Measurement uncertainty relations for position and
momentum: Relative entropy formulation

arXiv:1705.09949v1 [quant-ph] 28 May 2017

Alberto Barchielli1,2,3 , Matteo Gregoratti1,2, Alessandro Toigo1,3
1

Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Matematica,
Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy,
2
Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INDAM-GNAMPA),
3
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Sezione di Milano
30th May 2017
Abstract
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has recently led to general measurement uncertainty relations for
quantum systems: incompatible observables can be measured jointly or in sequence only with some
unavoidable approximation, which can be quantified in various ways. The relative entropy is the natural theoretical quantifier of the information loss when a ‘true’ probability distribution is replaced by
an approximating one. In this paper, we provide a lower bound for the amount of information that is
lost by replacing the distributions of the sharp position and momentum observables, as they could be
obtained with two separate experiments, by the marginals of any smeared joint measurement. The bound
is obtained by introducing an entropic error function, and optimizing it over a suitable class of covariant
approximate joint measurements. We fully exploit two cases of target observables: (1) n-dimensional position and momentum vectors; (2) two components of position and momentum along different directions.
In (1), we connect the quantum bound to the dimension n; in (2), going from parallel to orthogonal directions, we show the transition from highly incompatible observables to compatible ones. For simplicity,
we develop the theory only for Gaussian states and measurements.

1 Introduction
Uncertainty relations for position and momentum [40] have always been deeply related to the foundations
of Quantum Mechanics. For several decades, their axiomatization has been of ‘preparation’ type: an
inviolable lower bound for the widths of the position and momentum distributions, holding in any quantum
state. Such kinds of uncertainty relations, which are now known as preparation uncertainty relations
(PURs), have been later extended to arbitrary sets of n ≥ 2 observables [44–46,59]. All PURs trace back to
the celebrated Robertson’s formulation [58] of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: for any two observables,
represented by self-adjoint operators A and B, the product of the variances of A and B is bounded from
below by the expectation value of their commutator; in formulae, Varρ (A) Varρ (B) ≥ 41 |Tr{ρ[A, B]}|2 ,
where Varρ is the variance of an observable measured in any system state ρ. In the case of position Q and
2
momentum P , this inequality gives Heisenberg’s relation Varρ (Q) Varρ (P ) ≥ ~4 . About 30 years after
Heisenberg and Robertson’s formulation, Hirschman attempted a first statement of position and momentum
uncertainties in terms of informational quantities. This led him to a formulation of PURs based on Shannon
entropy [41]; his bound was later refined [12, 14], and extended to discrete observables [50]. Also other
entropic quantities have been used [35]. We refer to [31, 63] for an extensive review on entropic PURs.
However, Heisenberg’s original intent [40] was more focused on the unavoidable disturbance that a
measurement of position produces on a subsequent measurement of momentum [21, 25, 26, 53–56, 65].
Trying to give a better understanding of his idea, more recently new formulations were introduced, based

1

PUR

on a ‘measurement’ interpretation of uncertainty, rather than giving bounds on the probability distributions of the target observables. Indeed, with the modern development of the quantum theory of measurement and the introduction of positive operator valued measures and instruments [1, 20, 23, 34, 39, 44],
it became possible to deal with approximate measurements of incompatible observables and to formulate measurement uncertainty relations (MURs) for position and momentum, as well as for more general
observables. The MURs quantify the degree of approximation (or inaccuracy and disturbance) made by
replacing the original incompatible observables with a joint approximate measurement of them. A very
rich literature on this topic flourished in the last 20 years, and various kinds of MURs have been proposed, based on distances between probability distributions, noise quantifications, conditional entropy,
etc. [19, 21, 22, 24–26, 31, 32, 38, 53–56, 65, 66].
In this paper, we develop a new information-theoretical formulation of MURs for position and momentum, using the notion of the relative entropy (or Kullback-Leibler divergence) of two probabilities.
The relative entropy S(pkq) is an informational quantity which is precisely tailored to quantify the amount
of information that is lost by using an approximating probability q in place of the target one p. Although
classical and quantum relative entropies have already been used in the evaluation of the performances of
quantum measurements [1, 6–11, 18, 19, 32, 51, 51], their first application to MURs is very recent [2].
In [2], only MURs for discrete observables were considered. The present work is a first attempt to
extend that information-theoretical approach to the continuous setting. This extension is not trivial and
reveals peculiar problems, that are not present in the discrete case. However, the nice properties of the
relative entropy, such as its scale invariance, allow for a satisfactory formulation of the entropic MURs also
for position and momentum.
We deal with position and momentum in two possible scenarios. Firstly, we consider the case of ndimensional position and momentum, since it allows to treat either scalar particles, or vector ones, or even
the case of multi-particle systems. This is the natural level of generality, and our treatment extends without
difficulty to it. Then, we consider a couple made up of one position and one momentum component along
two different directions of the n-space. In this case, we can see how our theory behaves when one moves
with continuity from a highly incompatible case (parallel components) to a compatible case (orthogonal
ones).
The continuous case needs much care when dealing with arbitrary quantum states and approximating
observables. Indeed, it is difficult to evaluate or even bound the relative entropy if some assumption is
not made on probability distributions. In order to overcome these technicalities and focus on the quantum
content of MURs, in this paper we consider only the case of Gaussian preparation states and Gaussian
measurement apparatuses [16, 36, 45, 46, 49, 59, 62]. Moreover, we identify the class of the approximate
joint measurements with the class of the joint POVMs satisfying the same symmetry properties of their
target position and momentum observables [20, 44]. We are supported in this assumption by the fact that,
in the discrete case [2], simmetry covariant measurements turn out to be the best approximations without
any hypothesis (see also [24–26, 65, 66] for a similar appearance of covariance within MURs for different
uncertainty measures).
We now sketch the main results of the paper. In the vector case, we consider approximate joint measurements M of the position Q ≡ (Q1 , . . . , Qn ) and the momentum P ≡ (P1 , . . . , Pn ). We find the
following entropic MUR (Theorem 21, Remark 14): for every choice of two positive thresholds ǫ1 , ǫ2 ,
with ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ~2 /4, there exists a Gaussian state ρ with position variance matrix Aρ ≥ ǫ1 1 and momentum
variance matrix B ρ ≥ ǫ2 1 such that
 


~
~
S(Qρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pρ kM2,ρ ) ≥ n (log e) ln 1 + √
−
(1)
√
2 ǫ1 ǫ2
~ + 2 ǫ1 ǫ2
for all Gaussian approximate joint measurements M of Q and P . Here Qρ and Pρ are the distributions of
position and momentum in the state ρ, and Mρ is the distribution of M in the state ρ, with marginals M1,ρ
and M2,ρ ; the two marginals turn out to be noisy versions of Qρ and Pρ . The lower bound is strictly positive
and it grows linearly with the dimension n. The thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 are peculiar of the continuous case and
they have a classical explanation: the relative entropy S(pkq) → +∞ if the variance of p vanishes faster
than the variance of q, so that, given M, it is trivial to find a state ρ enjoying (1) if arbtrarily small variances
are allowed. What is relevant in our result is that the total loss of information S(Qρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pρ kM2,ρ )
exceeds the lower bound even if we forbid target distributions with small variances.
2

MUR

The MUR (1) shows that there is no Gaussian joint measurement which can approximate arbitrarily
well both Q and P . The lower bound (1) is a consequence of the incompatibility between Q and P and,
indeed, it vanishes in the classical limit ~ → 0. Both the relative entropies and the lower bound in (1)
are scale invariant. Moreover, for fixed ǫ1 and ǫ2 , we prove the existence and uniqueness of an optimal
approximate joint measurement, and we fully characterize it.
In the scalar case, we consider approximate joint measurements M of the position Qu = u · Q along
the direction u and the momentum Pv = v · P along the direction v, where u · v = cos α. We find two
different entropic MURs. The first entropic MUR in the scalar case is similar to the vector case (Theorem
17, Remark 11). The second one is (Theorem 15):
S(Qu,ρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pv,ρ kM2,ρ ) ≥ cρ (α),
(2)
!
)
~| cos α|
~| cos α|
p
−
,
cρ (α) = (log e) ln 1 + p
2 Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ )
~| cos α| + 2 Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ )
(

for all Gaussian states ρ and all Gaussian joint approximate measurements M of Qu and Pv . This lower
bound holds for every Gaussian state ρ without constraints on the position and momentum variances
Var (Qu,ρ ) and Var (Pv,ρ ), it is strictly positive unless u and v are orthogonal, but it is state dependent.
Again, the relative entropies and the lower bound are scale invariant.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce our target position and momentum observables, we discuss their general properties and define some related quantities (spectral measures, mean
vectors and variance matrices, PURs for second order quantum moments, Weyl operators, Gaussian states).
Section 3 is devoted to the definitions and main properties of the relative and differential (Shannon) entropies. Section 4 is a review on the entropic PURs in the continuous case [12, 14, 41], with a particular focus
on their lack of scale invariance. This is a flaw due to the very definition of differential entropy, and one of
the reasons that lead us to introduce relative entropy based MURs. In Section 5 we construct the covariant
observables which will be used as approximate joint measurements of the position and momentum target
observables. Finally, in Section 6 the main results on MURs that we sketched above are presented in detail.
Some conclusions are discussed in Section 7.

2 Target observables and states
Let us start with the usual position and momentum operators, which satisfy the canonical commutation
rules:


(3)
Q ≡ (Q1 , . . . , Qn ),
P ≡ (P1 , . . . , Pn ),
Qi , Pj = i~δij .

Each of the vector operators has n components; it could be the case of a single particle in one or more
dimensions (n = 1, 2, 3), or several scalar or vector particles, or the quadratures of n modes of the electromagnetic field. We assume the Hilbert space H to be irreducible for the algebra generated by the canonical
operators Q and P . An observable of the quantum system H is identified with a positive operator valued measure (POVM); in the paper, we shall consider observables with outcomes in Rk endowed with its
Borel σ-algebra B(Rk ). The use of POVMs to represent observables in quantum theory is standard and
the definition can be found in many textbooks [20, 23, 34, 37]; the alternative name “non-orthogonal resolutions of the identity” is also used [44–46]. Following [20, 23, 38, 46], a sharp observable is an observable
represented by a projection valued measure (pvm); it is standard to identify a sharp observable on the outcome space Rk with the k self-adjoint operators corresponding to it by spectral theorem. Two observables
are jointly measurable or compatible if there exists a POVM having them as marginals. Because of the
non-vanishing commutators, each couple Qi , Pi , as well as the vectors Q, P , are not jointly measurable.
We denote by T(H) the trace class operators on H, by S ⊂ T(H) the subset of the statistical operators
(or states, preparations), and by L(H) the space of the linear bounded operators.

