4.22)

Recall that a positive map is called decomposable if it can be written as the sum of a
completely positive map and a completely positive map composed with a transposition. By
the above, a similar notion of decomposability is suﬃcient for the monotonicity of the f divergences. Namely, if a trace-preserving positive map Φ : A1 → A2 is decomposable in the
sense that it can be written as a convex combination of a stochastic and a co-stochastic map
then Φ ∈ Mf (A1 , A2 ) for any operator convex function f on [0, +∞). Example 3.6 provides
simple examples of trace-preserving positive maps that are decomposable in this sense but
which are neither stochastic nor co-stochastic.

5

Equality in the monotonicity

In this section we analyze the situation where the monotonicity inequality
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB)
holds with equality, based on the integral representation of operator convex functions that we
give in Section 8.
By Theorem 8.1, every operator convex function f on [0, +∞) admits a decomposition


Z
x
+
f (x) = α1{0} (x)+f (0 )+ax+bf2 (x)+
+ ϕt (x) dµf (t),
x ∈ [0, +∞), (5.1)
1+t
(0,∞)
where α, b ≥ 0, f (0+ ) := limxց0 f (x), 1{0} is the characteristic function of the singleton {0},
f2 (x) := x2 , ϕt (x) is given in (4.9), and µf is a positive measure on (0, +∞).
Recall that spec(X) denotes the spectrum of an operator X. We will use the notation |H|
to denote the cardinality of a set H. Given B ∈ A1,+ and a positive map Φ : A1 → A2 , let
ΦB : A1 → A2 and Φ∗B : A2 → A1 be the maps deﬁned in (3.1) and (3.2).
5.1 Theorem. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ be such that supp A ≤ supp B, let Φ : A1 → A2 be a
substochastic map such that Tr Φ(B) = Tr B, and deﬁne
∆ := LA RB−1

and

˜ := LΦ(A) RΦ(B)−1 .
∆

Then, for the following conditions (i)–(x), we have
(i)=⇒(ii)=⇒ (iii)=⇒(iv)⇐⇒(v)⇐⇒ (vi)⇐⇒(vii)⇐⇒(viii)⇐⇒ (ix)=⇒(x),
and if Φ is 2-positive then (x)=⇒(i) holds as well.
(i) There exists a stochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such that
Ψ(Φ(A)) = A,

Ψ(Φ(B)) = B.

(5.2)

(ii) There exists a substochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such that (5.2) holds.
(iii) For every operator convex function f on [0, +∞),
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Sf (AkB).

21

(5.3)

(iv) The equality in (5.3) holds for some operator convex function f on [0, +∞) such that
˜
| supp µf | ≥ | spec(∆) ∪ spec(∆)|.

(5.4)

˜ and
(v) There exists a T ⊂ (0, +∞) such that |T | ≥ | spec(∆) ∪ spec(∆)|
Sϕt (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Sϕt (AkB),

t ∈ T.

(vi) B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−z Φ(A)z ) = B −z Az for all z ∈ C.
(vii) B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−α Φ(A)α ) = B −α Aα for some α ∈ (0, 2) \ {1}.
(viii) B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−it Φ(A)it ) = B −it Ait for all t ∈ R.
(ix) B 0 Φ∗ (log∗ Φ(A) − (log∗ Φ(B))Φ(A)0 ) = log∗ A − (log∗ B)A0 .
(x) Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A.
Moreover, (ii)=⇒(iii) holds without assuming that supp A ≤ supp B. If Φ is n-positive/
completely positive then Ψ in (i) can also be assumed to be n-positive/completely positive.
Proof. The implication (i)=⇒(ii) is obvious. Assume that (ii) holds, and let Ã := Φ(A), B̃ :=
Φ(B). Then Tr A = Tr Ψ(Ã) ≤ Tr Ã = Tr Φ(A) ≤ Tr A and similarly for B and B̃, which
yields Tr Ψ(Ã) = Tr Ã, Tr Ψ(B̃) = Tr B̃ and Tr Φ(A) = Tr A, Tr Φ(B) = Tr B (note that this
latter is automatic here, and not necessary to assume from the beginning). Applying Theorem
4.3 twice, we get that Sf (AkB) = Sf (Ψ(Ã)kΨ(B̃)) ≤ Sf (ÃkB̃) = Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB)
for any operator convex function f on [0, +∞), proving (iii). The implication (iii)=⇒(iv) is
again obvious.
Note that if A = 0 then Sf (AkB) = f (0) Tr B for any function f , and (i)–(x) hold true
automatically. Hence, for the rest we will assume that A 6= 0 and hence also B 6= 0.
Assume that (iv) holds, i.e., Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Sf (AkB) for an operator convex function
f on [0, +∞) satisfying (5.4). By (5.1), we have
Sf (AkB) = αS1{0} (AkB) + f (0+ ) Tr B + a Tr A + bSf2 (AkB)


Z
Tr A
+
+ Sϕt (AkB) dµ(t)
1+t
(0,+∞)
(cf. (4.12)). Note that Tr Φ(B) = Tr B by assumption and Tr Φ(A) = Tr A follows due to
Lemma 3.2. Thus,
0 = Sf (AkB) − Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B))


= α S1{0} (AkB) − S1{0} (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) + b (Sf2 (AkB) − Sf2 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)))
Z
+
(Sϕt (AkB) − Sϕt (Φ(A)kΦ(B))) dµf (t).
(0,+∞)

By Theorem 4.3, the f -divergences corresponding to 1{0} , f2 and ϕt are monotonic nonincreasing under Φ, and hence the above equality yields that
Sϕt (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Sϕt (AkB)
22

for all t ∈ supp µf . This gives (v) with T := supp µf .
Assume now that (v) holds. This means that for every t ∈ T ,
1/2
˜
iHS ,
0 = Sϕt (AkB) − Sϕt (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = hΦ(B)1/2 , (V ∗ ϕt (∆)V − ϕt (∆))Φ(B)

where we used that V Φ(B)1/2 = B 1/2 due to Lemma 4.1 (note that ω(ϕt ) = 0, t > 0). By
(4.13) this is equivalent to
1/2
˜
V ∗ ϕt (∆)V Φ(B)1/2 = ϕt (∆)Φ(B)
,

t ∈ T,

or equivalently,
i
h


˜ + tI2 )−1 Φ(B)1/2 ,
V ∗ −I1 + t(∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 = −I2 + t(∆

By (4.2) we get

˜ + tI2 )−1 Φ(B)1/2 ,
V ∗ (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 = (∆

t ∈ T.

t ∈ T.

˜ we obtain
Using Lemma 5.2 below and the assumption that |T | ≥ | spec(∆) ∪ spec(∆)|,
1/2
˜
V ∗ h(∆)B 1/2 = h(∆)Φ(B)

(5.5)

˜ In particular,
for any function h on spec(∆) ∪ spec(∆).
˜ + tI2 )−γ Φ(B)1/2 ,
V ∗ (∆ + tI1 )−γ B 1/2 = (∆

γ, t > 0.

(5.6)

Using (5.6) with γ = 1 and γ = 2, we obtain
V ∗ (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2

2
HS

˜ + tI2 )−1 Φ(B)1/2 , (∆
˜ + tI2 )−1 Φ(B)1/2 iHS
= h(∆
˜ + tI2 )−2 Φ(B)1/2 , Φ(B)1/2 iHS
= h(∆
= hV ∗ (∆ + tI1 )−2 B 1/2 , Φ(B)1/2 iHS

= h(∆ + tI1 )−2 B 1/2 , B 1/2 iHS

= (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2

2

HS

.

Therefore, we have kV ∗ xk2HS = kxk2HS for x := (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 , and since V is a contraction,
we get 0 ≤ kV V ∗ x − xk2HS = kV V ∗ xk2HS − 2 kV ∗ xk2HS + kxk2HS = kV V ∗ xk2HS − kxk2HS ≤ 0,
by which V V ∗ (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 = (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 . Substituting (5.6) with γ = 1, we ﬁnally
obtain
˜ + tI2 )−1 Φ(B)1/2 = (∆ + tI1 )−1 B 1/2 ,
V (∆
t > 0,
(5.7)
and using again Lemma 5.2, we get
1/2
˜
V h(∆)Φ(B)
= h(∆)B 1/2

˜ By the deﬁnition (4.1) of V , this means that
for any function h on spec(∆) ∪ spec(∆).



1/2
˜
Φ(B)−1/2 B 1/2 = h(∆)B 1/2 .
Φ∗ h(∆)Φ(B)
In particular, the choice h(x) := xz , x > 0, h(0) := 0, yields

Φ∗ Φ(A)z Φ(B)−z B 1/2 = Az B 1/2−z ,
23

z ∈ C.

(5.8)

Multiplying from the right with B −1/2 and taking the adjoint, we obtain (vi).
The implication (vi)=⇒(vii) is obvious. Assume now that (vii) holds, i.e., B −α Aα =
0 ∗
B Φ (Φ(B)−α Φ(A)α ) for some α ∈ (0, 2) \ {1}. Multiplying by B and taking the trace, we
obtain

Sfα (AkB) = Tr Aα B 1−α = Tr BΦ∗ Φ(B)−α Φ(A)α = Tr Φ(B)Φ(B)−α Φ(A)α
= Sfα (Φ(A)kΦ(B)),
where fα (x) := xα , x ≥ 0. Since the support of the representing measure µfα is (0, +∞) (see
Example 8.3), we see that (vii) implies (iv). The equivalence of (vi) and (viii) is obvious from
the fact that the functions z 7→ B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−z Φ(A)z ) and z 7→ B −z Az are both analytic on
the whole complex plane. Diﬀerentiating (viii) at t = 0, we obtain (ix). A straightforward
computation shows that (ix) yields (iv) for f (x) := x log x, that is, the equality for the
standard relative entropy (note that the support of the representing measure for x log x is
(0, +∞) by Example 8.3). Hence, we have proved that (i)=⇒(ii)=⇒(iii)=⇒(iv)⇐⇒(v)⇐⇒(vi)
⇐⇒(vii)⇐⇒(viii)⇐⇒(ix).
Assume now that (vi) holds. In particular, the choice z = 0 yields

B 0 Φ∗ Φ(A)0 = A0
(5.9)
(recall that A0 ≤ B 0 ). Since Φ is substochastic, we have Φ∗ (Y ∗ Y ) ≥ Φ∗ (Y ∗ )Φ∗ (Y ) ≥
Φ∗ (Y ∗ )B 0 Φ∗ (Y ), and multiplying from both sides by B 0 , we obtain that Ψ(Y ) := B 0 Φ∗ (Y )B 0 ,
Y ∈ A2 , is a Schwarz contraction. For ut := Φ(B)−it Φ(A)it and wt := B −it Ait , we have
ut u∗t = Φ(B)−it Φ(A)0 Φ(B)it ,

wt wt∗ = B −it A0 B it ,

t ∈ R.