2.1 Position and momentum
Our target observables will be either n-dimensional position and momentum (vector case) or position and
momentum along two different directions of Rn (scalar case). The second case allows to give an example
3

H
POVM
B(Rk )
pvm

S, T(H)
L(H)

ranging with continuity from maximally incompatible observables to compatible ones.
2.1.1 Vector observables
As target observables we take Q and P as in (3) and we denote by Q(A), P(B), A, B ∈ B(Rn ), their
pvm’s, that is
Z
Z
pi P(dp).
(4)
xi Q(dx),
Pi =
Qi =
Rn

Rn

Then, the distributions in the state ρ ∈ S of a sharp position and a sharp momentum measurements (denoted
by Qρ and Pρ ) are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure; we denote by f (•|ρ) and
g(•|ρ) their probability densities: ∀A, B ∈ B(Rn ),
Z
Z
g(p|ρ)dp.
(5)
f (x|ρ)dx,
Pρ (B) = Tr {ρP(B)} =
Qρ (A) = Tr {ρQ(A)} =
B

A

In the Dirac notation, if |xi and |pi are the improper position and momentum eigenvectors, these densities
take the expressions f (x|ρ) = hx|ρ|xi and g(p|ρ) = hp|ρ|pi, respectively. The mean vectors and the
variance matrices of these distributions will be given in (7) and (8).
2.1.2 Scalar observables
As target observables we take the position along a given direction u and the momentum along another
given direction v:
Qu = u · Q,

Pv = v · P ,

with

u, v ∈ Rn ,

|u| = |v| = 1,

u · v = cos α.

(6)

In this case we have [Qu , Pv ] = i~ cos α, so that Qu and Pv are not jointly measurable, unless the directions u and v are orthogonal.
Their pvm’s are denoted by Qu and Pv , their distributions in a state ρ by Qu,ρ and Pv,ρ , and their
corresponding probability densities by fu (•|ρ) and gv (•|ρ): ∀A, B ∈ B(R),
Z
Z
Qu,ρ (A) = Tr{Qu (A)ρ} =
fu (x|ρ) dx,
Pv,ρ (B) = Tr{Pv (A)ρ} =
gv (p|ρ) dp.
A

B

Of course, the densities in the scalar case are marginals of the densities in the vector case. Means and
variances will be given in (11).

2.2 Quantum moments.
Let S2 be the set of states for which the second moments of position and momentum are finite:


Z
Z
2
2
|p| g(p|ρ)dp < +∞ .
|x| f (x|ρ)dx < +∞,
S2 := ρ ∈ S :

S2

Rn

Rn

Then, the mean vector and the variance matrix of the position Q in the state ρ ∈ S2 are
Z
ρ
xi f (x|ρ)dx ≡ Tr {ρQi } ,
ai :=
Rn
Z



(xi − aρi ) xj − aρj f (x|ρ)dx ≡ Tr ρ (Qi − aρi ) Qj − aρj ,
Aρij :=

(7)

Rn

while for the momentum P we have

bρi :=
ρ
Bij

:=

Z

Rn

(pi −

bρi )

Z

Rn

pj −

pi g(p|ρ)dp ≡ Tr {ρPi } ,


bρj g(p|ρ)dp
4



≡ Tr ρ (Pi −

bρi )

Pj −


bρj

(8)
.

For ρ ∈ S2 it is possible to introduce also the mixed ‘quantum covariances’
)
(
(Qi − aρi )(Pj − bρj ) + (Pj − bρj )(Qi − aρi )
ρ
.
Cij := Tr ρ
2

(9)

ρ
Since there is no joint measurement for the position Q and momentum P , the quantum covariances Cij
are not covariances of a joint distribution, and thus they do not have a classical probabilistic interpretation.
By means of the moments above, we construct the three real n × n matrices Aρ , B ρ , C ρ , the 2ndimensional vector µρ and the symmetric 2n × 2n matrix V ρ , with
 ρ
 ρ

a
A
Cρ
ρ
µρ :=
,
V
:=
.
(10)
bρ
(C ρ )T B ρ

We say V ρ is the quantum variance matrix of position and momentum in the state ρ. In [59] dimensionless
canonical operators are considered, but apart from this, our matrix V ρ corresponds to their “noise matrix
in real form”; the name “variance matrix” is also used [49, 60].
In a similar way, we can introduce all the moments related to the position Qu and momentum Pv
introduced in (6). For ρ ∈ S2 , the means and variances are respectively
u · aρ ,

Var(Qu,ρ ) = u · Aρ u,

v · bρ ,

Var(Pv,ρ ) = v · B ρ v.

(11)

Similarly to (9), we have also the ‘quantum covariance’ u · C ρ v ≡ v · (C ρ )T u. Then, we collect the two
means in a single vector and we introduce the variance matrix:




u · aρ
u · Aρ u u · C ρ v
ρ
ρ
µu,v :=
,
Vu,v :=
.
(12)
v · bρ
u · C ρv v · Bρv


A C
Proposition 1. Let V =
be a real symmetric 2n × 2n block matrix with the same dimensions
CT B
of a quantum variance matrix. Define




i
0
~1
A
C ± i ~2 1
≡ V ± Ω,
with
Ω :=
.
(13)
V± :=
−~1 0
C T ∓ i ~2 1
B
2
Then
V = V ρ for some state ρ ∈ S2 ⇐⇒ V+ ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ V− ≥ 0.

(14)

In this case we have: V ≥ 0, A > 0, B > 0, and

~2 ′ ′ 2
(v · u ) ,
∀u′ ∈ Rn , ∀v ′ ∈ Rn .
(15)
4
The inequalities (14) for V± tell us exactly when a (positive semi-definite) real matrix V is the quantum
variance matrix of position and momentum in a state ρ. Moreover, they are the multidimensional version
of the usual uncertainty principle expressed through the variances [44, 46, 59], hence they represent a form
of PURs. The block matrix Ω in the definition of V± is useful to compress formulae involving position
and momentum; moreover, it makes simpler to compare our equations with their frequent dimensionless
versions (with ~ = 1) in the literature [36, 49].
2

(u′ · Au′ )(v ′ · Bv ′ ) ≥ (v ′ · Cu′ ) +

Proof. Equivalences (14) are well known, see e.g. [44, Sect. 1.1.5], [46, Eq. (2.20)], [59, Theor. 2]. Then
V = 21 V+ + 12 V− ≥ 0.
 ′
αu
By using the real block vector
, with arbitrary α, β ∈ R and given u′ , v ′ ∈ Rn , the semiβv ′
positivity (14) implies


u′ · Au′
u′ · Cv ′ ± i ~2 u′ · v ′
≥ 0,
∀u′ ∈ Rn , ∀v ′ ∈ Rn ,
v ′ · C T u′ ∓ i ~2 v ′ · u′
v ′ · Bv ′
which in turn implies A ≥ 0, B ≥ 0 and (15). Then, by choosing u′ = v ′ = ui , where u1 , . . . , un are the
eigenvectors of A (since A is a real symmetric matrix, ui ∈ Rn for all i), one gets the strict positivity of
all the eigenvalues of A; analogously, one gets B > 0.
5

Inequality (15) for u′ = u and v ′ = v becomes the uncertainty rule à la Robertson [58] for the
observables in (6) (a position component and a momentum component spanning an arbitrary angle α):
2

Var(Qu,ρ ) Var(Pv,ρ ) ≥ (v · C ρ u) +
Inequality (16) is equivalent to
ρ
Vu,v

~2
2
(cos α) .
4



i~
0 1
±
cos α
≥ 0.
−1 0
2

(16)

(17)

Since V± are block matrices, their positive semi-definiteness can be studied by means of the Schur
complements [27, 47, 57]. However, as V± are complex block matrices with a very peculiar structure,
special results hold for them. Before summarizing the properties of V± in the next proposition, we need a
simple auxiliary algebraic lemma.
Lemma 2. Let A and B be complex self-adjoint matrices such that A ≥ B ≥ 0. Then det A ≥ det B ≥ 0,
and the equality det A = det B holds iff A = B.
Proof. Let λ↓i (A) and λ↓i (B) be the ordered decreasing sequences of the eigenvalues of A and B, respectively. Then, by Weyl’s inequality, A ≥ B ≥ 0 implies λ↓i (A) ≥ λ↓i (B) ≥ 0 for every i [13, Sect. III.2].
This gives the first statement. Moreover, if A ≥ B ≥ 0 and det A = det B, we get λ↓i (A) = λ↓i (B) for
every i. Then A = B because A − B ≥ 0 and Tr{A − B} = 0.


A C
Proposition 3. Let V =
be a real symmetric 2n × 2n matrix with the same dimensions of a
CT B
quantum variance matrix. Then V+ ≥ 0 (or, equivalently, V− ≥ 0) if and only if A > 0 and





i~
~2 −1 i~ −1
i~
−1
T
C ± 1 ≡ C T A−1 C +
(18)
A C − C T A−1 .
A ∓
B≥ C ∓ 1 A
2
2
4
2
In this case we have

~2 −1
~2 −1
A ≥
A > 0.
4
4
Moreover, we have also the following properties for the various determinants:
B ≥ C T A−1 C +


(det A)(det B) ≥ det V = (det A) det B − C T A−1 C ≥

 2n
~
det V =
2

⇔

B = C T A−1 C +

 2n
~
(det A)(det B) =
2

⇔

~2 −1
A
4

B=

⇒

~2 −1
A ,
4

(19)

 2n
~
,
2

(20)

CA = AC T ,

(21)

C = 0.

(22)

By interchanging A with B and C with C T in (18)-(22) equivalent results are obtained.
Proof. Since we already know that V+ ≥ 0 implies the invertibility of A, the equivalence between (14)
and (18) with A > 0 follows from [47, Theor. 1.12 p. 34] (see also [57, Theor. 11.6] or [27, Lemma 3.2]).
In (19), the first inequality follows by summing up the two inequalities in (18). The last two ones are
immediate by the positivity of A−1 .
The equality in (20) is Schur’s formula for the determinant of block matrices [47, Theor. 1.1 p. 19].
Then, the first inequality is immediate by the lemma above and the trivial relation B ≥ B − C T A−1 C; the
second one follows from (19):

 2

(~/2)2n
~ −1
~2 −1
=
A
⇒ det B − C T A−1 C ≥ det
A
.
B − C T A−1 C ≥
4
4
det A
6


 2
2n

The equality det V = ~2
is equivalent to det B − C T A−1 C = det ~4 A−1 ; since the latter
two determinants are evaluated on ordered positive matrices by (19), they coincide if and only if the respective arguments are equal(Lemma 2); this shows the equivalence in (21). Then, by (18), the self-adjoint
−1
C − C T A−1 is both positive semi-definite and negative semi-definite; hence it is null, that
matrix i~
2 A
T
is, CA = AC .


2
~ 2n
~ 2n
B)
=
Finally, B = ~4 A−1 gives (det A)(det
trivially.
Conversely,
(det
A)(det
B)
=
2
2

implies det B = det B − C T A−1 C by (20); since B ≥ B − C T A−1 C ≥ 0 by (19), Lemma 2 then
implies C T A−1 C = 0 and so C = 0.

By (18) and (19), every time three matrices A, B, C define the quantum variance matrix of a state ρ,
e = 0. This fact can be used to characterize when two positive matrices A and
the same holds for A, B, C
B are the diagonal blocks of some quantum variance matrix, or two positive numbers cQ and cP are the
position and momentum variances of a quantum state along the two directions u and v.
Proposition 4. Two real matrices A > 0 and B > 0, having the dimension of the square of a length and
momentum, respectively, are the diagonal blocks of a quantum variance matrix V ρ if and only if
B≥

~2 −1
A .
4

Two real numbers cQ > 0 and cP > 0, having the dimension of the square of a length and momentum,
respectively, are such that cQ = Var(Qu,ρ ) and cP = Var(Pv,ρ ) for some state ρ if and only if
cQ cP ≥



2
~
cos α .
2

Proof. For A and
 B, the necessity follows from (19).
A 0
ρ
V =
.
0 B

The sufficiency comes from (18) by choosing

For cQ and cP , the necessity follows from (15). The sufficiency comes from (18) with V ρ =
and for example the following choices of A and B:


A
0

0
B



- if cos α = ±1, we take A = cQ 1 and B = cP 1;
- if cos α = 0, we let
A = cQ uuT +

~2
vv T + A′
4cP

B=

~2
uuT + cP vv T + B ′ ,
4cQ

where A′ and B ′ are any two scalar multiples of the orthogonal projection onto {u, v}⊥ satisfying
2
B ′ ≥ ~4 A′ −1 when restricted to {u, v}⊥ ;
- if cos α ∈
/ {0, ±1}, we choose


1
2
T
A = cQ uuT −
(uv T + vuT ) +
vv
+ A′
cos α
(cos α)2


cP
(sin α)2 + (cos α)4
1
T
T
T
T
B=
+ B′,
uu
−
(uv
+
vu
)
+
vv
(sin α)4
(cos α)2
cos α
where A′ and B ′ are as in the previous item.
In the last two cases, we chose A and B in such a way that B =
span of {u, v}.

7

cQ cP
−1
(cos α)2 A

when restricted to the linear

2.3 Weyl operators and Gaussian states
In the following, we shall introduce Gaussian states, Gaussian observables and covariant observables on
the phase-space. In all these instances, the Weyl operators are involved; here we recall their definition and
some properties (see e.g. [45, Sect. 5.2] or [46, Sect. 12.2], where, however, the definition differs from ours
in that the Weyl operators are composed with the map Ω−1 of (13)).
Definition 1. The Weyl operators are the unitary operators defined by
W (x, p) := exp



 Y
n
n 
Y
ixj pj 
i
i
i
i
e ~ (pj Qj −xj Pj ) =
(p · Q − x · P ) =
e ~ pj Qj e− ~ xj Pj e− 2~ . (23)
~
j=1
j=1

The Weyl operators (23) satisfy the composition rule


i
W (x1 , p1 )W (x2 , p2 ) = exp − (x1 · p2 − x2 · p1 ) W (x1 + x2 , p1 + p2 );
2~
in particular, this implies the commutation relation

W (x1 , p1 )W (x2 , p2 ) = exp −i xT1

pT1



Ω

−1

 
x2
W (x2 , p2 )W (x1 , p1 ).
p2

(24)

These commutation relations imply the translation property
W (x, p)∗ Qi W (x, p) = Qi + xi ,

W (x, p)∗ Pi W (x, p) = Pi + pi ,

due to this property, the Weyl operators are also known as displacement operators.
With a slight abuse of notation, we shall sometimes use the identification
 
x
W (x, p) ≡ W
,
p

i = 1, . . . , n;

(25)

(26)

 
x
is a block column vector belonging to the phase-space Rn × Rn ≡ R2n ; here, the first block
p
x is a position and the second block p is a momentum.
By means of the Weyl operators, it is possible to define the characteristic function of any trace-class
operator.
where

Definition 2. For any operator ρ ∈ T(H), its characteristic function is the complex valued function ρb :
R2n → C defined by
 
k
ρb(w) := Tr {ρW (−Ωw)} ,
w≡
.
(27)
l

Note that k is the inverse of a length and l is the inverse of a momentum, so that w is a block vector
living in the space R2n ≡ Rn × Rn regarded as the dual of the phase-space.
Instead of the characteristic function, sometimes the so called Weyl transform Tr {W (x, p)ρ} is introduced [45, 49].
By [45, Prop. 5.3.2, Theor. 5.3.3], we have ρb(w) ∈ L2 (R2n ) and the following trace formula holds:
∀ρ, σ ∈ T(H),
 n Z
~
∗
Tr{σ ρ} =
σ
b(w) ρb(w) dw.
(28)
2π
R2n
As a corollary [45, Coroll. 5.3.4], we have that a state ρ ∈ S is pure if and only if
 n Z
~
2
|b
ρ(w)| dw = 1.
2π
2n
R

8

By [64, Lemma 3.1], [23, Prop. 8.5.(e)], the trace formula also implies
Z
1
∗
W (x, p)ρW (x, p) dxdp = Tr{ρ}1,
(2π~)n R2n

∀ρ ∈ T(H) .

(29)

Moreover, the following inversion formula ensures that the characteristic function ρb completely characterizes the state ρ [45, Coroll. 5.3.5]:
 n Z
~
ρ=
W (Ωw) ρb(w)dw,
∀ρ ∈ T(H) .
2π
R2n
The last two integrals are defined in the weak operator topology.
Finally, for ρ ∈ S2 , the moments (7)–(10) can be expressed as in [45, Sect. 5.4]:
−i

∂ ρb(w)
∂wi

0

= µρi ,

−

∂ 2 ρb(w)
∂wi ∂wj

0

= Vijρ + µρi µρj .

Definition 3 ( [44–46, 49, 59, 60]). A state ρ is Gaussian if


1
ρb(w) = exp iwT µρ − wT V ρ w
2


1
= exp i (k · aρ + l · bρ ) − (k · Aρ k + l · B ρ l) − k · C ρ l ,
2

(30)

(31)

for a vector µρ ∈ R2n and a real 2n × 2n matrix V ρ such that V+ρ ≥ 0.

The condition V+ρ ≥ 0 is necessary and sufficient in order that the function (31) defines the characteristic function of a quantum state [45, Theor. 5.5.1], [46, Theor. 12.17]. Therefore, Gaussian states are
exactly the states whose characteristic function is the exponential of a second order polynomial [45, Eq.
(5.5.49)], [46, Eq. (12.80)].
We shall denote by G the set of the Gaussian states; we have G ⊂ S2 ⊂ S. By (30), the vectors aρ , bρ
and the matrices Aρ , B ρ , C ρ characterizing a Gaussian state ρ are just its first and second order quantum
moments introduced in (7)–(9). By (31), the corresponding distributions of position and momentum are
Gaussian, namely
Qρ = N (aρ ; Aρ ),

Qu,ρ = N (u · aρ ; u · Aρ u),

Pρ = N (bρ ; B ρ ),

Proposition 5 (Pure Gaussian states). For ρ ∈ G, we have det V ρ =
Proof. The trace formula (28) and (31) give Tr{ρ2 } =

n

(~/2)
√
,
det V ρ

Pv,ρ = N (v · bρ ; v · B ρ v). (32)


~ 2n
2

if and only if ρ is pure.

and this implies the statement.

2n
Proposition 6 (Minimum uncertainty states). For ρ ∈ S2 , we have (det Aρ )(det B ρ ) = ~2
if and only
if ρ is a pure Gaussian state and it factorizes into the product of minimum uncertainty states up to a rotation
of Rn .
2n
2
Proof. If (det Aρ )(det B ρ ) = ~2
, then the equivalence (22) gives B ρ = ~4 (Aρ )−1 , so that the variance matrices Aρ and B ρ have a common eigenbasis u1 , . . . , un . Thus, all the corresponding couples of
2
position Qui and momentum Pui have minimum uncertainties: Var(Qui ) Var(Pui ) = ~4 . Therefore,
if we consider the factorization of the Hilbert space H = H1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Hn corresponding to the basis
u1 , . . . , un , all the partial traces of the state ρ on each factor Hi are minimum uncertainty states. Since for
n = 1 the minimum uncertainty states are pure and Gaussian, the state ρ is a pure product Gaussian state.
The converse is immediate.

3 Relative and differential entropies
In this paper, we will be concerned with entropic quantities of classical type [17, 33, 61]. We express them
in ‘bits’, that is we use the base-2 logarithms: log a ≡ log2 a.

We deal only with probabilities on the measurable space Rn , B(Rn ) which admit densities with
respect to the Lebesgue measure. So, we define the relative entropy and differential entropy only for such
probabilities; moreover, we list only the general properties used in the following.
9

G

3.1 Relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler divergence
The fundamental quantity is the relative entropy, also called information divergence, discrimination information, Kullback-Leibler divergence or information or distance or discrepancy. The relative entropy of
a probability p with respect to a probability q is defined for any couple of probabilities p, q on the same
probability space.
Given two probabilities p and q on (Rn , B(Rn )) with densities f and g, respectively, the relative
entropy of p with respect to q is
Z
f (x)
dx.
(33)
S(pkq) =
f (x) log
g(x)
n
R
The value +∞ is allowed for S(pkq); the usual convention 0 log(0/0) = 0 is understood. The relative
entropy (33) is the amount of information that is lost when q is used to approximate p [17, p. 51]. Of
course, if x is dimensioned, then the densities f and g have the same dimension (that is, the inverse of x),
and the argument of the logarithm is dimensionless, as it must be.
Proposition 7 ( [33], Theorem 8.6.1). The following properties hold.
(i) S(pkq) ≥ 0.
(ii) S(pkq) = 0

⇐⇒

p=q

⇐⇒

f =g

a.e..