Note that (vi) says that B 0 Φ∗ (ut ) = wt , and hence Ψ(ut ) = wt B 0 = wt . Thus,
0 ≤ Tr B 1/2 (Ψ(ut u∗t ) − Ψ(ut )Ψ(u∗t )) B 1/2 = Tr BΦ∗ (ut u∗t ) − Tr Bwt wt∗

= Tr Φ(B)Φ(B)−it Φ(A)0 Φ(B)it − Tr BB −it A0 B it = Tr Φ(B)Φ(A)0 − Tr BA0
= Tr BΦ∗ (Φ(A)0 ) − Tr BA0 = Tr BA0 − Tr BA0 = 0,

where we used (5.9). Hence, B 1/2 Ψ(ut u∗t )B 1/2 = B 1/2 Ψ(ut )Ψ(u∗t )B 1/2 , and multiplying from
both sides with B −1/2 , we obtain Ψ(ut u∗t ) = Ψ(ut )Ψ(u∗t ). Since Ψ(ut ) 6= 0, and Ψ is a
Schwarz contraction, this yields that kΨkS = 1 and ut ∈ MΨ . Hence, by Lemma 3.9,
Ψ(ut Y ) = Ψ(ut )Ψ(Y ) = wt Φ∗ (Y )B 0 for all Y ∈ A2 and t ∈ R, i.e.,

B 0 Φ∗ Φ(B)−it Φ(A)it Y B 0 = B −it Ait Φ∗ (Y )B 0 ,
t ∈ R, Y ∈ A2 .
Note that the maps z 7→ B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(B)−z Φ(A)z Y ) B 0 and z 7→ B −z Az Φ∗ (Y )B 0 are analytic
on the whole complex plane and coincide on iR and thus they are equal for every z ∈ C.
Choosing z = 1/2 and Y := Φ(A)1/2 Φ(B)−1/2 , we get

B 0 Φ∗ Φ(B)−1/2 Φ(A)1/2 Φ(A)1/2 Φ(B)−1/2 B 0 = B −1/2 A1/2 Φ∗ (Φ(A)1/2 Φ(B)−1/2 )B 0
= B −1/2 A1/2 A1/2 B −1/2 ,

where we used the adjoint of (vi) with z = 1/2. Multiplying from both sides by B 1/2 , we
obtain (x).
24

Finally, assume that (x) holds, and hence
Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A,

Φ∗B (Φ(B)) = B.

Note that Φ∗B is not necessarily trace-preserving, as (Φ∗B )∗ (I1 ) = ΦB (I1 ) = Φ(B)0 , which
might be strictly smaller than I2 . However, if ρ is a density operator on H1 then the map
X 7→ ΦB (X) + (Tr ρX)(I2 − Φ(B)0 ) is obviously unital and hence its adjoint Ψ : A2 →
A1 , Ψ(Y ) = Φ∗B (Y )+[Tr(I2 −Φ(B)0 )Y ]ρ is trace-preserving. Moreover, Ψ(Φ(A)) = Φ∗B (Φ(A))
and Ψ(Φ(B)) = Φ∗B (Φ(B)), as one can easily verify. Since Ψ is obtained from Φ∗ by composing it with completely positive maps and adding a completely positive map, it inherits the
positivity of Φ∗ , i.e., if Φ, and hence Φ∗ , is n-positive/completely positive then so is Ψ. In
particular, if Φ is 2-positive then Ψ∗ is a unital 2-positive map and hence it is also a Schwarz
contraction, i.e., Ψ is stochastic. Thus (x)=⇒(i) holds in this case.
5.2 Lemma. If f is a complex-valued function on ﬁnitely many points {xi }i∈I ⊂ [0, +∞)
then for any pairwise
positive numbers {ti }i∈I , there exist complex numbers {ci }i∈I
P diﬀerent
1
such that f (xi ) = j∈I cj xi +tj , i ∈ I.
1
, i, j ∈ I, is a Cauchy matrix which is invertible
Proof. The matrix C with entries Cij := xi +t
j
due to the assumptions that xi 6= xj and ti 6= tj for i 6= j. From this the statement follows.

5.3 Corollary. Assume that supp Ai ≤ supp Bi , i = 1, . . . , r, in the setting of Corollary 4.7.
Then equality holds in (4.21) if and only if
X
−1/2 X
 X
−1/2
1/2
1/2
pi Ai = pi Bi
pj Bj
pj Aj
pj Bj
Bi ,
i = 1, . . . , r.
j

j

j

Proof. It is immediate from writing out the equality A = Φ∗B (Φ(A)) given in (x) in the setting
of Corollary 4.7.

5.4 Remark. Note that if supp A ≤ supp B and Tr Φ(B) = Tr B then for a linear function
f (x) = f (0) + ax, the preservation of the f -divergence is automatic, and has no implication
on the reversibility of Φ on {A, B}. Indeed, we have Tr Φ(A) = Tr A due to Lemma 3.2, and
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = f (0) Tr Φ(B) + a Tr Φ(A) = f (0) Tr B + a Tr A = Sf (AkB).
The f -divergence corresponding to the quadratic function f2 (x) := x2 is Sf2 (AkB) =
Tr A2 B −1 (when supp A ≤ supp B). Preservation of the f -divergence by a stochastic map is
not automatic in this case; however, it is not suﬃcient for the reversibility of the map, either.
Indeed, it was shown in Example 2.2 of [28] that there exists a positive deﬁnite operator D123
on a tripartite Hilbert space H1 ⊗ H2 ⊗ H3 , such that
D123 (τ1 ⊗ D23 )−1 = (D12 ⊗ τ3 )(τ1 ⊗ D2 ⊗ τ3 )−1 ,

(5.10)

it
D123
(τ1 ⊗ D23 )−it 6= (D12 ⊗ τ3 )it (τ1 ⊗ D2 ⊗ τ3 )−it for some t ∈ R,

(5.11)

but
where τi := dim1 Hi Ii , and D23 := TrH1 D123 , D12 := TrH3 D123 , D2 := TrH1 ⊗H3 D123 . Deﬁne
H := H1 ⊗ H2 ⊗ H3 , A := D123 and B := τ1 ⊗ D23 . Let A1 := B(H), A2 := B(H1 ⊗ H2 ) ⊗ I3
and let Φ∗ be the identical embedding of A2 into A1 . Then, (5.10) reads as
AB −1 = Φ(A)Φ(B)−1 .
25

Multiplying both sides by A and taking the trace, we obtain
Tr A2 B −1 = Tr AΦ(A)Φ(B)−1 .

(5.12)

Note that Φ is the orthogonal (with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product) projection
from A1 onto A2 , i.e., Φ is the conditional expectation onto A2 with respect to Tr, and
Φ(A)Φ(B)−1 ∈ A2 . Hence, we have Tr AΦ(A)Φ(B)−1 = Tr Φ(A)2 Φ(B)−1 . Hence, (5.12) can
be rewritten as
Sf2 (AkB) = Tr A2 B −1 = Tr Φ(A)2 Φ(B)−1 = Sf2 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)).
However, (5.11) tells that
Ait B −it 6= Φ∗ Φ(A)it Φ(B)−it



for some t ∈ R,

and hence (viii) in Theorem 5.1 is not satisﬁed. Since Φ is 2-positive (actually, completely
positive), it means that none of (i)–(x) of Theorem 5.1 are satisﬁed.
5.5 Remark. It was shown in [8] that, in the classical setting, preservation of an f -divergence
by Φ is equivalent to the reversibility condition (x) of Theorem 5.1 whenever f is strictly
convex. We reformulate the classical case in our setting in Appendix A, and use the condition
for equality to give a necessary and suﬃcient condition for the equality in the operator Hölder
and inverse Hölder inequalities.
5.6 Remark. The classical case suggests that the support condition (5.4) might be too
restrictive in general. On the other hand, [24] provides an example where the f -divergence
corresponding to a function f with | supp µf | = 1 is preserved and yet the reversibility property
(x) of Theorem 5.1 fails to hold. This shows that the support condition (5.4) cannot be
completely removed in general.
5.7 Remark. Theorem 5.1 holds also if we replace Φ and Ψ with co-(sub)stochastic maps,
and change conditions (vi)–(viii) to the following:
(vi)′ B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(A)z Φ(B)−z ) = B −z Az for all z ∈ C.
(vii)′ B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(A)α Φ(B)−α ) = B −α Aα for some α ∈ (0, 2) \ {1}.
(viii)′ B 0 Φ∗ (Φ(A)it Φ(B)−it ) = B −it Ait for all t ∈ R.
1/2
˜
In the proof of (v)=⇒(vi)′ , the previous equality V h(∆)Φ(B)
= h(∆)B 1/2 in (5.5) is replaced with
1/2
˜
V̂ h(∆)Φ(B)
= h̄(∆)B 1/2

due to the conjugate-linearity of V̂ , where V̂ is given in (4.22). In the proof of (vi)′ =⇒(x),
let ut := Φ(A)it Φ(B)−it and wt := B −it Ait ; then
u∗t ut = Φ(B)−it Φ(A)0 Φ(B)it ,

wt wt∗ = B −it A0 B −it ,

t ∈ R.

Using that Φ is a co-Schwarz contraction, we have Φ(u∗t ut ) = Φ(ut )Φ(u∗t ). From the multplicative domain for a co-Schwarz contraction, we have Φ(Y ut ) = Φ(ut )Φ(Y ) = wt Φ∗ (Y )B 0
for all Y ∈ A2 and t ∈ R. The rest of the proof is as before with Y = Φ(B)−1/2 Φ(A). The
implication (x)=⇒(i) holds also if we assume Φ to be 2-copositive.
26

5.8 Remark. Note that the assumption that Φ is substochastic guarantees that (Φ∗B )∗ = ΦB is
a Schwarz map, which is also subunital. However, as Example 3.6 shows, there exist subunital
Schwarz maps that are not Schwarz contractions. Even more, it was shown in [24] that if Φ
is not 2-positive then there exists a positive invertible B such that ΦB is not a Schwarz
contraction. To circumvent this problem, we assumed that Φ is 2-positive in the proof of
(x)=⇒(i) of Theorem 5.1. Note on the other hand that the monotonicity inequality holds
not only for substochastic maps but also for Schwarz decomposable maps, i.e., for those maps
that can be decomposed as a convex combination of a substochastic and a co-substochastic
map; see Remark 4.8. Hence, the implication (x)=⇒(iii) might still hold even if Φ∗B is not a
substochastic map. It is easy to see that this is the case, for instance, if Φ is 2-decomposable,
i.e., it is the convex combination of two trace non-increasing maps, one being 2-positive and the
other a composition of a 2-positive map with a transposition. It is an open question whether
the Schwarz decomposability of Φ implies that Φ∗B is Schwarz decomposable for every positive
semideﬁnite B.

6

Distinguishability measures related to binary state
discrimination

Let A ⊂ B(H) be a C ∗ -algebra, where H is a ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space, and let S(A)
be the state space of A, i.e., S(A) := {A ∈ A+ : Tr A = 1} is the set of density operators in
A.
6.1 Definition. For A, B ∈ A+ , the Chernoff distance C(AkB) of A and B is deﬁned as
C(AkB) := sup {(1 − α)Sα (AkB)} = − min ψ (α|AkB) ,
0≤α≤1

0≤α<1

(6.1)

where Sα (AkB) is the Rényi relative entropy deﬁned in Example 2.7, and
ψ (α|AkB) := log Tr Aα B 1−α ,

α ∈ R.

(6.2)

For every r ∈ R, we deﬁne the Hoeffding distance Hr (AkB) of A and B as


αr
−αr − ψ (α|AkB)
r
Hr (AkB) := sup Sα (e AkB) = sup −
+ Sα (AkB) = sup
.
1−α
1−α
0≤α<1
0≤α<1
0≤α<1
(6.3)
6.2 Remark. Note that
Hr (AkB) = sup{−sr − ψ̃ (s|AkB)},

(6.4)

s≥0

where
ψ̃ (s|AkB) := (1 + s)ψ (s/(1 + s)|AkB) , s ∈ [0, +∞),

ψ̃ (s|AkB) := +∞, s < 0.