(iii) S(pkq) is invariant under a change of the unit of measurement.
(iv) If p = N (a; A) and q = N (b; B) with invertible variance matrices A and B, then
(
)
 −1
det B
−1
2 S(pkq) = (log e) (a − b) · B (a − b) + Tr B A − 1
.
+ log
det A

(34)

As S(pkq) is scale invariant, it quantifies a relative error for the use of q as an approximation of p, not
an absolute one.
Let us employ the relative entropy to evaluate the effect of an additive Gaussian noise ν ∼ N (b; β 2 )
on an independent Gaussian random variable X. If X ∼ N (a; α2 ), then X + ν ∼ N (a + b; α2 + β 2 ), and
the relative entropy of the true distribution of X with respect to its disturbed version X + ν is
S(XkX + ν) =

1
α2 + β 2
log e b2 − β 2
+ log
.
2
2
2 α +β
2
α2

This expression vanishes if the noise becomes negligible with respect to the true distribution, that is if
β 2 /α2 → 0 and b2 /α2 → 0. On the other hand, S(XkX + ν) diverges if the noise becomes too strong
with respect to the true distribution, or, in other words, if the true distribution becomes too peaked with
respect to the noise, that is, β 2 /α2 → +∞ or b2 /α2 → +∞.

3.2 Differential entropy
The differential entropy of an absolutely continuous random vector X with a probability density f is
Z
H(X) := −
f (x) log f (x)dx.
Rn

This quantity is commonly used in the literature, even if it lacks many of the nice properties of the Shannon
entropy for discrete random variables. For example, H(X) is not scale invariant, and it can be negative [33,
p. 244].
Since the density f enters in the logarithm argument, the definition of H(X) is meaningful only when
f is dimensionless, which is the same as X being dimensionless. Note that, if X is dimensioned and c > 0
f = cX a dimensionless random variable, then
is a real parameter making X
Z
Z
f (u/c)
f (x)
f (u/c)
f =−
H(X)
f (x) log n dx .
log
du
=
−
n
n
c
c
c
Rn
Rn
In the following, we shall consider the differential entropy only for dimensionless random vectors X.
10

Proposition 8 ( [33], Section 8.6). The following properties hold.
(i) If X is an absolutely continuous random vector with variance matrix A, then

 n
1
1
H(X) ≤ log (2πe)n det A = log (2πe) + Tr log A.
2
2
2

The equality holds iff X is Gaussian with variance matrix A and arbitrary mean vector a.

(ii) If X = (X1 , . . . , Xn ) is an absolutely continuous random vector, then
H(X) ≤

n
X

H(Xi ).

i=1

The equality holds iff the components X1 , . . . , Xn are independent.
Remark 1. In property (i) we have used the following well-known matrix identity, which follows by diagonalization:
log det A = Tr log A,
∀A > 0.
Remark 2. Property (i) yields that the differential entropy of a Gaussian random variable X ∼ N (a; α2 ) is
H(X) =


1
log 2πeα2 ,
2

which is an increasing function of the variance α2 , and thus it is a measure of the uncertainty of X. Note
that H(X) ≥ 0 iff α2 ≥ 1/(2πe).

4 Entropic PURs for position and momentum
The idea of having an entropic formulation of the PURs for position and momentum goes back to [12, 14,
41]. However, we have just seen that, due to the presence of the logarithm, the Shannon differential entropy
needs dimensionless probability densities. So, this leads us to introduce dimensionless versions of position
and momentum.
Let λ > 0 be a dimensionless parameter and κ a second parameter with the dimension of a mass times
a frequency. Then, we introduce the dimensionless versions of position and momentum:
r
i
h
λ
κ
e
e i , Pej = iλδij .
Q,
Pe = √
(35)
P
⇒
Q
Q :=
~
~κ

We use a unique dimensional constant κ, in order to respect rotation symmetry and do not distinguish
different particles. Anyway, there is no natural link between the parameter multiplying Q and the parameter
multiplying P ; this is the reason for introducing λ. As we see from the commutation rules, the constant λ
plays the role of a dimensionless version of ~; in the literature on PURs, often λ = 1 is used [12, 14, 31].

4.1 Vector observables
e and P
e be the pvm’s of Q
e ρ and P
e ρ are their probability distributions in the state ρ.
e and Pe ; then, Q
Let Q
e ρ )+H(P
e ρ ).
The total preparation uncertainty is quantified by the sum of the two differential entropies H(Q
For ρ ∈ G, by Proposition 8 we get

 n
1
4
ρ
ρ
e
e
H(Qρ ) + H(Pρ ) = n log (πeλ) + log
(det A ) (det B ) .
(36)
2
~2
n
In the case of product states of minimum uncertainty, we have (det Aρ ) (det B ρ ) = ~2 /4 ; then, by
taking (20) into account, we get
n
o
e ρ ) + H(P
e ρ ) = n log (πeλ) .
inf H(Q
(37)
ρ∈G

11

Thus, the bound (37) arises from quantum relations between Q and P ; indeed, there would be no lower
bound for (36) if we could take both det Aρ and det B ρ arbitrarily small.
By item (ii) of Proposition 8, the differential entropy for the distribution of a random vector is smaller
than the sum of the entropies of its marginals; however, the final bound (37) is a tight bound for both
e ρ ) + H(P
e ρ ) and Pn H(Q
e i,ρ ) + Pn H(P
e i,ρ ).
H(Q
i=1
i=1
By the results of [12, 14], the same bound (37) is obtained even if the minimization is done over all the
states, not only the Gaussian ones.
The uncertainty result (37) depends on λ, this being a consequence of the lack of scale invariance
of the differential entropy; note that the bound is positive if and only if λ > 1/(πe). Sometimes in the
literature the parameter ~ appears in the argument of the logarithm [19, 32]; this fact has to be interpreted
as the appearance of a parameter with the numerical value of ~, but without dimensions. In this sense the
formulation (37) is consistent with both the cases with λ = 1 or λ = ~. Sometimes the smaller bound
ln 2π appears in place of log πe [50]; this is connected to a state dependent formulation of the entropic
PUR [31, Sect. V.B].

4.2 Scalar observables
The dimensionless versions of the scalar observables introduced in (6) are
r
i
h
λ
e u , Pev = iλ cos α.
e u = κ Qu ,
Pv ⇒
Q
Q
Pev = √
~
~κ

(38)

e u,ρ and P
e v,ρ the associated distributions in the state ρ. For ρ ∈ S2 , the respective means
We denote by Q
and variances are
r
2
λ
κ
e v,ρ ) = λ v · B ρ v,
e u,ρ ) = κ u · Aρ u,
√
u · aρ ,
Var(P
v · bρ ,
Var(Q
~
~
~κ
~κ
q
e u,ρ ) Var(P
e v,ρ ) ≥ λ |cos α| /2.
with Var(Q
As in the vector case, the total preparation uncertainty is quantified by the sum of the two differential
e u,ρ ) + H(P
e v,ρ ). For ρ ∈ G, Proposition 8 gives
entropies H(Q


q
e
e
e
e
(39)
H(Qu,ρ ) + H(Pv,ρ ) = log 2πe Var(Qu,ρ ) Var(Pv,ρ ) .

Then, we have the lower bound
inf

ρ∈G

n

o
e u,ρ ) + H(P
e v,ρ ) = log (πeλ |cos α|) = 1 + ln (π |λ cos α|) ,
H(Q
ln 2

(40)

which depends on λ, but not on κ. Of course, because of (39), for Gaussian states a lower bound for the
e u,ρ ) + H(P
e v,ρ ) is equivalent to a lower bound for the product Var(Q
e u,ρ ) Var(P
e v,ρ ). By a slight
sum H(Q
generalization of the results of [12,14], the bound (40) is obtained also when the minimization is done over
all the states.
Let us note that the bound in (40) is positive for |λ cos α| > 1/(πe), and it goes to −∞ for α → π/2,
which is the case of compatible Qu,ρ and Pv,ρ . In the case α = 0, the bound (40) is the same as (37) for
n = 1.

5 Approximate joint measurements of position and momentum
In order to deal with MURs for position and momentum observables, we have to introduce the class of
approximate joint measurements of position and momentum, whose marginals we will compare with the
respective sharp observables. As done in [21,28,44,45], it is natural to characterize such a class by requiring
suitable properties of covariance under the group of space translations and velocity boosts: namely, by
12

approximate joint measurement of position and momentum we will mean any POVM on the product space
of the position and momentum outcomes sharing the same covariance properties of the two target sharp
observables. As we have already discussed, two approximation problems will be of our concern: the
approximation of the position and momentum vectors (vector case, with outcomes in the phase-space Rn ×
Rn ), and the approximation of one position and one momentum component along two arbitrary directions
(scalar case, with oucomes in R × R). In order to treat the two cases altogether, we consider POVMs with
outcomes in Rm × Rm ≡ R2m , which we call bi-observables; they correspond to a measurement of m
position components and m momentum components. The specific covariance requirements will be given
in the Definitions 5, 6, 7.
In studying the properties of probability measures on Rk , a very useful notion is that of the characteristic
function, that is, the Fourier cotransform of the measure at hand; the analogous quantity for POVMs turns
out to have the same relevance. Different names have been used in the literature to refer to the characteristic
function of POVMs, or, more generally, quantum instruments, such as characteristic operator or operator
characteristic function [1, 3–6, 42–44, 49]. As a variant, also the symplectic Fourier transform quite often
appears [46, Sect. 12.4.3]. The characteristic function has been used, for instance, to study the quantum
analogues of the infinite-divisible distributions [3–6,43,44] and measurements of Gaussian type [42,46,49].
Here, we are interested only in the latter application, as our approximating bi-observables will typically be
Gaussian. Since we deal with bi-observables, we limit our definition of the characteristic function only to
POVMs on Rm × Rm , which have the same number of variables of position and momentum type.
Being measures, POVMs can be used to construct integrals, whose theory is presented e.g. in [23,
Sect. 4.8], [45, Sect. 2.9, Prop. 2.9.1].
Definition 4. Given a bi-observable M : B(R2m ) → L(H), the characteristic function of M is the operator
b : R2m → L(H), with
valued function M
Z
b
ei(k·x+l·p) M(dxdp).
(41)
M(k, l) =
R2m

Here, the dimensions of the vector variables k and l are the inverses of a length and momentum,
respectively,
as
o in the definition of the characteristic function of a state (27). This definition is given so that
n
b
Tr M(k, l)ρ is the usual characteristic function of the probability distribution Mρ on R2m .

5.1 Covariant vector observables

In terms of the pvm’s (4), the translation property (25) is equivalent to the symmetry properties
W (x, p)Q(A)W (x, p)∗ = Q(A + x),

W (x, p)P(B)W (x, p)∗ = P(B + p),

∀A, B ∈ B(Rn ),

and they are taken as the transformation property defining the following class of POVMs on R2n [20, 23,
28, 49, 64].
Definition 5. A covariant phase-space observable is a bi-observable M : B(R2n ) → L(H) satisfying the
covariance relation

 
x
∗
W (x, p)M(Z)W (x, p) = M Z +
,
∀Z ∈ B(R2n ), ∀x, p ∈ Rn .
p
We denote by C the set of all the covariant phase-space observables.

C

The interpretation of covariant phase-space observables as approximate joint measurements of position
and momentum is based on the fact that their marginal POVMs
M1 (A) = M(A × Rn ),

M2 (B) = M(Rn × B),

A, B ∈ B(Rn ),

have the same symmetry properties of Q and P, respectively. Although Q and P are not jointly measurable,
the following well-known result says that there are plenty of covariant phase-space observables [30, 48],
[45, Theor. 4.8.3]. In (43) below, we use the parity operator Π on H, which is such that
Π W (x, p) Π = W (−x, −p) = W (x, p)∗ .
13

(42)

Proposition 9. The covariant phase-space observables are in one-to-one correspondence with the states
on H, so that we have the identification S ∼ C; such a correspondence σ ↔ Mσ is given by
Z
σ
M σ (x, p) dxdp,
∀B ∈ B(R2n ),
M (B) =
B
(43)
1
∗
M σ (x, p) =
W
(x,
p)ΠσΠW
(x,
p)
.
(2π~)n
The characteristic function (41) of a measurement Mσ ∈ C has a very simple structure in terms of the
characteristic function (27) of the corresponding state σ ∈ S.
Proposition 10. The characteristic function of Mσ ∈ C is given by
 
k
b σ (k, l) = W (−Ωw) σ
M
b(w),
w≡
∈ R2n ,
l

(44)

and the characteristic function of the probability Mσρ is

n
o
b σ (k, l)ρ = ρb(w)b
Tr M
σ (w).

(45)

In (44) we have used the identification (26). The characteristic function of a state is introduced in (27).
Proof. By the commutation relations (24), we have
W (−~l, ~k)W (x, p)W (−~l, ~k)∗ = ei(k·x+l·p) W (x, p).
Then, we get
Z
1
ei(k·x+l·p) W (x, p)ΠσΠW (x, p)∗ dxdp
(2π~)n R2n
Z
1
W (−~l, ~k)W (x, p)W (−~l, ~k)∗ ΠσΠW (x, p)∗ dxdp
=
(2π~)n R2n
∗
= W (−~l, ~k) Tr{W (−~l, ~k) ΠσΠ},

b σ (k, l) =
M

where we have used formula (29). By (42) and definition (27), we get (44). Again by (27), we get (45).
In terms of probability densities, measuring Mσ on the state ρ yields the density function hσ (x, p|ρ) =
Tr{M σ (x, p)ρ}. Then, by (45), the densities of the marginals Mσ1,ρ and Mσ2 ρ are the convolutions
hσ1 (•|ρ) = f (•|ρ) ∗ f (•|σ),

hσ2 (•|ρ) = g(•|ρ) ∗ g(•|σ),

(46)

where f and g are the sharp densities introduced in (5). By the arbitrariness of the state ρ, the marginal
POVMs of Mσ turn out to be the convolutions (or ‘smearings’)
Z
Z
Z
Z
g(p − p′ |σ)P(dp′ )
dp
f (x − x′ |σ)Q(dx′ ),
Mσ2 (B)
dx
Mσ1 (A)
A

Rn

B

Rn

(see e.g. [20, Sect. III, Eqs. (2.48), (2.49)]).
Let us remark that the distribution of the approximate position observable Mσ1 in a state ρ is the distribution of the sum of two independent random vectors: the first one is distributed as the sharp position Q in
the state ρ, the second one is distributed as the sharp position Q in the state σ. In this sense, the approximate position Mσ1 looks like a sharp position plus an independent noise given by σ. Of course, a similar
fact holds for the momentum. However, this statement about the distributions can not be extended to a
statement involving the observables. Indeed, since Q and P are incompatible, nobody can jointly observe
Mσ , Q and P, so that the convolutions (46) do not correspond to sums of random vectors that actually exist
when measuring Mσ .

14

5.2 Covariant scalar observables
Now we focus on the class of approximate joint measurements of the observables Qu and Pv representing
position and momentum along two possibly different directions u and v (see Section 2.1.2). As in the case
of covariant phase-space observables, this class is defined in terms of the symmetries of its elements: we
require them to transform as if they were joint measurements of Qu and Pv . Recall that Qu and Pv denote
the spectral measures of Qu , Pv .
Due to the commutation relation (24), the following covariance relations hold
∗

∗

W (x, p)Qu (A)W (x, p) = Qu (A + u · x),

W (x, p)Pv (B)W (x, p) = Pv (B + v · p),

for all A, B ∈ B(R) and x, p ∈ Rn . We employ covariance to define our class of approximate joint
measurements of Qu and Pv .
Definition 6. A (u, v)-covariant bi-observable is a POVM M : B(R2 ) → L(H) such that



u·x
∗
W (x, p)M(Z)W (x, p) = M Z +
,
∀Z ∈ B(R2 ), ∀x, p ∈ Rn .
v·p
We denote by Cu,v the class of such bi-observables.

Cu,v

So, our approximate joint measurements of Qu and Pv will be all the bi-observables in the class Cu,v .
Example 1. The marginal of a covariant phase-space observable M σ along the directions u and v is a
(u, v)-covariant bi-observable. Actually, it can be proved that, if cos α 6= 0, all (u, v)-covariant biobservables can be obtained in this way.
It is useful to work with a little more generality, and merge Definitions 5 and 6 into a single notion of
covariance.
Definition 7. Suppose J is a k×2n real matrix. A POVM M : B(Rk ) → L(H) is a J-covariant observable
on Rk if

 
x
∗
W (x, p)M(Z)W (x, p) = M Z + J
,
∀Z ∈ B(Rk ),
∀x, p ∈ Rn .
p
Thus, approximate joint observables of Qu and Pv are just J-covariant observables on R2 for the choice
of the 2 × 2n matrix
 T

u
0T
J=
.
(47)
0T v T

On the other hand, covariant phase-space observables constitute the class of 12n -covariant observables on
R2n , where 12n is the identity map of R2n .

5.3 Gaussian measurements
When dealing with Gaussian states, the following class of bi-observables quite naturally arises.
Definition 8. A POVM M : B(R2m ) → L(H) is a Gaussian bi-observable if
 
 


 aM
1 T
k
M T
T
T
b
k
l
−
exp i k
M(k, l) = W −Ω(J )
l
bM
2

l

T



V

M

 
k
l

(48)

for two vectors aM , bM ∈ Rm , a real 2m × 2n matrix J M and a real symmetric 2m × 2m matrix V M
satisfying the condition
i
(49)
V M ± J M Ω(J M )T ≥ 0.
2
 M
a
We set µM =
. The triple (µM , V M , J M ) is the set of the parameters of the Gaussian observable M.
bM
15

In this definition, the vector aM has the dimension of a length, and bM of a momentum; similarly, the
matrices J M , V M decompose into blocks of different dimensions. The condition (49) is necessary and
sufficient in order that the function (48) defines the characteristic function of a POVM.
For unbiased Gaussian measurements, i.e., Gaussian bi-observables with aM = bM = 0, the previous
definition coincides with the one of [46, Section 12.4.3]. It is also a particular case of the more general
definition of Gaussian observables on arbitrary (not necessarily symplectic) linear spaces that is given
in [36,49]. We refer to [46,49] for the proof that Eq. (48) is actually the characteristic function of a POVM.
Measuring the Gaussian observable M on the Gaussian state ρ yields the probability distribution Mρ
whose characteristic function is
 
 


 
 aM
 M k
1 T
k
T
b
k
l
−
exp i kT lT
Tr{M(k,
l)ρ} = ρb (J M )T
V
bM
l
l
2
 
 ρ 
 M 



 k

1 T
a
M
M ρ
M T
M a
T
k
l
;
V
+
J
V
(J
)
−
+
J
= exp i kT lT
l
bρ
bM
2
hence the output distribution is Gaussian,


Mρ = N J M µρ + µM ; J M V ρ (J M )T + V M .

(50)

5.3.1 Covariant Gaussian observables

For Gaussian bi-observables, J-covariance has a very easy characterization.
Proposition 11. Suppose M is a Gaussian bi-observable on R2m with parameters (µM , V M , J M ). Let J
be any 2m × 2n real matrix. Then, the POVM M is a J-covariant observable if and only if J M = J.
Proof. For x, p ∈ Rn , we let M′ and M′′ be the two POVMs on R2m given by

 
x
∗
′
′′
M (Z) = W (x, p)M(Z)W (x, p) ,
M (Z) = M Z + J
,
p

∀Z ∈ B(R2m ).

By the commutation relations (24) for the Weyl operators, we immediately get

b ′ (k, l) = W (x, p)M(k,
b
M
l)W (x, p)∗ = exp −i xT
we have also
b ′′ (k, l) =
M

Z

R2m


exp i kT

lT



 


k
b
pT Ω−1 −Ω(J M )T
M(k,
l)
l
 


x
b
= exp −i kT lT J M
M(k,
l);
p

 ′ 
 
x
x
−
J
M(dx′ dp′ )
p′
p

= exp −i kT

 

x
b
lT J
M(k,
l).
p

b
Since M(k,
l) 6= 0 for all k, l, by comparing the last two expressions we see that M′ = M′′ if and only if
 

 


 M x
x
T
T
T
T
l J
l J
= exp −i k
exp −i k
,
∀x, p ∈ Rn , ∀k, l ∈ Rm ,
p
p
which in turn is equivalent to J M = J.

Vector observables
Let us point out the structure of the Gaussian approximate joint measurements of Q and P.

16

Proposition 12. A bi-observable Mσ ∈ C is Gaussian if and only if the state σ is Gaussian. In this case,
the covariant bi-observable Mσ is Gaussian with parameters
σ

µM = µσ ,

J M = 12n .