For simplicity, we will use the notation ψ(α) = ψ (α|AkB) and ψ̃(s) := ψ̃ (s|AkB). Let
ψ̃ ∗ (r) := sups∈R {sr − ψ̃(s)} be the polar function, or Legendre-Fenchel transform of ψ̃ [12].
By (6.4), Hr (ρkσ) = ψ̃ ∗ (−r), r ∈ R. It is easy to see (by computing its second derivative) that
ψ is convex, and hence so is ψ̃. Furthermore, ψ̃ ′ (s) = ψ(s/(1 + s)) + ψ ′ (s/(1 + s))/(1 + s), s ∈
27

(0, +∞), and ∂ + ψ̃(0) = ψ(0) + ψ ′ (0), where ∂ + ψ̃(0) is the right derivative of ψ̃ at 0. In
particular, lims→+∞ ψ̃ ′ (s) = ψ(1). Hence,
(
−ψ̃(0) = −ψ(0), −r < ψ(0) + ψ ′ (0),
Hr (AkB) = ψ̃ ∗ (−r) =
+∞,
−r > ψ(1).
It is easy to see that
ψ(0) = −S0 (AkB), and if A0 ≥ B 0 then ψ ′ (0) = −S(BkA),
ψ(1) = −S0 (BkA), and if A0 ≤ B 0 then ψ ′ (1) = S(AkB).
Being a polar function, ψ̃ ∗ is convex, and hence so is the function r 7→ Hr (ρkσ). Moreover,
ψ̃ is lower semicontinuous and thus the bipolar theorem (see, e.g., Proposition 4.1 in [12])
yields that ψ̃ is the polar function of its polar ψ̃ ∗ . Hence, for every s ∈ [0, +∞), we have


s
(1 + s)ψ
= ψ̃(s) = sup{sr − ψ̃ ∗ (r)} =
sup
{−rs − ψ̃ ∗ (−r)}.
′
1+s
r∈R
ψ(0)+ψ (0)≤−r≤ψ(1)
Replacing s with α/(1 − α), we ﬁnally get that for every α ∈ [0, 1),




ψ(α)
−rα
−rα
− Sα (AkB) =
= sup
− Hr (AkB) =
sup
− Hr (AkB) .
1−α
1−α
1−α
r∈R
−ψ(1)≤r≤−ψ(0)−ψ′ (0)
(6.5)
That is, the Rényi α-relative entropies with parameter α ∈ [0, 1) and the Hoeﬀding distances
mutually determine each other.
If Tr A ≤ 1 then ψ(1) = log Tr AB 0 ≤ 0, and hence the optimization is over non-negative
values of r in the last formula of (6.5). Thus, α 7→ Sα (AkB) is monotonic increasing on [0, 1)
and hence
H0 (AkB) = lim Sα (AkB) =: S1 (AkB).
αր1

Note that ψ̃ ∗ is lower semicontinuous (see, e.g., Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 4.1 in [12]), and
hence ψ̃ ∗ (0) ≤ lim inf rց0 ψ̃ ∗ (−r). On the other hand, it is obvious from the deﬁnition that
r 7→ Hr (AkB) = ψ̃ ∗ (−r) is monotonic decreasing on R, and hence we ﬁnally obtain
lim Hr (AkB) = lim ψ̃ ∗ (−r) = ψ̃ ∗ (0) = H0 (AkB) = S1 (AkB).

rց0

rց0

(6.6)

Finally, it is easy to verify that
S1 (AkB) = S(AkB)

if

Tr A = 1.

(6.7)

The importance of the above measures comes from the problem of binary state discrimination, that we brieﬂy describe below. Assume that we have several identical copies of a
quantum system, and we know that either all of them are in a state described by a density
operator ρ, or all of them are in a state described by a density operator σ. We assume that
the system’s Hilbert space H is ﬁnite-dimensional. Our goal is to give a good guess on the
true state of the system, based on the outcome of a binary POVM measurement (T, I − T )
on a ﬁxed number (say n) copies, where T is an operator on H⊗n satisfying 0 ≤ T ≤ I. If the
outcome corresponding to T happens then we conclude that the state of the system is ρ, and
28

an error occurs if the true state is σ, which has probability βn (T ) := Tr σ ⊗n T . Similarly, the
outcome corresponding to I − T yields the guess σ for the true state, and the probability of
error in this case is αn (T ) := Tr ρ⊗n (I − T ). If, moreover, there are prior probabilities p and
1 − p assigned to ρ and σ, then the optimal Bayesian error probability is given by
Pn,p := min {pαn (T ) + (1 − p)βn (T )} = (1 − pρ⊗n − (1 − p)σ ⊗n )/2,
0≤T ≤I

where the minimum is reached at T = {pρ⊗n − (1 − p)σ ⊗n > 0}, the spectral projection
corresponding to the positive part of the spectrum of pρ⊗n − (1 − p)σ ⊗n . For every p ∈ (0, 1),
let
(
1

− log 2p
(1 − kpρ⊗n − (1 − p)σ ⊗n k1 ) = − log p1 Pn,p ,
0 < p ≤ 1/2,
Tp ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n :=
1
1
⊗n
⊗n
− log 2(1−p) (1 − kpρ − (1 − p)σ k1 ) = − log 1−p Pn,p , 1/2 < p < 1.
(6.8)
The theorem for the quantum Chernoff bound [3, 37] says that, as the number of copies n
tends to inﬁnity, the error probabilities Pn,p decay exponentially, and the rate of the decay is
given by the Chernoﬀ distance. More formally,

− lim (1/n) log Pn,p = lim (1/n)Tp ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n = C(ρkσ),
p ∈ (0, 1).
(6.9)
n→∞

n→∞

In the asymmetric setting of the quantum Hoeffding bound, the error probabilities αn are
required to be exponentially small, and βn is optimized under this constraint, i.e., one is
interested in the quantities
βn,r := min{βn (T ) : αn (T ) ≤ e−nr , T ∈ B(H⊗n ), 0 ≤ T ≤ I},

where r is some ﬁxed positive number. The theorem for the quantum Hoeﬀding bound [15, 36]
says that, for every r > 0, the error probabilities βn,r decay exponentially fast as n goes to
inﬁnity, and the decay rate is given by the Hoeﬀding distance with parameter r. Moreover, if
supp ρ ≤ supp σ, then for every r > 0 we have a real number ar such that [22, 36]

− lim (1/n) log βn,r = lim (1/n)T e−nar ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n = Hr (ρkσ).
(6.10)
n→∞

n→∞

1+e−nar

Note that for density operators ρ and σ, ψ(α|ρkσ) = log Tr ρα σ 1−α ≤ 0 for every α ∈ [0, 1]
due to Hölder’s inequality (A.8). Hence, C(ρkσ) ≥ 0, and C(ρkσ) = 0 if and only if equality
holds in Hölder’s inequality, which is equivalent to ρ = σ. Similarly, Hr (ρkσ) ≥ 0 for every
r ∈ R, and Hr (ρkσ) = 0 if and only if ρ = σ, or supp ρ ≥ supp σ and r ≥ S(σkρ).

6.3 Proposition. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a substochastic map such that
Tr Φ(B) = Tr B. Then
C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ C(AkB)

and

Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Hr (AkB), r ∈ R.

(6.11)

If there exists a substochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such that Ψ(Φ(A)) = A and Ψ(Φ(B)) = B
then the inequalities in (6.11) hold with equality.
Proof. By Example 4.5, Sα (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sα (AkB) for every α ∈ [0, 1), and equality holds
for every α ∈ [0, 1) if there exists a substochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such that Ψ(Φ(A)) = A
and Ψ(Φ(B)) = B, due to Theorem 5.1. The assertion then follows immediately from the
deﬁnitions (6.1) and (6.3).
29

Our goal now is to give the converse of the above proposition, i.e., to show that equality
in the inequalities of (6.11) yields the existence of a substochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such
that Ψ(Φ(A)) = A and Ψ(Φ(B)) = B. This would be immediate from Theorem 5.1 if the
Chernoﬀ and the Hoeﬀding distances could be represented as f -divergences (at least when Φ
is also assumed to be 2-positive). However, no such representation is possible, as is shown in
the following proposition:
6.4 Proposition. The Chernoﬀ and the Hoeﬀding distances cannot be represented as f divergences on the state space of any non-trivial ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebra.
Proof. Let A ⊂ B(H) where dim H ≥ 2, and let e1 , e2 be orthonormal vectors in H such
that |ej ihej | ∈ A, j = 1, 2. Deﬁne ρ := |e1 ihe1 |, σp := p|e1 ihe1 | + (1 − p)|e2 ihe2 |, p ∈ (0, 1).
One can easily check that C(ρkσp ) = Hr (ρkσp ) = − log p for every r > 0, while Sf (ρkσp ) =
pf (1/p) + (1 − p)f (0) for any function f on [0, +∞). Hence, if any of the above measures
can be represented as an f -divergence, then we have pf (1/p) + (1 − p)f (0) = − log p for
the representing function f , and taking the limit p ց 0 yields ω(f ) = +∞. In particular,
Sf (σp kρ) = +∞ for every p ∈ (0, 1). On the other hand, C(σp kρ) = − log p and Hr (σp kρ) = 0
if r ≥ − log p. That is, C(σp kρ) is ﬁnite for every p ∈ (0, 1) and for every r > 0 there exists a
p ∈ (0, 1) such that Hr (σp kρ) is ﬁnite.
Note, however, that for the applications of Theorems 4.3 and 5.1, it is suﬃcient to have
a more general representability. Indeed, let A be a ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebra and D :
S(A) × S(A) → R. We say that D is a monotone function of an f -divergence on the state
space of A if there exists an operator convex function f : [0, +∞) → R and a strictly
monotonic increasing function g : {Sf (ρkσ) : ρ, σ ∈ S(A)} → R ∪ {±∞} such that
D (ρ k σ) = g (Sf (ρkσ)) ,

ρ, σ ∈ S(A).

Obviously, if D is a monotone function of an f -divergence then it is monotonic non-increasing
under stochastic maps due to Theorem 4.3. Moreover, if D (Φ(ρ) k Φ(σ)) = D (ρ k σ) for some
stochastic map Φ and ρ, σ ∈ S(A) such that supp ρ ≤ supp σ, and the representing function
f satisﬁes | supp µf | ≥ | spec(Lρ Rσ−1 ) ∪ spec(LΦ(ρ) RΦ(σ)−1 )| then Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ, due to (iv)
of Theorem 5.1. For instance, the Rényi α-relative entropy is a monotone function of the
1
f˜α -divergence with g(x) := α−1
log sgn(α − 1)x, for every α ∈ [0, 2] \ {1}. However, the same
argument as in Proposition 6.4 yields that none of the Rényi relative entropies with parameter
α ∈ (0, 1) can be represented as f -divergences.

6.5 Proposition. For any r ∈ (0, +∞) and any non-trivial C ∗ -algebra A, the Hoeﬀding
distance Hr cannot be represented on the state space of A as a monotone function of an
f -divergence with an operator convex function f on [0, +∞) such that | supp µf | ≥ 6.

Proof. Let A ⊂ B(H) be a C ∗ -algebra and let e1 , e2 be orthogonal vectors in H such that
1−q
|e1 ihe1 |, |e2ihe2 | ∈ A. Choose p, q ∈ (0, 1) such that p 6= q and q log pq + (1 − q) log 1−p
< r, and
deﬁne ρ := p|e1 ihe1 | + (1 − p)|e2 ihe2 | and σ := q|e1 ihe1 | + (1 − q)|e2 ihe2 |. Then ψ(0|ρkσ) = 0
1−q
and −ψ(0|ρkσ) − ψ ′ (0|ρkσ) = S(σkρ) = q log pq + (1 − q) log 1−p
< r, and hence Hr (ρkσ) =
−ψ(0|ρkσ) = 0. Deﬁne Φ : A → A, Φ(X) := (Tr X)I/(dim H). Then Φ is completely
positive and trace-preserving, Φ(ρ) = Φ(σ), and hence
Hr (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = 0 = Hr (ρkσ). Note

that | spec (Lρ Rσ−1 ) | ≤ 5 and | spec LΦ(ρ) RΦ(σ)−1 | = 1. If we had Hr (ρkσ) = g (Sf (ρkσ))
and Hr (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = g (Sf (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ))) for some strictly monotone g and an operator convex
f on [0, +∞) such that | supp µf | ≥ 6 then Theorem 5.1 would yield Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ. However,
Φ(ρ) = Φ(σ) and hence Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = Φ∗σ (Φ(σ)) = σ 6= ρ.
30

The above proposition also shows that the preservation of a Hoeﬀding distance of a pair
(ρ, σ) by a stochastic map for a given parameter r might not be suﬃcient for the reversibility
of Φ on {ρ, σ} in the sense of Theorem 5.1; the reason for this in the above proof is that the
Hoeﬀding distance might be equal to zero even for non-equal states. The Chernoﬀ distance,
on the other hand, is always strictly positive for unequal states; yet the following example
shows that the preservation of the Chernoﬀ distance is not suﬃcient for reversibility in general,
either.
6.6 Example. Let H := C3 and let A be the commutative C ∗ -algebra of operators on
H that are diagonal in some ﬁxed basis e1 , e2 , e3 . Let ρ := (2/3)|e1 ihe1 | + (1/3)|e2 ihe2 |,
σ := (1/6)|e1ihe1 | + (1/3)|e2 ihe2 | + (1/2)|e3ihe3 |, and deﬁne Φ : A → A as
Φ(|e1 ihe1 |) := Φ(|e2 ihe2 |) := |e1 ihe1 |,

Φ(|e3 ihe3 |) := |e3 ihe3 |.