σ

σ

V M = V σ,

Proof. By comparing (31), (44) and (48), and using the fact that W (x1 , p2 ) ∝ W (x2 , p2 ) if and only if
x1 = x2 and p1 = p2 , we have the first statement. Then, for σ ∈ G, we see immediately that Mσ is a
Gaussian observable with the above parameters.
We call CG the class of the Gaussian covariant phase-space observables. By (50), observing Mσ on
a Gaussian state ρ ∈ G yields the normal probability distribution Mσρ = N (µρ + µσ ; V ρ + V σ ), with
marginals
Mσ1,ρ = N (aρ + aσ ; Aρ + Aσ ),
Mσ2,ρ = N (bρ + bσ ; B ρ + B σ ).
(51)

CG

When aσ = 0 and bσ = 0, we have an unbiased measurement.

Scalar observables
We now study the Gaussian approximate joint measurements of the target observables Qu and Pu defined
in (6).
Proposition 13. A Gaussian bi-observable M with parameters (µM , V M , J M ) is in Cu,v if and only if
J M = J, where J is given by (47). In this case, the condition (49) is equivalent to
M
V11
≥ 0,

M
V22
≥ 0,

M M
V11
V22 ≥

~2
M 2
(cos α)2 + (V12
) .
4

(52)

Proof. The first statement follows from Proposition 11. Then, the matrix inequality (49) reads


i~
0
cos α
M
≥ 0,
V ±
0
2 − cos α
which is equivalent to (52).
We write CG
u,v for the class of the Gaussian (u, v)-covariant phase-space observables. An observM
M
M
able M ∈ CG
= J given by
u,v is thus characterized by the couple (µ , V ). From (50) with J
G
(47), we get that measuring M ∈ Cu,v on a Gaussian state ρ yields the probability distribution Mρ =

ρ
N µρu,v + µM ; Vu,v
+ V M . Its marginals with respect to the first and second entry are, respectively,

M
,
M1,ρ = N u · aρ + aM ; Var(Qu,ρ ) + V11


M
.
M2,ρ = N v · bρ + bM ; Var(Pv,ρ ) + V22

(53)

Example 2. Let us construct an example of an approximate joint measurement of Qu and Pv , by using a
noisy measurement of position along u followed by a sharp measurement of momentum along v. Let ∆
be a positive real number yielding the precision of the position measurement, and consider the POVM M
on R2 given by




Z
(x − Qu )2
1
(x − Qu )2
Pv (B) exp −
dx,
∀A, B ∈ B(R).
M(A × B) = √
exp −
4∆
4∆
2π∆ A

17

CG
u,v

The characteristic function of M is
 Z




Z
(x − Qu )2
(x − Qu )2
1
ilp
ikx
b
dx
e Pv (dp) exp −
e exp −
M(k, l) = √
4∆
4∆
2π∆ R
R




Z
1
(x − Qu )2
(x − Qu )2
=√
eilPv exp −
dx
exp ikx −
4∆
4∆
2π∆ R




Z
(x − Qu )2
eilPv
(x − Qu + ~lu · v)2
exp −
dx
=√
exp ikx −
4∆
4∆
2π∆ R
Z



1
(~l cos α)2
(x − Qu + ~l cos α/2)2
=√
dx
exp ilPv −
exp ikx −
8∆
2∆
2π∆
R




~l cos α
∆
(~ cos α)2 2
= exp ilPv + ik Qu +
− k2 −
l
2
2
8∆


∆ 2 (~ cos α)2 2
= W (−~lv, ~ku) exp − k −
l .
2
8∆
Therefore, M is a Gaussian bi-observable with parameters aM = 0, bM = 0 and J M = J, where J is given
α)2
M
M
M
G
by (47) and V11
= ∆, V22
= (~ cos
and V12
= 0. This implies M ∈ CG
u,v ; in particular, the set Cu,v is
4∆

M M
non-empty. Moreover, the lower bound V11
V22 =

~2
2
4 (cos α)

is attained, cf. (52).

Example 3. Let us consider the case α = ±π/2; now the target observables Qu and Pv are compatible and
we can define a pvm M on R2 by setting M(A×B) = Qu (A)Pv (B) for all A, B ∈ B(R). Its characteristic
function is
Z
Z
ikx
b
e Qu (dx) eilp Pv (dp) = ei(kQu +lPv ) = W (−~lv, ~ku).
M(k, l) =
R

R

M
M
M
Then, M ∈ CG
= 0 and J M = J given by (47). Note that M can
u,v with parameters a = 0, b = 0, V
be regarded as the limit case of the observables of the previous example when cos α = 0 and ∆ ↓ 0.

6 Entropic MURs for position and momentum
In the case of two discrete target observables, in [2] we found an entropic bound for the precision of their
approximate joint measurements, which we named entropic incompatibility degree. Its definition followed
a three steps procedure. Firstly, we introduced an error function: when the system is in a given state ρ, such
a function quantifies the total amount of information that is lost by approximating the target observables by
means of the marginals of a bi-observable; the error function is nothing else than the sum of the two relative
entropies of the respective distributions. Then, we considered the worst possible case by maximizing
the error function over ρ, thus obtaining an entropic divergence quantifying the approximation error in a
state independent way. Finally, we got our index of the incompatibility of the two target observables by
minimizing the entropic divergence over all bi-observables. In particular, when symmetries are present,
we showed that the minimum is attained at some covariant bi-observables. So, the covariance followed as
a byproduct of the optimization procedure, and was not a priori imposed upon the class of approximating
bi-observables.
As we shall see, the extension of the previous procedure to position and momentum target observables
is not straightforward, and peculiar problems of the continuous case arise. In order to overcome them,
in this paper we shall fully analyse only a case in which explicit computations can be done: Gaussian
preparations, and Gaussian bi-observables, which we a priori assume to be covariant. We conjecture that
the final result should be independent of these simplifications, as we shall discuss in Section 7.
As we said in Section 5, by “approximate joint measurement” we mean “a bi-observable with the ‘right’
covariance properties”.

18

6.1 Scalar observables
Given the directions u and v, the target observables are Qu and Pv in (6) with pvm’s Qu and Pv . For ρ ∈ G
with parameters (µρ , V ρ ) given in (12), the target distributions Qu,ρ and Pv,ρ are normal with means and
variances (11).
An approximate joint measurements of Qu and Pv is given by a covariant bi-observable M ∈ Cu,v ;
then, we denote its marginals with respect to the first and second entry by M1 and M2 , respectively. For a
M
M
Gaussian covariant bi-observable M ∈ CG
u,v with parameters (µ , V ), the distribution of M in a Gaussian
state ρ is normal,

ρ
Mρ = N µρ + µM ; Vu,v
+VM ,

so that its marginal distributions M1,ρ and M2,ρ are normal with means u · aρ + aM and v · bρ + bM and
variances
M
M
Var (M1,ρ ) = Var (Qu,ρ ) + V11
,
Var (M2,ρ ) = Var (Pv,ρ ) + V22
.
(54)
Let us recall that |u| = 1, |v| = 1, u · v = cos α, and that by (16) and (52), we have
Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ ) ≥

~2
2
(cos α) ,
4

M M
V11
V22 ≥

~2
2
(cos α) .
4

(55)

6.1.1 Error function
The relative entropy is the amount of information that is lost when an approximating distribution is used
in place of a target one. For this reason, we use it to give an informational quantification of the error made
in approximating the distributions of sharp position and momentum by means of the marginals of a joint
covariant observable.
Definition 9. Given the preparation ρ ∈ S and the covariant bi-observable M ∈ Cu,v , the error function
for the scalar case is the sum of the two relative entropies:
S(ρ, M) := S(Qu,ρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pv,ρ kM2,ρ ).

(56)

The relative entropy is invariant under a change of the unit of measurement, so that the error function
is scale invariant, too; indeed, it quantifies a relative error, not an absolute one. In the Gaussian case the
error function can be explicitly computed.
Proposition 14 (Error function for the scalar Gaussian case). For ρ ∈ G and M ∈ CG
u,v , the error function
is
log e
S(ρ, M) =
[s(x) + s(y) + ∆(ρ, M)] ,
(57)
2
where
x :=

M
V11
,
Var (Qu,ρ )

y :=

M
V22
,
Var (Pv,ρ )

∆(ρ, M) :=

(aM )2
(bM )2
+
,
Var (M1,ρ ) Var (M2,ρ )

and s : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) is the following C ∞ strictly increasing function with s(0) = 0:
s(x) := ln (1 + x) −

x
.
1+x

(58)

Proof. The statement follows by a straightforward combination of (32), (34), (53) and (56).
M
Note that the error function does not depend on the mixed covariances u · C ρ v and V12
. Note also
that, if we select a possible approximation M, then the error function S(ρ, M) decreases for states ρ with
increasing sharp variances Var (Qu,ρ ) and Var (Pv,ρ ): the loss of information decreases when the sharp
distributions make the approximation error negligible. Finally, note that

s(x) + s(y) = ln[(1 + x)(1 + y)] + (1 + x)−1 + (1 + y)−1 − 2,
19

1+x=

Var (M1,ρ )
,
Var (Qu,ρ )

1+y =

Var (M2,ρ )
.
Var (Pv,ρ )

This means that, apart from the term ∆(ρ, M) due to the bias, our error function S(ρ, M) only depends on
the two ratios “variance of the approximating distribution over variance of the target distribution”. Thus,
in order to optimize the error function, one has to optimize these two ratios. We use formula (57) to firstly
give a state dependent MUR, and then, following the scheme of [2], a state independent MUR.
A lower bound for the error function can be found by minimizing it over all possible approximate joint
measurements of Qu and Pv . First of all, let us remark that this minimization makes sense because we
consider only (u, v)-covariant bi-observables: if we minimized over all possible bi-observables, then the
minimum would be trivially zero for every given preparation ρ. Indeed, the trivial bi-observable M(A ×
B) = Qu,ρ (A)Pv,ρ (B) 1 yields S(ρ, M) = 0.
When minimizing the error function over all (u, v)-covariant bi-observables, both the minimum and the
best measurement attaining it are state dependent. When α = ±π/2, the two target observables are compatible, so that their joint measurement trivially exists (see Example 3) and we get inf M∈Cu,v S(ρ, M) = 0.
In order to have explicit results for any angle α, we consider only the Gaussian case.
Theorem 15 (State dependent MUR, scalar observables). For every ρ ∈ G and M ∈ CG
u,v ,
S(Qu,ρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pv,ρ kM2,ρ ) ≥ cρ (α),

(59)

where the lower bound is
cρ (α) = s (zρ ) log e
(
with

~| cos α|
= (log e) ln 1 + p
2 Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ )

!