Then Φ is completely positive and trace-preserving, and we have Φ(ρ) = |e1 ihe1 |, Φ(σ) =
α
(1/2)|e1 ihe1 |+(1/2)|e3ihe3 |. For every α ∈ R, we have Tr ρα σ 1−α = 2+4
and Tr Φ(ρ)α Φ(σ)1−α =
6
2α−1 , and hence
C(Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = − log ψ (0|Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = S0 (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = log 2 = S0 (ρkσ)
= − log ψ (0|ρkσ) = C(ρkσ).
On the other hand, it is easy to see that Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = (1/3)|e1ihe1 | + (2/3)|e2 ihe2 | =
6 ρ, and
therefore (x) of Theorem 5.1 does not hold, and hence Φ is not reversible on the pair {ρ, σ}.
6.7 Remark. Note that in the setting of Theorem 5.1, if Φ is 2-positive and Sα (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =
Sα (AkB) for some α ∈ (0, 1) then Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A, i.e., the preservation of a Rényi α-relative
entropy with some α ∈ (0, 1) is suﬃcient for the reversibility of Φ on {A, B}. The above
example shows that the same is not true for the 0-relative entropy.
6.8 Corollary. Let A be a C ∗ -algebra which contains at least 3 orthogonal non-zero projections. Then the Chernoﬀ distance cannot be represented on its state space as a monotone
function of an f -divergence with an operator convex f on [0, +∞) such that | supp µf | ≥ 6.
Proof. Immediate from Example 6.6.
After the above preparation, we are ready to prove the analogue of Theorem 5.1 for the
preservation of the Chernoﬀ and the Hoeﬀding distances. The preservation of the Chernoﬀ
distance was already treated in the proof of Theorem 6 in [23] in the case where both operators
are invertible density operators and the substochastic map is the trace-preserving conditional
expectation onto a subalgebra. We use essentially the same proof to treat the general case
below.
6.9 Theorem. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ be such that supp A ≤ supp B, let Φ : A1 → A2 be a
substochastic map such that Tr Φ(B) = Tr B, and assume that (i) or (ii) below holds:
(i) C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6= S0 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)), C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6= S0 (Φ(B)kΦ(A)), and
C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = C(AkB).
(ii) For some r ∈ (−ψ (1|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) , −ψ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) − ψ ′ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B)),
Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = Hr (AkB).
31

(6.12)

Then Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A, and if Φ is 2-positive then there exists a stochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1
such that Ψ(Φ(A)) = A and Ψ(Φ(B)) = B.
Proof. Assume ﬁrst that (i) holds. Due to the assumptions C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6= S0 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =
−ψ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B)), C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6= S0 (Φ(B)kΦ(A)) = −ψ (1|Φ(A)kΦ(B)), and the deﬁnition (6.1) of the Chernoﬀ distance, there exists an α∗ ∈ (0, 1) such that C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =
−ψ (α∗ |Φ(A)kΦ(B)). Using the monotonicity relation (4.16), we get
∗

∗

∗

∗

C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = − log Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α ≤ − log Tr Aα B 1−α ≤ C(AkB) = C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)).
∗

∗

∗

∗

Hence, Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α = Tr Aα B 1−α , which yields Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A due to (iv) of Theorem 5.1.
Assume next that (6.12) holds for some r ∈ (−ψ (1|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) , −ψ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) −
′
ψ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B)). Then there exists an s∗ ∈ (0, +∞) such that Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = −s∗ r −
ψ̃(s∗ |Φ(A)kΦ(B)) (see Remark 6.2). Thus, Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = −α∗ r/(1−α∗ )+Sα∗ (Φ(A)kΦ(B)),
s∗
where α∗ := 1+s
∗ ∈ (0, 1). Using the monotonicity (4.20), we obtain
Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = −α∗ r/(1 − α∗ ) + Sα∗ (Φ(A)kΦ(B))
≤ −α∗ r/(1 − α∗ ) + Sα∗ (AkB) ≤ Hr (AkB) = Hr (Φ(A)kΦ(B)).
∗

∗

∗

∗

Hence, Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α = Tr Aα B 1−α , which yields Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A due to (iv) of Theorem 5.1.
Finally, if Φ is 2-positive then Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A yields the existence of Ψ in the last assertion
the same way as in the proof of (x)=⇒(i) in Theorem 5.1.
6.10 Corollary. Assume in the setting of Theorem 6.9 that supp A = supp B and Tr A =
Tr B. If C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = C(AkB) then Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A.
Proof. Let ψ(α) := ψ (α|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) , α ∈ R. By the assumptions, we have supp Φ(A) =
supp Φ(B) and Tr Φ(A) = Tr Φ(B), and hence ψ(0) = ψ(1). Since ψ is convex, there are
two possibilities: either ψ is constant, or the minimum of ψ on [0, 1] is attained at some
α∗ ∈ (0, 1). In the latter case we have C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6= S0 (Φ(A)kΦ(B)), C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) 6=
S0 (Φ(B)kΦ(A)), and hence the assertion follows due to Theorem 6.9. If ψ is constant then
we have Tr Φ(A)α Φ(B)1−α = eψ(α) = eψ(1) = Tr Φ(A) = (Tr Φ(A))α (Tr Φ(B))1−α for every
α ∈ [0, 1], and the equality case in Hölder’s inequality yields that Φ(A) is constant multiple of
Φ(B) (see Corollary A.5). Since Tr Φ(A) = Tr Φ(B), this yields that Φ(A) = Φ(B). Similarly,
− min ψ (α|AkB) = C(AkB) = C(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) = − log Tr Φ(A) = − log Tr A = −ψ (0|AkB) ,
0≤α≤1

and since Tr A = Tr B, we also have − log Tr A = − log Tr B = −ψ (1|AkB). Hence, α 7→
ψ (α|AkB) is constant on [0, 1], and the same argument as above yields that A = B. Therefore,
Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = Φ∗B (Φ(B)) = B = A.
6.11 Remark. Note that the interval (−ψ (1|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) , −ψ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B))−ψ ′ (0|Φ(A)kΦ(B))
in (ii) of Theorem 6.9 might be empty; this happens if and only if α 7→ ψ (α|Φ(A)kΦ(B)) is
constant. A characterization of this situation was given in Lemma 3.2 of [22].

32

7

Error correction

Noise in quantum mechanics is usually modeled by completely positive trace non-increasing
maps. The aim of error correction is, given a noise operation Φ, to identify a subset C of the
state space (called the code) and a quantum operation Ψ such that it reverses the action of the
noise on the code, i.e., Ψ(Φ(ρ)) = ρ, ρ ∈ C. It was ﬁrst noticed in [43] that the preservation of
certain distinguishability measures of two states by the noise operation is a suﬃcient condition
for correctability of the noise on those two states. This result was later extended to general
families of states in [25, 26]. The measures considered in these papers were the Rényi relative
entropies and the standard relative entropy. Recently, the same problem was considered in
[6] using the measures Tp given in (6.8), and similar results were found, although only under
some extra technical conditions. Below we summarize these results and extend them to a
wide class of measures, based on Theorem 5.1.
Let Ai be a C ∗ -algebra on Hi for i = 1, 2, and let S(Ai ) denote the set of density operators
in Ai . For a non-empty set C ⊂ S(A1 ), let co C denote the closed convex hull of C, and let
supp C be the supremum of the supports of all states in C. Note that there exists a state
σ ∈ co C such that supp σ = supp C. We introduce the notation d2 := (dim H1 )2 + (dim H2 )2 .
Note that if X ∈ A1 and Φ : A1 → A2 is a trace non-increasing positive map then
kΦ(X)k1 = max{Tr Φ(X)S : S ∈ A2 self-adjoint, −I2 ≤ S ≤ I2 }
= max{Tr XΦ∗ (S) : S ∈ A2 self-adjoint, −I2 ≤ S ≤ I2 }
≤ max{Tr XR : R ∈ A1 self-adjoint, −I1 ≤ R ≤ I1 } = kXk1 ,
which in particular yields that the measures Tp are monotonic non-increasing under substochastic maps.
7.1 Theorem. Let Φ : A1 → A2 be a trace-preserving 2-positive map, and let C ⊂ S(A1 ) be
a non-empty set of states. The following are equivalent:
(i) There exists a stochastic map Ψ : A2 → A1 such that for every ρ ∈ co C,
Ψ(Φ(ρ)) = ρ.

(7.1)

(ii) For every operator convex function f on [0, +∞), and every ρ, σ ∈ co C,
Sf (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = Sf (ρkσ).

(7.2)

(iii) The equality (7.2) holds for every ρ ∈ C and for some σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that supp σ ≥
supp C, and some operator convex f on [0, +∞) such that | supp µf | ≥ d2 .
(iv) Sϕt (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = Sϕt (ρkσ) for every ρ ∈ C and for some σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that supp σ ≥
supp C, and a set T of t’s such that |T | ≥ d2 .
(v) For every ρ, σ ∈ co C and every r ∈ R,
Hr (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = Hr (ρkσ).

(7.3)

(vi) The equality in (7.3) holds for every ρ ∈ C and for some σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that supp σ ≥
supp C, and for every r ∈ (0, δ) for some δ > 0.
33

(vii) For every ρ ∈ co C and every σ ∈ co C such that supp σ = supp C,
Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ.

(7.4)

(viii) The equality (7.4) holds for every ρ ∈ C and some σ ∈ S(A1 ).
L
L
(ix) There exist decompositions supp C = rk=1 H1,k,L ⊗H1,k,R and supp Φ(C) = rk=1 H2,k,L ⊗
H2,k,R , invertible density operators ωk on H1,k,R and ω̃k on H2,k,R , and unitaries Uk :
H1,k,L → H2,k,L , k = 1, . . . , r, such that every ρ ∈ C can be written in the form
ρ=

r
M
k=1

pk ρk,L ⊗ ωk

with some density operators ρk,L on H1,k,L and probability distribution {pk }rk=1 , and
Φ(A ⊗ ωk ) = Uk AUk∗ ⊗ ω̃k ,

A ∈ B(H1,k,L ).

Moreover, if Φ is n-positive/completely positive then Ψ in (i) can also be chosen to be
n-positive/completely positive. The implications (i)=⇒(ii)=⇒ (iii)=⇒(iv)=⇒(viii) hold also
if we only assume Φ to be substochastic.
Furthermore, criterion (x) below is suﬃcient for (i)–(viii) to hold, and it is also necessary
if Φ is completely positive.
(x) For every ρ ∈ C, every p ∈ (0, 1), every n ∈ N, and for some σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that
supp σ ≥ supp C,


Tp Φ⊗n (ρ⊗n ) || Φ⊗n (σ ⊗n ) = Tp ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n .
(7.5)

Proof. The implications (i)=⇒(ii)=⇒ (iii)=⇒(iv)=⇒(viii) follow immediately from Theorem
5.1 under the condition that Φ is substochastic (note that in the implication (iii)=⇒(iv), T
can be chosen to be supp µf , and hence it is independent
of the pair (ρ, σ)). If (viii) holds then
 1/2
∗
1/2 ∗
−1/2
−1/2
ρ = Φσ (Φ(ρ)) = σ Φ Φ(σ)
Φ(ρ)Φ(σ)
σ
implies that supp ρ ≤ supp σ for every
ρ ∈ co C, and hence Φ∗σ can be completed to a map Ψ as required in (i) the same way as in the
proof of (x)=⇒(i) in Theorem 5.1. This proves (viii)=⇒(i). Assume that (i) holds. Fixing any
ρ ∈ co C and σ ∈ co C such that supp σ = supp C, we have Ψ(Φ(ρ)) = ρ and Ψ(Φ(σ)) = σ, and
Theorem 5.1 yields (7.4) for this pair (ρ, σ), proving (i)=⇒(vii). The implication (vii)=⇒(viii)
is obvious.
The implication (i)=⇒(v) follows by Proposition 6.3, and the implication (v)=⇒(vi) is
obvious. Assume now that (vi) holds. Then, by (6.6) and (6.7), we have S(Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =
S(AkB), i.e., the equality holds for the standard relative entropy, which is the f -divergence
corresponding to f (x) = x log x. Since the support of the representing measure for x log x
is (0, +∞), this yields (iii). The implication (x)=⇒(vi) follows from (6.10). Assume that
Φ is completely positive and (i) holds. Then we can assume Ψ to be completely positive,
and hence Φ⊗n and Ψ⊗n are positive and trace-preserving for every n ∈ N. Thus, by the
monotonicity of the measures Tp , Tp (ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n) = Tp (Ψ⊗n (Φ⊗n (ρ⊗n )) || Ψ⊗n(Φ⊗n (σ ⊗n ))) ≤
Tp (Φ⊗n (ρ⊗n ) || Φ⊗n (σ ⊗n )) ≤ Tp (ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n), and hence (x) holds.
Finally, (vii)=⇒(ix) follows due to Lemma 3.11, and (ix)=⇒(vii) is a matter of straightforward computation.

34

Brieﬂy, the above theorem tells that if the noise doesn’t decrease some suitable measure
of the pairwise distinguishability on a set of states then its action can be reversed on that set
with some other quantum operation; moreover, the reversion operation can be constructed by
using the noise operation and any state with maximal support. There are apparent diﬀerences
between the conditions given above; indeed, (iii) tells that the preservation of one single f divergence is suﬃcient, while (iv) requires the preservation of suﬃciently (but ﬁnitely) many
f -divergences, (v) requires the preservation of a continuum number of measures, and (x)
requires even more. The equivalence between (iii) and (iv) is easy to understand; as we have
seen in the proof of Theorem 5.1, as far as monotonicity and equality in the monotonicity
are considered, any f -divergence with an operator convex f which is not a polynomial is
equivalent to the collection of ϕt -divergences with t ∈ supp µf , and the condition on the
cardinality of supp µf is imposed so that any function on the joint spectrum of the relative
modular operators can be decomposed as a linear combination of ϕt ’s, which in turn is used
to construct the inversion map Φ∗σ . It is an open question how much the condition on the
cardinality of supp f can be improved; cf. Remark 5.6.
Note that (iii) tells in particular that the preservation of the pairwise Rényi relative entropies for one single parameter value α ∈ (0, 2) is suﬃcient for reversibility. This is in contrast
with (vi), where the preservation of continuum many Hoeﬀding distances are required, despite
the symmetry suggested by (6.3) and (6.5). On the other hand, we have the following:
7.2 Proposition. In the setting of Theorem 7.1, assume that there exists a C0 ⊂ S(A1 ) such
that co C0 = co C, and a σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that supp σ ≥ supp C, and the following hold:
0 < m := inf {−ψ (0|Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) − ψ ′ (0|Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ))}
ρ∈C0

and for some r ∈ (0, m),
Hr (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = Hr (ρkσ),

ρ ∈ C0 .

Then Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ for every ρ ∈ co C.
Proof. Immediate from Theorem 6.9.
Finally, if all the states in C have the same support then some of the conditions in Theorem
7.1 and Proposition 7.2 can be simpliﬁed, and we can give a simple condition in terms of
preservation of the Chernoﬀ distance:
7.3 Proposition. Let Φ : A1 → A2 be a trace-preserving 2-positive map and let C ⊂ S(A1 )
be a non-empty set of states such that supp ρ = supp C for every ρ ∈ C. Assume that there
exists a σ ∈ S(A1 ) such that supp σ = supp C and one of the following holds:
(i) There exists a p ∈ (0, 1) such that


Tp Φ⊗n (ρ⊗n ) || Φ⊗n (σ ⊗n ) = Tp ρ⊗n || σ ⊗n ,

(ii) For every ρ ∈ C,

ρ ∈ C, n ∈ N.

(7.6)

C(Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = C(ρkσ).

(iii) There exists a C0 such that co C0 = co C and an r ∈ (0, inf ρ∈C0 S(Φ(σ)kΦ(ρ))) such that
for every ρ ∈ C0 ,
Hr (Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = Hr (ρkσ).
(7.7)
35

Then
Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ,

ρ ∈ co C.

(7.8)

Proof. The implication (i)=⇒(ii) is immediate from (6.9), and (ii) implies (7.8) due to Corollary 6.10. Assume now that (iii) holds. Since supp ρ = supp σ, ρ ∈ C0 , we have ψ (0|Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) =
0 and −ψ ′ (0|Φ(ρ)kΦ(σ)) = S(Φ(σ)kΦ(ρ)), ρ ∈ C0 . Hence, (7.7) yields (7.8) due to Proposition
7.2.
Note that the conditions (7.5) and (7.6) are very diﬀerent from the others, as they require
the preservation of some measure for arbitrary tensor powers. These conditions could be
simpliﬁed if the trace-norm distance could be represented as an f -divergence. Note that this
is possible in the classical case; indeed, if p and q are probability density functions on some
ﬁnite set X , and f (x) := |x − 1|, x ∈ R, then
X
X
Sf (pkq) =
q(x)|p(x)/q(x) − 1| =
|p(x) − q(x)| = kp − qk1 .
x∈X

x∈X

Note, however, that the above f is not operator convex, and hence the proof given in Theorem
5.1 wouldn’t work for it. Even worse, the trace-norm distance cannot be represented as an
f -divergence, as we show below by a simple argument.
7.4 Corollary. If the observable algebra of a quantum system is non-commutative then the
trace-norm distance on its state space cannot be represented as an f -divergence.
Proof. Assume that A ⊂ B(H) is non-commutative; then we can ﬁnd orthonormal vectors
e1 , e2 ∈ H such that |ei ihej | ∈ A, i = 1, 2. (For simplicity, we neglect possible higher multiplicities; taking them into account would only result in a constant multiplication factor
in the formulas below.) Assume that the trace-norm distance can be represented as an f divergence. Then, for every s ∈ [0, 1] and t ∈ (0, 1), when ρ := s|e1 ihe1 | + (1 − s)|e2 ihe2 | and
σ := t|e1 ihe1 | + (1 − t)|e2 ihe2 |, we have
tf (s/t) + (1 − t)f ((1 − s)/(1 − t)) = Sf (ρkσ) = kρ − σk1 = 2|s − t|.
Letting s = t gives f (1) = 0. Letting t ց 0 gives sω(f ) + f (1 − s) = 2s for all s ∈ (0, 1]. This
implies that ω(f
f (0) = 2. Now let ρ := |e1 ihe1 | and σ := |ψihψ|, where
√) is ﬁnite and ω(f ) +√
ψ := (e1 + e2 )/ 2. Then kρ − σk1 = 2, while by (2.6) one can easily compute
1
1
1
1
Sf (ρkσ) = f (1) + ω(f ) + f (0) = (ω(f ) + f (0)) = 1.
2
2
2
2

7.5 Remark. A similar argument as above can be used to show that for any p ∈ (0, 1), the
measure Dp (ρkσ) := 1 − kpρ − (1 − p)σk1 cannot be represented as an f -divergence on the
state space of any non-commutative ﬁnite-dimensional C ∗ -algebra.
7.6 Remark. In general, a function on pairs of classical probability distributions might have
several diﬀerent extensions to quantum states. A function that can be represented as an f divergence has an extension given by the corresponding quantum f -divergence. It is not clear
whether this extension has any operational signiﬁcance in the case of f (x) := |x − 1|.
While the impossibility to represent the trace-norm distance as an f -divergence shows that
the approach followed in Theorem 7.1 cannot be used to simplify the condition in (x) of the
theorem, other approaches might lead to better results. Indeed, the results of the recent paper
[6] can be reformulated in the following way:
36

7.7 Theorem. Let C ⊂ S(A1 ) be a convex set of states and let Φ : A1 → A2 be a completely
positive trace-preserving map such that
Tp (Φ(ρ) || Φ(σ)) = Tp (ρ || σ) ,

p ∈ (0, 1).

Then the ﬁxed-point set of Φ∗P ◦ Φ is a C ∗ -subalgebra of P A1P , where P is the projection onto
supp C, and the trace-preserving conditional expectation P from P A1 P onto ker (id −Φ∗P ◦ Φ)
is Tp -preserving for all p ∈ (0, 1). If, moreover, the restriction of P onto C is surjective onto
the state space of ker (id −Φ∗P ◦ Φ) then (i)–(x) of Theorem 7.1 hold.

Note that the continuum many conditions requiring the preservation of Tp for all p ∈
(0, 1) in Theorem 7.7 can be simpliﬁed to a single condition, requiring that Φ is trace-norm
preserving on the real subspace generated by C. Note also that the surjectivity condition is
suﬃcient but obviously not necessary. It is, however, an open question whether it can be
completely removed. In the approach followed in [6], it is important that one starts with a
convex set of states. The same problem was studied in [23] in a diﬀerent setting, and the
following has been shown:
7.8 Theorem. Let ρ, σ ∈ S(A) be invertible density operators and Φ be the trace-preserving
conditional expectation onto a subalgebra A0 of A. Assume that Tp (Φ(ρ) || Φ(σ)) = Tp (ρ || σ)
for every p ∈ (0, 1), and A0 is commutative or ρ and σ commute. Then Φ∗σ (Φ(ρ)) = ρ and
Φ∗ρ (Φ(σ)) = σ.
7.9 Remark. In [23] the condition Tp (Φ(ρ) || Φ(σ)) = Tp (ρ || σ) , p ∈ (0, 1), was called 2suﬃciency, and
Tp (Φ⊗n (ρ⊗n )kΦ⊗n (σ ⊗n )) = Tp (ρ⊗n kσ ⊗n ),

p ∈ (0, 1), n ∈ N,

(7.9)

was called (2, n)-suﬃciency. It was also shown in Theorem 6 of [23] that in the setting of
Theorem 7.8, (7.9) is suﬃcient for the conclusion of Theorem 7.8 to hold.

8

An integral representation for operator convex functions

Operator monotone and operator convex functions play an important role in quantum information theory [45]. Several ways are known to decompose them as integrals of some families
of functions of simpler forms [4, 19]. Here we present a representation that is well-suited for
our analysis of f -divergences, and seems to be a new result.
8.1 Theorem. A continuous real-valued function f on [0, +∞) is operator convex if and only
if there exist a real number a, a non-negative number b, and a non-negative measure µ on
(0, +∞), satisfying
Z
dµ(t)
< +∞,
(8.1)
2
(0,+∞) (1 + t)

such that

2

f (x) = f (0) + ax + bx +

Z

(0,+∞)



x
x
−
1+t x+t



dµ(t), x ∈ [0, +∞).