~| cos α|
p
−
~| cos α| + 2 Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ )

~ |cos α|
zρ := p
∈ [0, 1].
2 Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ )

)

,

(60)

(61)

The lower bound is tight and the optimal measurement is unique: cρ (α) = S(ρ, M∗ ), for a unique M∗ ∈
CG
u,v ; such a Gaussian (u, v)-covariant bi-observable is characterized by
µ

M∗

= 0,

M∗
V12

= 0,

M∗
V11

~
=
2

s

Var (Qu,ρ )
|cos α| ,
Var (Pv,ρ )

M∗
V22

~
=
2

s

Var (Pv,ρ )
|cos α| . (62)
Var (Qu,ρ )

Proof. As already discussed, the case cos α = 0 is trivial. If cos α 6= 0, we have to minimize the error
function (57) over M. First of all we can eliminate the positive term ∆(ρ, M) by taking an unbiased
measurement. Then, since s is an increasing function, by the second condition in (55) we can also take
2
2
M∗
M∗
M∗
= 0 by (52). In this case the error function (57) reduces to
V11
V22
= ~4 (cos α) . This implies V12
S(ρ, M∗ ) =


log e
s(x) + s(zρ2 /x) ,
2

x=

M∗
V11
,
Var (Qu,ρ )

with zρ given by (61); by the first of (55), we have zρ ∈ (0, 1].
Now, we can minimize the error function with respect to x by studying its first derivative:



zρ4
x2 − zρ2 x2 + 2zρ2 x + zρ2
x
d
2
s(x) + s(zρ /x) =
−
=
.
2
2
dx
(1 + x)2
x(zρ2 + x)2
x z 2 + x (1 + x)
ρ

Having x > 0, we immediately get that x = zρ gives the unique minimum. Thus
S(ρ, M) ≥ S(ρ, M∗ ) = s(zρ ) log e = log(1 + zρ ) −

20

zρ
log e,
1 + zρ

and
M∗
V11

~
= zρ Var (Qu,ρ ) ≡
2

s

Var (Qu,ρ )
|cos α| ,
Var (Pv,ρ )

M∗
V22

~
= zρ Var (Pv,ρ ) ≡
2

s

Var (Pv,ρ )
|cos α| ,
Var (Qu,ρ )

which conclude the proof.
Remark 3. The minimum information loss cρ (α) depends on both the preparation ρ and the angle α. When
α 6= ±π/2, that is when the target observables are not compatible, cρ (α) is strictly grater than zero. This
is a peculiar quantum effect: given ρ, u and v, there is no Gaussian approximate joint measurement of Qu
and Pv that can approximate them arbitrarily well. On the other side, in the limit α → ±π/2, the lower
bound cρ (α) goes to zero; so, the case of commuting target observables is approached with continuity.
Remark 4. The lower bound cρ (α) goes to zero also in the classical limit ~ → 0. This holds for every
angle α and every Gaussian state ρ.
Remark 5. Another case in which cρ (α) → 0 is the limit of large uncertainty states, that is, if we let
the product Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ ) → ∞: our entropic MUR disappears because, roughly speaking, the
variance of (at least) one of the two target observables goes to infinity, its relative entropy vanishes by itself,
and an optimal covariant bi-observable M∗ has to take care of (at most) only the other target observable.
Remark 6. Actually, something similar to the previous remark happens also at the macroscopic limit, and
does not require the measuring instrument to be an optimal one; indeed, unbiasedness is enough in this
case. This happens because the error function S(ρ, M) quantifies a relative error; even if the measurement
approximation M is fixed, such an error can be reduced by suitably changing the preparation ρ. Indeed,
if we consider the position and momentum of a macroscopic particle, for instance the center of mass of
many particles, it is natural that its state has much larger position and momentum uncertainties than the
VM
VM
intrinsic uncertainties of the measuring instrument; that is, Var(Q11u,ρ ) ≪ 1 and Var(P22v,ρ ) ≪ 1, implying
that the error function (57) is negligible. In practice, this is a classical case: the preparation has large
position and momentum uncertainties and the measuring instrument is relatively good. In this situation
we do not see the difference between the joint measurement of position and momentum and their separate
sharp observations.
Remark 7. The optimal approximating joint measurement M∗ ∈ CG
u,v is unique; by (62) it depends on the
preparation ρ one is considering, as well as on the directions u and v. A realization of M∗ is the measuring
procedure of Example 2.
Remark 8. The MUR (59) is scale invariant, as both the error function S(ρ, M) and the lower bound cρ (α)
are such.
Remark 9. For cos α 6= 0, we get inf M∈CG
S(ρ, M) = s(zρ ) log e, where zρ is defined by (61). As zρ
u,v
i

log e
,
ranges in the interval (0, 1], the quantity inf M∈CG
S(ρ,
M)
takes
all
the
values
in
the
interval
0,
1
−
2
u,v
so that
log e
.
(63)
sup inf S(ρ, M) = 1 −
2
ρ∈G M∈CG
u,v
In order to get this result, we needed cos α 6= 0; however, the final result does not depend on α. Therefore,
in the supρ inf M -approach of (63), the continuity from quantum to classical is lost.
6.1.2 Entropic divergence of Qu , Pv from M
Now we want to find an entropic quantification of the error made in observing M ∈ Cu,v as an approximation of Qu and Pv in an arbitrary state ρ. The procedure of [2], already suggested in [25, Sect. VI.C] for
a different error function, is to consider the worst case by maximizing the error function over all the states.
However, in the continuous framework this is not possible for the error function (56); indeed, from (57) we
get supρ∈G S(ρ, M) = +∞ even if we restrict to unbiased covariant bi-observables.
Anyway, the reason for S(ρ, M) to diverge is classical: it depends only on the continuous nature of Qu
and Pv , without any relation to their (quantum) incompatibility. Indeed, as we noted in Section 3.1, if an
21

instrument measuring a random variable X ∼ N (a; α2 ) adds an independent noise ν ∼ N (b; β 2 ), thus
producing an output X + ν ∼ N (a + b; α2 + β 2 ), then the relative entropy S(XkX + ν) diverges for
α2 → 0; this is what happens if we fix the noise and we allow for arbitrarily peaked preparations. Thus,
the sum S(Qu,ρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pv,ρ kM2,ρ ) diverges if, fixed M, we let Var(Qu,ρ ) or Var(Pv,ρ ) go to 0.
The difference between the classical and quantum frameworks emerges if we bound from below the
variances of the sharp position and momentum observables. Indeed, in the classical framework we have
inf b,β 2 supα2 ≥ǫ S(XkX + ν) = 0 for every ǫ > 0; the same holds for the sum of two relative entropies if
no relation exists between the two noises. On the contrary, in the quantum framework the entropic MURs
appear due to the relation between the position and momentum errors occurring in any approximate joint
measurement.
In order to avoid that S(ρ, M) → +∞ due to merely classical effects, we thus introduce the following
subset of the Gaussian states:
Gu,v
:= {ρ ∈ G : Var (Qu,ρ ) ≥ ǫ1 , Var (Pv,ρ ) ≥ ǫ2 } ,
ǫ

ǫi > 0,

(64)

and we evaluate the error made in approximating Qu and Pv with the marginals of a (u, v)-covariant
bi-observable by maximizing the error function over all these states.
Definition 10. The Gaussian ǫ-entropic divergence of Qu , Pv from M ∈ Cu,v is
DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) := sup S(ρ, M).

(65)

ρ∈Gu,v
ǫ

For Gaussian M, depending on the choice of the thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 , the divergence DǫG (Qu , Pv kM)
can be easily computed or at least bounded.
Theorem 16. Let the bi-observable M ∈ CG
u,v be fixed.
(i) For ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

~2
2
(cos α) , the divergence DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) is given by
4

log e
[s(xǫ ) + s(yǫ ) + ∆(ǫ; M)] ,
(66)
2


where ρǫ (u, v) is any Gaussian state with Var Qu,ρǫ (u,v) = ǫ1 and Var Pv,ρǫ (u,v) = ǫ2 , and
DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) = S(ρǫ (u, v), M) =

xǫ :=

(ii) For ǫ1 ǫ2 <

M
V11
,
ǫ1

yǫ :=

M
V22
,
ǫ2

∆(ǫ; σ) :=

(bM )2
(aM )2
+
.
M+ǫ
M+ǫ
V11
V22
1
2

~2
2
(cos α) , the divergence DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) is bounded from below by
4
DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) ≥ S(ρǫ (u, v), M) =

log e
[s(xǫ ) + s(yǫ ) + ∆(ǫ; M)] ,
2

(67)



~2
2
where ρǫ (u, v) is any Gaussian state with Var Qu,ρǫ (u,v) = ǫ1 and Var Pv,ρǫ (u,v) =
(cos α) ,
4ǫ1
and
xǫ :=

M
V11
,
ǫ1

yǫ :=

M
4ǫ1 V22

~2 (cos α)

2,

∆(ǫ; σ) :=

(bM )2
(aM )2
+
.
M
M + ~2 (cos α)2
V11 + ǫ1
V22
4ǫ1

The existence of the above states ρǫ (u, v) is guaranteed by Proposition 4.
Proof. By Proposition 4, maximizing the error function over the states in Gu,v
is the same as maximizing
ǫ
(57) with (54) over the parameters Var (Qu,ρ ) and Var (Pv,ρ ) satisfying (55) and (64).

22

Gu,v
ǫ

~2
2
(cos α) , the thresholds themselves satisfy Heisenberg uncertainty relation,
4
and so equality (66) follows from the expression (57) and the fact the functions s(x), s(y), ∆(ρ, M) are
decreasing in Var (Qu,ρ ) and Var (Pv,ρ ).
~2
2
(ii) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 <
(cos α) , we have to take into account the relation (55) for Var (Qu,ρ )
4
2
2
and Var (Pv,ρ ): the supremum of S(ρ, M) is achieved when Var (Qu,ρ ) Var (Pv,ρ ) = ~4 (cos α) , with
Var (Qu,ρ ) ≥ ǫ1 and Var (Pv,ρ ) ≥ ǫ2 . Then inequality (67) follows by chosing Var (Qu,ρ ) = ǫ1 and
~2
2
(cos α) .
Var (Pv,ρ ) =
4ǫ1
(i) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

Remark 10. The conditions on the states ρǫ (u, v) do not depend on M, but only on the parameters defining
2
~2
Gu,v
ǫ . Thus, in the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ 4 (cos α) , any choice of ρǫ (u, v) yields a state which is the worst one for
every Gaussian approximate joint measurement M.
6.1.3 Entropic incompatibility degree of Qu and Pv
The last step is to optimize the state independent ǫ-entropic divergence (65) over all the approximate joint
measurements of Qu and Pv . This is done in the next definition.
Definition 11. The Gaussian ǫ-entropic incompatibility degree of Qu , Pv is
cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) :=

inf

M∈CG
u,v

DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) ≡

inf

sup S(ρ, M).

u,v
M∈CG
u,v ρ∈Gǫ

(68)

Again, depending on the choice of the thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 , the entropic incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ)
can be easily computed or at least bounded.
~2
2
(cos α) , the incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) is given by
4

 

~ |cos α|
~ |cos α|
G
.
cinc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) = (log e) ln 1 + √
− √
2 ǫ1 ǫ2
2 ǫ1 ǫ2 + ~ |cos α|

(i) For ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

Theorem 17.