Moreover, the numbers a, b, and the measure µ are uniquely determined by f , and
f (x)
,
x→+∞ x2

b = lim

a = f (1) − f (0) − b.
37

(8.2)

Proof. Obviously, if f admits an integral representation as in (8.2) then f is operator convex,
and
f (x)
f (1) = f (0) + a + b,
b = lim
,
x→+∞ x2
where the latter follows by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, using (8.1) and
that, for x > 1,


1
x−1
x
2x
2
x
0≤ 2
=
−
≤
=
.
x
1+t x+t
x(x + t)(1 + t)
x(1 + t)(1 + t)
(1 + t)2
Hence what is left to prove is that any operator convex function admits a representation as
in (8.2), and that the measure µ is uniquely determined by f .
Assume now that f is an operator convex function on [0, +∞). Then, by Kraus’ theorem
(see [29] or Corollary 2.7.8 in [19]), the function
g(x) :=

f (x) − f (1)
,
x−1

x ∈ [0, +∞) \ {1},

g(1) := f ′ (1),

is an operator monotone function on (0, +∞). Therefore, it admits an integral representation
Z
x(1 + t)
′
dm(t), x ∈ [0, +∞),
(8.3)
g(x) = a + bx +
(0,+∞) x + t
where m is a positive ﬁnite measure on (0, +∞), and
a′ = g(0) = f (1) − f (0),

0 ≤ b = lim

x→+∞

g(x)
f (x)
= lim
x→+∞
x
x2

(see Theorem 2.7.11 in [19] or pp. 144–145 in [4]). Here, the measure m, as well as a′ , b, are
unique and
m((0, +∞)) = g(1) − a′ − b = f ′ (1) − f (1) + f (0) − b.
Thus, we have

f (x) = f (1) + g(x)(x − 1)

x(x − 1)(1 + t)
= f (1) + (f (1) − f (0))(x − 1) + bx(x − 1) +
dm(t)
x+t
(0,+∞)


Z
x
x
2
(1 + t)2 dm(t)
−
= f (0) + (f (1) − f (0) − b)x + bx +
1
+
t
x
+
t
(0,+∞)


Z
x
x
2
= f (0) + ax + bx +
dµ(t),
−
x+t
(0,+∞) 1 + t
Z

where we have deﬁned a := f (1) − f (0) − b and dµ(t) := (1 + t)2 dm(t). Finiteness of m yields
that µ satisﬁes (8.1).
Finally, to see the uniqueness of the measure µ, assume that f admits an integral representation as in (8.2). Then, f is operator convex, and hence the function g on [0, +∞), deﬁned
as
Z
x(1 + t) dµ(t)
f (x) − f (1)
= (a + b) + bx +
,
(8.4)
g(x) :=
2
x−1
(0,+∞) x + t (1 + t)
is operator monotone. Therefore, it admits an integral representation as in (8.3), and the
uniqeness of the parameters of that representation yields that dµ(t) = (1 + t)2 dm(t). Hence,
the measure µ is uniquely determined by f .
38

8.2 Corollary. Assume that f is a continuous operator convex function on [0, +∞) that is
not a polynomial. Then it can be written in the form


Z
x
2
f (x) = f (0) + bx +
ψ(t)x −
dµ(t), x ∈ [0, +∞),
(8.5)
x+t
(0,+∞)
where b = limx→+∞ f (x)/x2 ≥ 0, and µ is a non-negative measure on (0, +∞). Moreover, we
can choose
f (1) − f (0) − b
1
1
+ ′
·
,
(8.6)
ψ(t) :=
1 + t f (1) − f (1) + f (0) − b (1 + t)2

and if b = 0 and f ′ (1) ≥ 0 then ψ(t) ≥ 0, t ∈ (0, +∞).

Proof. Since f is operator convex, it can be written in the form (8.2) due to Theorem 8.1. Since
f is not a polynomial, we have m((0, +∞)) > 0, where dm(t) := dµ(t)/(1 + t2 ). Moreover, by
(8.4), f ′ (1) = g(1) = a + 2b + m((0, +∞)), from which m((0, +∞)) = f ′ (1) − a − 2b. Using
that a = f (1) − f (0) − b, we ﬁnally obtain
Z
Z
a
f (1) − f (0) − b
1
a=
dm(t) = ′
dµ(t).
m((0, +∞)) (0,+∞)
f (1) − f (1) + f (0) − b (0,+∞) (1 + t)2
Substituting it into (8.2), we obtain (8.5) with ψ as in (8.6). Note that (1 + t)2 ψ(t) =
a
a
≥ 1 + m((0,+∞))
. Hence, if b = 0 and 0 ≤ f ′ (1) = a + 2b + m((0, +∞)) =
1 + t + m((0,+∞))
a + m((0, +∞)) then ψ(t) ≥ 0, proving the last assertion.
8.3 Example.
(i) f (x) := x log x admits the integral representation


Z
x
x
dt.
−
x log x =
x+t
(0,+∞) 1 + t
(f (0) = a = b = 0 and µ is the Lebesgue measure in (8.2).)
(ii) f (x) := −xα (0 < α < 1) admits the integral representation (see [4, Exercise V.1.10])


Z
sin απ
x
α
−x =
−
tα−1 dt.
π
x
+
t
(0,+∞)
(f (0) = b = 0, dµ(t) =
x, we have

sin απ α−1
t dt,
π

and ψ ≡ 0 in (8.5).) Using that

sin απ
−x = −x +
π
α

(f (0) = b = 0, a = −1, and dµ(t) =

Z

(0,+∞)



sin απ
π

R

(0,+∞)

xtα−1
1+t


x
x
tα−1 dt.
−
1+t x+t

sin απ α−1
t dt
π

in (8.2).)

(iii) By the previous point, f (x) := xα (1 < α < 2) admits the representation


Z
Z
x2 tα−2
sin(α − 1)π
x
sin(α − 1)π
x
α
x =
tα−1 dt
dt =
−
π
π
x+t
(0,+∞) x + t
(0,+∞) t
39

dt =

(f (0) = b = 0, ψ(t) = 1/t, and dµ(t) = sin(α−1)π
tα−1 dt in (8.5).) Using that
π


Z
Z
sin(α − 1)π
x
sin(α − 1)π
x
xtα−2
α−1
t
dt =
−
dt = x,
π
1+t
π
(0,+∞) t
(0,+∞) 1 + t
we also obtain
sin(α − 1)π
x =x+
π
α

(f (0) = 0, a = 1, b = 0 and dµ(t) =

Z

(0,+∞)




x
x
tα−1 dt.
−
1+t x+t

sin(α−1)π α−1
t
π

dt in (8.2).)

Note that the function ψ in (8.5)Pis not unique. For instance, if µ is ﬁnitely supported on
a set {t1 , . . . , tr } then only the sum ri=1 ψ(tr ) is determined by f while the individual values
ψ(t1 ), . . . , ψ(tr ) are not.
R
R
1
x
Note also that in general, (0,+∞) 1+t
dµ(t) might not be ﬁnite and hence the term (0,+∞) 1+t
dµ(t)
R
cannot be merged with ax in (8.2). Similarly, the integral (0,+∞) ψ(t) dµ(t) might be inﬁnite
and hence it might not be possible to separate it as a linear term in the representation (8.5)
of f . This is clear, for instance, from (i) of Example 8.3. We have the following:
8.4 Proposition. For a continuous real-valued function f on [0, +∞) the following are equivalent:
(i) f is operator convex on [0, +∞) with limx→+∞ f (x)/x < +∞;
(ii) there exist an α ∈ R and a positive measure µ on (0, +∞), satisfying
Z
dµ(t)
< +∞,
(0,+∞) 1 + t
such that
f (x) = f (0) + αx −

Z

(0,+∞)

x
dµ(t),
x+t

x ∈ [0, +∞).

(8.7)

(8.8)

Proof. First, note that if f is convex on [0, +∞) as a numerical function, then limx→+∞ f (x)/x
exists in (−∞, +∞]. In fact, by convexity, (f (x) − f (1))/(x − 1) is non-decreasing for x > 1,
so that
f (x)
f (x) − f (1)
= lim
lim
x→+∞ x
x→+∞
x−1
exists in (−∞, +∞]. Also, note that condition (8.7) is necessary for f (1) to be deﬁned in
(8.8), and also suﬃcient to deﬁne f (x) by (8.8) for all x ∈ [0, +∞).
(i) ⇒ (ii). By assumption, f is an operator convex function on [0, +∞) such that limx→+∞ f (x)/x
is ﬁnite, hence limx→+∞ f (x)/x2 = 0. By Theorem 8.1, we have


Z
x
x
f (x) = f (0) + ax +
dµ(t),
x ∈ [0, +∞),
−
x+t
(0,+∞) 1 + t
where a ∈ R and µ is a positive measure on (0, +∞). We write


Z
f (0)
1
1
f (x)
dµ(t).
=
+a+
−
x
x
x+t
(0,+∞) 1 + t
40

Since

1
1
1
−
ր
as 1 < x ր +∞,
1+t x+t
1+t
the monotone convergence theorem yields that
Z
dµ(t)
f (x)
=a+
,
lim
x→+∞ x
(0,+∞) 1 + t
0<

which implies (8.7) and

Z
f (x) = f (0) + a +

(0,+∞)


Z
dµ(t)
x
x−
dµ(t).
1+t
(0,+∞) x + t

Hence f admits a representation of the form (8.8).
(ii) ⇒ (i). It is obvious that f given in (8.8) is operator convex on [0, +∞). Since
for all x > 1 and all t ∈ [0, +∞), the Lebesgue convergence theorem yields that
Z
dµ(t)
lim
=0
x→+∞ (0,+∞) x + t
and so

f (0)
f (x)
=
+α−
x
x

Z

(0,+∞)

1
x+t

≤

1
1+t

dµ(t)
−→ α as x → +∞.
x+t

Hence (i) follows.
8.5 Remark. Note that the condition limx→+∞ f (x)/x < +∞ puts a strong restriction on
an operator convex function f . Important examples for which it is not satisﬁed include
f (x) = x log x and f (x) = xα for α ∈ (1, 2].

9

Closing remarks

Quantum f -divergences are a quantum generalization of classical f -divergences, which class
in the classical case contains most of the distinguishability measures that are relevant to classical statistics. Although our Corollary 7.4 shows that f -divergences are less universal in the
quantum case, they still provide a very eﬃcient tool to obtain monotonicity and convexity
properties of several distinguishability measures that are relevant to quantum statistics, including the relative entropy, the Rényi relative entropies, and the Chernoﬀ and Hoeﬀding
distances.
There are also diﬀerences between the classical and the quantum cases in the technical
conditions needed to prove the monotonicity. For the approach followed here, it is important
that the deﬁning function is not only convex but operator convex, and the map is not only
positive but it is also decomposable in the sense of Remark 4.8. It is unknown whether the
monotonicity can be proved without these assumptions in general, although Corollary 3.4
and Lemma 3.5 show for instance that positivity of Φ might be suﬃcient in some special
cases. For measures that have an operational interpretation in state discrimination, like the
relative entropy, the Rényi α-relative entropies with α ∈ (0, 1), and the Chernoﬀ and Hoeﬀding
distances, the monotonicity holds for any positive trace-preserving map Φ such that Φ⊗n is
positive for every n ∈ N [14, 35]. Note that both the set of maps satisfying this latter
41

property and the set of maps that are decomposable in the sense of Remark 4.8 contain all
the completely positive trace-preserving maps, but we are not aware of any other explicit
relation between these two sets. Moreover, the only example we know for a map Φ which
is not completely positive but Φ⊗n is positive for every n ∈ N is the transposition, which
is trivial in the sense that it preserves any f -divergence (where f does not even need to be
convex; see Corollary 2.5 and Remark 2.6).
Quantum f -divergences are essentially a special case of Petz’ quasi-entropies with K = I
(see the Introduction) with the minor modiﬁcation of allowing operators that are not strictly
positive deﬁnite. While the monotonicity inequality in Theorem 4.3 can be proved for the
quasi-entropies with general K quite similarly to the case K = I, our analysis of the equality
case in Theorem 5.1 doesn’t seem to extend to K 6= I. A special case has been treated recently
in [27], where a characterization for the equality case in the joint convexity of the quasientropies SfKα (.k.) (see Example 2.7 for K = I) was given for arbitrary K and α ∈ (0, 2). Note
that joint convexity is a special case of the monotonicity under partial traces (see [42, Theorem
6] or Corollary 4.7 of this paper), while monotonicity under partial traces can also be proven
from the joint convexity for K’s of special type [30], which in turn implies the monotonicity
under completely positive trace-preserving maps by using their Lindblad respresentation [51].
For a particularly elegant recent proof of the joint convexity for general K’s, see [11].
Various characterizations of the equality in the case K = I have been given before for
diﬀerent types of maps and classes of functions, including the equality case for the strong
subadditivity of entropy and the joint convexity of the Rényi relative entropies [18, 25, 27,
40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49]. Our Theorem 5.1 extends all these results and it seems to be the
most general characterization of the equality, at least in ﬁnite dimension. The relevant part
from the point of view of application to quantum error correction is that the preservation of
some suitable distinguishability measure yields the reversibility of the stochastic operation,
and the reversal map can be constructed from the original one in a canonical way. There
are various technical conditions imposed in Theorems 5.1 and 7.1 that might be possible to
remove. For instance, it is not clear whether the support condition in (5.4) is necessary or
maybe the preservation of Sϕt (.k.) for one single t > 0 is suﬃcient for reversibility. It is also
an open question whether the surjectivity condition in Theorem 7.7 can be removed.

Acknowledgments
Partial funding was provided by the JSPS-HAS Japan-Hungary Joint Project, the Grant-inAid for Scientiﬁc Research (C)21540208 (FH), and the Hungarian Research Grant OTKA
T068258 (MM and DP). The Centre for Quantum Technologies is funded by the Singapore
Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation as part of the Research Centres
of Excellence program. Part of this work was done when MM was a Research Fellow at
the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for Mathematical Physics in 2009 and later when the ﬁrst
three authors participated in the Quantum Information Theory program of the Mittag-Leﬄer
Institute in 2010. Discussions with Tomohiro Ogawa and David Reeb (MM) and with Hui
Khoon Ng (CB and MM) helped to improve the paper and are gratefully acknowledged here.
The authors are grateful to anonymous referees for their comments, especially for pointing
out Reference [23], and to Lajos Molnár for pointing out an error in the original version of
Proposition 2.12.

42

A

Commuting operators and the operator Hölder inequality

We will need the following two well-known lemmas in this section. The ﬁrst one is a generalization of the so-called log-sum inequality, while the second one is a generalization of Jensen’s
inequality for the expectation values of self-adjoint operators.
A.1 Lemma. Let
P f : [0, +∞)
P→ R be a convex function. Let ai ≥ 0, bi > 0, i = 1, . . . , r,
and deﬁne a := ri=1 ai , b := ri=1 bi . Then,
bf (a/b) ≤

r
X

bi f (ai /bi ).

(A.1)

i=1

Moreover, if f is strictly convex, then equality holds if and only if ai /bi is independent of i.
Proof. Convexity of f yields that
f (a/b) = f

r
X
bi ai
i=1

b bi

!

 
r
X
bi
ai
≤
,
f
b
bi
i=1

which yields (A.1), and the characterization of equality is immediate from the strict convexity
of f .
A.2 Lemma. Let A be a self-adjoint operator and ρ be a density operator on a ﬁnitedimensional Hilbert space H. If f is a convex function on the convex hull of spec(A) then
f (Tr Aρ) ≤ Tr f (A)ρ.

(A.2)

If f is strictly convex then equality holds in (A.2) if and only if ρ0 is a subprojection of a
spectral projection of A.
P
Proof. Let A = a aPa be the spectral decomposition of A. Since {Tr Pa ρ : a P
∈ spec(A)} is a
probability
distribution on spec(A), Jensen’s inequality yields f (Tr Aρ) = f ( a a Tr Pa ρ) ≤
P
f
(a)
Tr
P
a ρ, and it is obvious that equality holds whenever Tr Pa ρ = 0 for all but one
a
a ∈ spec(A). On the other hand, if there are more than one a ∈ spec(A) such that Tr Pa ρ > 0
then the above inequality is strict whenever f is strictly convex.
A.3 Proposition. Let A, B ∈ A1,+ be such that A commutes with B and let Φ : A1 → A2
be a substochastic map such that Φ(A) commutes with Φ(B) and Tr Φ(B) = Tr B. For any
convex function f : [0, +∞) → R,
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB).

(A.3)

If supp A ≤ supp B and f is strictly convex then equality holds in (A.3) if and only if
Φ∗B (Φ(A)) = A.
Proof. Let us consider ﬁrst the inequality (A.3). Note that if ω(f ) = +∞ and supp A 
supp B then the RHS of (A.3) is +∞, and hence the inequality holds trivially. On the other
hand, if ω(f ) < +∞ then it is enough to prove that Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B + εI)) ≤ Sf (AkB + εI)
43

for every ε > 0, as taking the limit ε ց 0 then yields (A.3) due to Proposition 2.12. Hence,
for the rest we can assume without loss of generality that supp A ≤ supp B.
Since
P A and B commute, there exists
P an orthonormal basis {ex }x∈X in supp B such that
A =
x∈X A(x)|ex ihex | and B =
x∈X B(x)|ex ihex |, where A(x) := hex , Aex i, B(x) :=
hex , Bex i, x ∈ X . Similarly, there exists
a basis {fy }y∈Y in supp Φ(B) such that Φ(A) =
P
P
Φ(A)(y)|f
ihf
|
and
Φ(B)
=
Φ(B)(y)|f
y
y
y ihfy |, where Φ(A)(y) := hfy , Φ(A)fy i,
y∈Y
y∈Y
Φ(B)(y) := hfy , Φ(B)fy i. We have




X
X
A(x)
Φ(A)(y)
Sf (AkB) =
B(x)f
,
Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) =
Φ(B)(y)f
.
B(x)
Φ(B)(y)
x
y
P
P
Let Txy := hfy , Φ(|ex ihex |)fy i; then Φ(A)(y) =
x∈X Txy A(x), Φ(B)(y) =
x∈X Txy B(x),
and Lemma A.1 yields
 X



Txy A(x)
Φ(A)(y)
≤
Txy B(x)f
.
(A.4)
Φ(B)(y)f
Φ(B)(y)
T
B(x)
xy
x
Since supp P
|ex ihex | ≤ supp B, Lemma 3.2 yields that Tr Φ(|ex ihex |) = Tr |ex ihex | = 1, x ∈ X ,
and hence y∈Y Txy = 1, x ∈ X . Summing over y in (A.4) yields (A.3).
Obviously, equality holds in (A.3) if and only if (A.4) holds with equality for every y ∈ Y.
Assuming that f is strictly convex, we obtain, due to Lemma A.1, that for every y ∈ Y there
exists a positive constant c(y) such that Txy A(x) = c(y)Txy B(x), i.e.,
A(x) = c(y)B(x)
for
P every x such that Txy > 0. Assume that (A.5) holds; then we have Φ(A)(y) =
x Txy c(y)B(x) = c(y)Φ(B)(y) and hence,
Φ∗B (Φ(A))(x) = B(x)

X
y

Txy

X
A(x)
Φ(A)(y)
= B(x)
Txy
= A(x),
Φ(B)(y)
B(x)
y

(A.5)
P

x

Txy A(x) =

x ∈ X.

The following Proposition gives an important special case where the monotonicity inequality (A.3) holds even though A and B don’t commute and f is only assumed to be convex.
P
A.4 Proposition. Let A, B ∈ A+ be such that B 6= 0, let B = b∈spec(B) bQb be the spectral
P
decomposition of B and let EB : X 7→ b∈spec(B) Qb XQb be the pinching deﬁned by B. For
every convex function f : [0, +∞) → R,


Tr A
.
(A.6)
Sf (AkB) ≥ Sf (EB (A)kEB (B)) = Sf (EB (A)kB) ≥ (Tr B)f
Tr B
Moreover, if supp A ≤ supp B and f is strictly convex then the ﬁrst inequality in (A.6)
holds with equality if and only if A commutes with B, and the second inequality holds
with equality if and only if EB (A) is a constant multiple of B. In particular, Sf (AkB) =
Tr A
(Tr B)f Tr
if and only if A is a constant multiple of B.
B
Proof. All the assertions are obvious when A = 0, so for the rest we assume A 6= 0. Assume
(b)
ﬁrst that supp A ≤ supp B. For every b ∈ spec(B) and λ ∈ R, let Pλ be the spectral
(b)
(b)
projection of Qb AQb corresponding to the singleton {λ}, and let P̃λ := Qb Pλ Qb . Note
44

P (b)
(b)
(b)
that P̃λ = Pλ for every λ 6= 0, and Qb =
λ P̃λ . The spectral projection of EB (A)
P
(b)
corresponding to the singleton {λ} is b∈spec(B) P̃λ . For every b ∈ spec(B) \ {0} and λ ∈ R,
(b)

(b)

(b)

let ρb,λ be a density operator such that ρb,λ = P̃λ / Tr P̃λ whenever P̃λ 6= 0. By (2.6), we
have
X
X
X
(b′ )
Sf (EB (A)kEB (B)) = Sf (EB (A)kB) =
bf (λ/b) Tr
P̃λ Qb
b∈spec(B)\{0}

=

X

b∈spec(B)\{0}

≤
=

X

b∈spec(B)\{0}

X

(b)

X

b∈spec(B)\{0}

bf (λ/b) Tr P̃λ =

λ

X

b∈spec(B)\{0}

X

(b)

b Tr f (A/b)ρb,λ Tr P̃λ =

λ

b Tr f (A/b)Qb =

b′ ∈spec(B)

λ

X

(b)

bf (Tr((A/b)ρb,λ )) Tr P̃λ

λ

X

b∈spec(B)\{0}

X

X

X

(b)

b Tr f (A/b)P̃λ

(A.7)

λ

bf (a/b) Tr Pa Qb = Sf (AkB),

b∈spec(B)\{0} a∈spec(A)

P
where A = a aPa is the spectral decomposition of A, and the inequality in (A.7) follows
due to Lemma A.2. This yields the ﬁrst inequality in (A.6). If A commutes with B then
EB (A) = A and hence the ﬁrst inequality in (A.6) holds with equality. Conversely, assume
that the ﬁrst inequality in (A.6) holds with equality; then the inequality in (A.7) has to hold
with equality as well. If f is strictly convex then this implies that for every b ∈ spec(B) \ {0}
(b)
and λ ∈ R, there exists an a(b, λ) such that P̃λ ≤ Pa(b,λ) , due to Lemma A.2. In particular,
P
(b)
(b)
P̃λ commutes with A, and, since Qb = λ P̃λ , so does also Qb , which ﬁnally implies that
B commutes with A.
Consider now the stochastic map Φ : A → C, Φ(X) := Tr X, X ∈ A. Since EB (A) and
B, as well as Φ(EB (A)) = Tr A and Φ(B) = Tr B, commute, the second inequality in (A.6)
follows due to Proposition A.3, which also yields that this inequality holds with equality if
and only if EB (A) = Φ∗B (Φ(EB (A)) = (Tr A/ Tr B)B.
Finally, consider the general case where supp A ≤ supp B does not necessarily hold. For
every ε > 0, let Bε := B + εI. Note that supp A ≤ supp Bε and
 EBε= EB for every ε > 0, and
Tr A
hence by the above, Sf (AkBε ) ≥ Sf (EB (A)kBε ) ≥ (Tr Bε )f Tr
for every ε > 0. Taking
Bε
the limit ε ց 0 then yields (A.6).
The ﬁrst inequality above was proved for the case f = fα , α > 1, in Section 3.7 of [14],
and we followed essentially the same proof here. It was also proved in Section 3.7 of [14]
that the monotonicity inequality (4.19) extends for the values α ∈ (2, +∞) if Φ(A) and Φ(B)
commute. We conjecture that this holds in more generality, namely that the monotonicity
inequality Sf (Φ(A)kΦ(B)) ≤ Sf (AkB) holds for every convex
f if A and B or Φ(A) and

Tr A
Φ(B) commute. The inequality Sf (AkB) ≥ (Tr B)f Tr B was given in Theorem 3 of [42]
for the case where A and B are invertible density operators and f is a non-linear operator
convex function. Note that the inequality between the ﬁrst and the last term in (A.6) is a
non-commutative generalization of the generalized log-sum inequality (A.1).
A.5 Corollary. For any positive semideﬁnite operators A, B on a ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert
space H, we have
Tr Aα B 1−α ≤ (Tr A)α (Tr B)1−α ,

45

α ∈ [0, 1].

(A.8)

If, moreover, supp A ≤ supp B then
Tr Aα B 1−α ≥ (Tr A)α (Tr B)1−α ,

α ∈ [1, +∞).

(A.9)

If supp A ≤ supp B then Tr Aα B 1−α = (Tr A)α (Tr B)1−α for some α ∈ (0, +∞) \ {1} if and
only if A is a constant multiple of B.
Proof. The assertions are trivial when A or B is equal to zero, and hence we assume that
both of them are non-zero. The inequality in (A.8) is obvious when α = 0 or α = 1, and the
inequality in (A.9) is obvious when α = 1. For α ∈ (0, +∞)\{1}, the inequalities in (A.8) and
(A.9) follow immediately by applying Proposition A.4 to the functions f˜α (x) := sgn(α − 1)xα .
Since these functions are strictly convex for every α ∈ (0, +∞) \ {1}, if equality holds in (A.8)
or (A.9), and supp A ≤ supp B, then A is a constant multiple of B, due to Proposition A.4.
Conversely, the inequalities (A.8) and (A.9) obviously hold with equality if A is a constant
multiple of B.
Let H be a ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space. For every A ∈ B(H) and p ∈ R \ {0}, let
(
0,
A = 0,
kAkp :=
(Tr |A|p )1/p , A 6= 0,
√
where |A| := A∗ A. For p ∈ [1, +∞), this is the well-known p-norm. Note that
kA∗ kp = kAkp = k|A|kp
for every A ∈ B(H) and p ∈ R \ {0}.
Corollary A.5 yields the following inverse Hölder inequality:
A.6 Proposition. Let p ∈ (0, 1) and q < 0 be such that 1/p + 1/q = 1. Let A, B ∈ B(H) for
some ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space H, and assume that supp |A| ≤ supp |B ∗ |. Then
kABk1 ≥ kAkp kBkq

(A.10)

Moreover, the equality case occurs in the above inequality if and only if |A|p and |B ∗ |q are
proportional, i.e., |A|p = α|B ∗ |q for some α ≥ 0.
Proof. The assertion is obvious if A or B is zero, and hence we assume that both of them are
non-zero. Let A = U|A| and B ∗ = V |B ∗ | be the polar decompositions with U, V unitaries.
Then AB = U|A| |B ∗ |V ∗ , and hence kABk1 = k|A||B ∗ |k1 . Let Ã := |A|p , B̃ := |B ∗ |q and
α := 1/p. Then α > 1 and supp Ã ≤ supp B̃ by assumption, and hence
Tr |A||B ∗ | = Tr Ãα B̃ 1−α ≥ (Tr Ã)α (Tr B̃)1−α = (Tr |A|p )1/p (Tr |B ∗ |q )1/q = kAkp kBkq ,
where the inequality follows due to Corollary
A.5. It is well-known that | Tr X| ≤ kXk1
P
for every X
i si |fi ihei | is a singular-value decomposition then
P ∈ B(H); indeed,
P if X =
| Tr X| = | i si hei , fi i| ≤ i si = Tr |X| = kXk1 . Hence, Tr |A||B ∗| ≤ k|A||B ∗ |k1 = kABk1 ,
which completes the proof of the inequality (A.10). The characterization of the equality case
is immediate from Corollary A.5.
A.7 Remark. Our interest in the inverse operator Hölder inequality was motivated by [16].
The inequality was proved in [17] for positive semideﬁnite operators, using the usual Hölder
inequality. An alternative direct proof for the general case and the condition for the equality
was obtained in [20], based on majorization theory [4, 19].
46

References
[1] S.M. Ali, S.D. Silvey: A general class of coefficients of divergence of one distribution from
another ; J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 28, 131–142, (1966)
[2] H. Araki: On an inequality of Lieb and Thirring; Lett. Math. Phys. 19, 167–170, (1990)
[3] K.M.R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, Ll. Masanes, R. Munoz-Tapia, A. Acin, E. Bagan,
F. Verstraete.: Discriminating states: the quantum Chernoff bound ; Phys. Rev. Lett. 98
160501, (2007)
[4] R. Bhatia: Matrix Analysis; Springer (1997)
[5] R. Bhatia: Positive Definite Matrices; Princeton University Press (2007)
[6] R. Blume-Kohout, H.K. Ng, D. Poulin, L. Viola: Information preserving structures: A
general framework for quantum zero-error information; Phys. Rev. A 82, 062306, (2010)
[7] T. Cover, J.A. Thomas: Elements of Information Theory; Wiley-Interscience, (1991)
[8] I. Csiszár: Information type measure of difference of probability distributions and indirect
observations; Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 2, 299–318, (1967)
[9] I. Csiszár: Generalized cutoff rates and Rényi’s information measures;
Trans. Inf. Theory 41, 26–34, (1995)

IEEE

[10] A. Datta: A condition for the nullity of quantum discord ; arXiv:1003.5256
[11] E.G. Eﬀros: A Matrix Convexity Approach to Some Celebrated Quantum Inequalities;
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 1006-1008, (2009)
[12] I. Ekeland, R. Temam: Convex Analysis and Variational Problems; North-Holland,
American Elsevier (1976)
[13] F. Hansen and G.K. Pedersen: Jensen’s inequality for operators and Löwner’s theorem;
Math. Ann. 258, 229–241, (1982)
[14] M. Hayashi: Quantum Information: An Introduction; Springer (2006)
[15] M. Hayashi: Error exponent in asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing and its application
to classical-quantum channel coding; Phys. Rev. A 76, 062301 (2007)
[16] M. Hayashi, private communication.
[17] M. Hayashi: Symmetry and Quantum Information (in Japanese); Iwanami-Shoten, in
press
[18] P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, A. Winter: Structure of states which satisfy strong subadditivity of quantum entropy with equality; Commun. Math. Phys. 246, 359–374, (2004)
[19] F. Hiai: Matrix Analysis: Matrix Monotone Functions, Matrix Means, and Majorization
(GSIS selected lectures); Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 16, 139–248 (2010)
[20] F. Hiai, unpublished.
47

[21] F. Hiai, D. Petz: The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum
probability; Comm. Math. Phys. 143, 99–114 (1991)
[22] F. Hiai, M. Mosonyi, T. Ogawa: Error exponents in hypothesis testing for correlated
states on a spin chain; J. Math. Phys. 49, 032112 (2008).
[23] A. Jenčová: Quantum hypothesis testing and sufficient subalgebras; Lett. Math. Phys.
93, 15–27, (2010)
[24] A. Jenčová: Reversibility conditions for quantum operations; arXiv:1107.0453
[25] A. Jenčová, D. Petz: Sufficiency in quantum statistical inference; Commun. Math. Phys.
263, 259–276, (2006).
[26] A. Jenčová, D. Petz. Sufficiency in quantum statistical inference. A survey with examples;
Inﬁn. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top. 9, 331–351, (2006)
[27] A. Jenčová, M.B. Ruskai: A Unified Treatment of Convexity of Relative Entropy and
Related Trace Functions, with Conditions for Equality; arXiv:0903.2895; to appear in
Rev. Math. Phys., (2009)
[28] A. Jenčová, D. Petz, J. Pitrik: Markov triplets on CCR algebras; Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)
76, 27–50, (2010)
[29] F. Kraus: Über konvexe matrixfunktionen; Math. Z. 41, 18–42, (1936)
[30] A. Lesniewski, M.B. Ruskai: Monotone Riemannian Metrics and Relative Entropy on
Non-Commutative Probability Spaces; J. Math. Phys. 40, 5702–5724, (1999)
[31] F. Liese, I. Vajda: Convex Statistical Distances; B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft,
Leipzig, (1987)
[32] F. Liese, I. Vajda: On divergences and informations in statistics and information theory;
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 52, 4394-4412, (2006)
[33] M. Mosonyi: Entropy, Information and Structure of Composite Quantum States; PhD
thesis, Catholic University of Leuven, 2005; https://repository.cc.kuleuven.be/dspace/
handle/1979/41
[34] M. Mosonyi, D. Petz: Structure of Sufficient Quantum Coarse Grainings; Letters in
Mathematical Physics 68, 19–30, (2004)
[35] M. Mosonyi, F. Hiai: On the quantum Renyi relative entropies and related capacity formulas; IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 57, 2474–2487, (2011)
[36] H. Nagaoka: The converse part of the theorem for quantum Hoeffding bound ; preprint;
quant-ph/0611289.
[37] M. Nussbaum, A. Szkola: A lower bound of Chernoff type for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing; Ann. Statist. 37, 1040–1057, (2009).
[38] T. Ogawa, H. Nagaoka: Strong converse and Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing;
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 47, 2428–2433 (2000)
48

[39] T. Ogawa:
Perfect quantum error-correcting condition revisited ;
ph/0505167, (2005)

arXiv:quant-

[40] M. Ohya and D. Petz: Quantum entropy and its use; Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, (1993).
Second edition (2004)
[41] D. Petz: Quasi-entropies for states of a von Neumann algebra; Publ. RIMS. Kyoto Univ.
21, 781–800, (1985)
[42] D. Petz: Quasi-entropies for finite quantum systems; Rep. Math. Phys. 23, 57–65, (1986)
[43] D. Petz: Sufficiency of channels over von Neumann algebras Quart. J. Math. Oxford
Ser. (2) 39, no. 153, 97–108, (1988)
[44] D. Petz: Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy revisited ; Rev. Math. Physics. 15,
79-91, (2003)
[45] D. Petz: Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Statistics; Springer (2008)
[46] D. Petz: From f -divergence to quantum quasi-entropies and their use; Entropy 12, 304–
325, (2010)
[47] A. Rényi: On measures of entropy and information; Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. on
Math. Statist. Probability 1, 547–561, Berkeley, CA (1961)
[48] M.B. Ruskai: Inequalities for Quantum Entropy: A Review with Conditions for Equality;
J. Math. Phys. 43, 4358–4375, (2002)
[49] N. Sharma: On the quantum f-relative entropy and generalized data processing inequalities; arXiv:0906.4755, (2009)
[50] M. Takesaki: Conditional expectations in von Neumann algebras; J. Funct. Anal. 9, 306–
321, (1972)
[51] M. Tomamichel, R. Colbeck, R. Renner: A Fully Quantum Asymptotic Equipartition
Property; IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55, 5840–5847, (2009)
[52] J. Tomiyama: On the geometry of positive maps in matrix algebras. II ; Linear Algebra
and Its Applications 69, 169–177, (1985)
[53] A. Uhlmann: The “transition probability” in the state space of a
Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273–279, (1976)

49

∗

-algebra;