(69)

The infimum in (68) is attained and the optimal measurement is unique, in the sense that
G
cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) = Dǫ (Qu , Pv kMǫ )

for a unique Mǫ ∈ CG
u,v ; such a bi-observable is characterized by
r
r
~ ǫ1
~ ǫ2
Mǫ
Mǫ
=
aMǫ = 0, bMǫ = 0, V11
|cos α| , V22
|cos α| ,
=
2 ǫ2
2 ǫ1
(ii) For ǫ1 ǫ2 <

(70)

Mǫ
V12
= 0.

~2
2
(cos α) , the incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) is bounded from below by
4


1
cG
(Q
,
P
;
ǫ)
≥
(log
e)
ln
(2)
−
.
u
v
inc
2

(71)

(72)

The latter bound is




1
(log e) ln (2) −
= S ρǫ (u, v), Mǫ = inf S ρǫ (u, v), M ,
G
2
M∈Cu,v

(73)

where the state ρǫ (u, v) is defined in item (ii) of Theorem 16 and Mǫ is the bi-observable in CG
u,v
such that
aMǫ = 0,

bMǫ = 0,

Mǫ
V11
= ǫ1 ,

23

Mǫ
V22
=

~2
2
(cos α) ,
4ǫ1

Mǫ
V12
= 0.

(74)

~2
2
(cos α) , due to (66), the proof is the same as that of Theorem 15 with the
4
replacements Var (Qu,ρ ) 7→ ǫ1 and Var (Pv,ρ ) 7→ ǫ2 .
~2
(ii) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 <
(cos α)2 , starting from (67), the proof is the same as that of Theorem 15 with
4
2
~2
(cos α) .
the replacements Var (Qu,ρ ) 7→ ǫ1 and Var (Pv,ρ ) 7→ 4ǫ
1
Proof. (i) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

Remark 11 (State independent MUR, scalar observables). By means of the above results, we can formulate
a state independent entropic MUR for the position Qu and the momentum Pv in the following way. Chosen
two positive thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 , there exists a preparation ρǫ (u, v) ∈ Gu,v
(introduced in Theorem 16)
ǫ
such that, for all Gaussian approximate joint measurements M of Qu and Pv , we have
S(Qu,ρǫ (u,v) kM1,ρǫ (u,v) ) + S(Pv,ρǫ (u,v) kM2,ρǫ (u,v) )



 
~2
~ |cos α|
~ |cos α|

2

, if ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥
− √
(cos α) ,
(log e) ln 1 + √
2
ǫ
ǫ
2
ǫ
ǫ
+
~
|cos
α|
4
1 2

 1 2
≥
1
~2

2

(log e) ln (2) −
,
if ǫ1 ǫ2 <
(cos α) .
2
4

(75)

2

The inequality follows by (66) and (69) in the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ~4 (cos α)2 , and (73) in the case ǫ1 ǫ2 <
2
~2
4 (cos α) .
What is relevant is that, for every approximate joint measurement M, the total information loss S(ρ, M)
does exceed the lower bound (75) even if the set of states Gu,v
forbids preparations ρ with too peaked target
ǫ
distributions. Indeed, without the thresholds ǫ1 , ǫ2 , it would be trivial to exceed the lower bound (75), as
we noted in Section 6.1.2.
We also remark that, chosen ǫ1 and ǫ2 , we found a single state ρǫ (u, v) in Gu,v
that satisfies (75) for
ǫ
every M, so that ρǫ (u, v) is a ‘bad’ state for all Gaussian approximate joint measurements of position and
momentum.
2
2
When ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ~4 (cos α) , the optimal approximate joint measurement Mǫ is unique in the class of
Gaussian (u, v)-covariant bi-observables; it depends only on the class of preparations Gu,v
ǫ : it is the best
measurement for the worst choice of the preparation in the class Gu,v
.
ǫ
Remark 12. The entropic incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) is strictly positive for cos α 6= 0 (incompatible target observables) and it goes to zero in the limits α → ±π/2 (compatible observables), ~ → 0
(classical limit), and ǫ1 ǫ2 → ∞ (large uncertainty states).
Remark 13. The scale invariance of the relative entropy extends to the error function S(ρ, M), hence to the
divergence DǫG (Qu , Pv kM) and the entropic incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ), as well as the entropic
MUR (75).

6.2 Vector observables
Now the target observables are Q and P given in (3), with pvm’s Q and P; the approximating bi-observables
are the covariant phase-space observables C of Definition 5. Each bi-observable M ∈ C is of the form
M = Mσ for some σ ∈ S, where Mσ is given by (43). CG is the subset of the Gaussian bi-observables in
C, and Mσ ∈ CG if and only if σ is a Gaussian state.
We proceed to define the analogues of the scalar quantities introduced in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3.
In order to do it, in the next proposition we recall some known results on matrices.
Proposition 18 ( [13, 27, 52, 57]). Let M1 and M2 be n × n complex matrices such that M1 > M2 > 0.
Then, we have 0 < M1−1 < M2−1 . Moreover, if s : R+ → R is a strictly increasing continuous function,
we have Tr{s(M1 )} > Tr{s(M2 )}.
6.2.1 Error function
Definition 12. Given the preparation ρ ∈ S and the covariant phase-space observable Mσ , with σ ∈ S, the
error function for the vector case is the sum of the two relative entropies:
S(ρ, Mσ ) := S(Qρ kMσ1,ρ ) + S(Pρ kMσ2,ρ ).
24

(76)

As in the scalar case, the error function is scale invariant, it quantifies a relative error, and we always
have S(ρ, Mσ ) > 0 because position and momentum are incompatible. Indeed, since the marginals of a
bi-observable Mσ ∈ C turn out to be convolutions of the respective sharp observables Q and P with some
probability densities on Rn , Qρ 6= Mσ1,ρ and Pρ 6= Mσ2,ρ for all states ρ; this is an easy consequence, for
instance, of [15, Problem 26.1, p. 362]. In the Gaussian case the error function can be explicitly computed.
Proposition 19 (Error function for the vector Gaussian case). For ρ, σ ∈ G, the error function has the two
equivalent expressions:

log e 
Tr {s(Eρ,σ ) + s(Fρ,σ )} + aσ · (Aρ + Aσ )−1 aσ + bσ · (B ρ + B σ )−1 bσ
2


log e  
−1
−1
=
Tr s(Nρ,σ
) + s(Rρ,σ
) + aσ · (Aρ + Aσ )−1 aσ + bσ · (B ρ + B σ )−1 bσ ,
2

S(ρ, Mσ ) =

(77a)
(77b)

where the function s is defined in (58), and

Eρ,σ := (Aρ )−1/2 Aσ (Aρ )−1/2 ,

Fρ,σ := (B ρ )−1/2 B σ (B ρ )−1/2 ,

(78a)

Nρ,σ := (Aσ )−1/2 Aρ (Aσ )−1/2 ,

Rρ,σ := (B σ )−1/2 B ρ (B σ )−1/2 .

(78b)

Proof. First of all, recall that
Qρ = N (aρ ; Aρ ),
Pρ = N (bρ ; B ρ ),

Mσ1,ρ = N (aρ + aσ ; Aρ + Aσ )

Mσ2,ρ = N (bρ + bσ ; B ρ + B σ ).

A direct application of (34) yields
S(Qρ kMσ1,ρ ) =


det(Aρ + Aσ ) log e   ρ
1
Tr (A + Aσ )−1 Aρ − 1 + aσ · (Aρ + Aσ )−1 aσ .
+
log
ρ
2
det A
2

We can transform this equation by using

i
h
det (Aσ + Aρ )
ρ −1/2
σ
ρ
ρ −1/2
= det (1 + Eρ,σ ) ,
=
det
(A
)
(A
+
A
)
(A
)
det Aρ

Tr (Aρ + Aσ )−1 Aρ − 1

This gives

ln det (1 + Eρ,σ ) = Tr {ln (1 + Eρ,σ )} ,
o
n

= Tr (Aρ )1/2 (Aρ + Aσ )−1 (Aρ )1/2 − 1 = − Tr (1 + Eρ,σ )−1 Eρ,σ .


log e 
Tr{s(Eρ,σ )} + aσ · (Aρ + Aσ )−1 aσ .
2
In the same way a similar expression is obtained for S(Pρ kMσ2,ρ ) and (77a) is proved.
On the other hand, by using
S(Qρ kMσ1,ρ ) =




det (1 + Nρ,σ )
det (Aσ + Aρ )
−1
−1
= Tr ln 1 + Nρ,σ
,
= ln
= ln det 1 + Nρ,σ
ρ
det A
det Nρ,σ
o
n
n
o


−1
−1
−1 −1
Tr (Aρ + Aσ )−1 Aρ − 1 = − Tr (Aρ + Aσ ) Aσ = − Tr 1 + Nρ,σ
Nρ,σ
,
ln

and the analogous expressions involving B ρ and Rρ,σ , one gets (77b).

25

State dependent lower bound
In principle, a state dependent lower bound for the error function could be found by analogy with Theorem
15, by taking again the infimum over all joint covariant measurements, that is inf σ S(ρ, Mσ ). By considering only Gaussian states ρ and measurements Mσ , from (18), (77a), (78a) the infimum over σ ∈ G can be
reduced to an infimum over the matrices Aσ :

 
 2

~
log e
.
infσ Tr s (Aρ )−1/2 Aσ (Aρ )−1/2 + s
(B ρ )−1/2 (Aσ )−1 (B ρ )−1/2
inf S(ρ, Mσ ) =
σ∈G
2 A
4

The above equality follows since the monotonicity of s (Proposition 18) implies that the trace term in (77a)
2
attains its minimum when B σ = ~4 (Aρ )−1 . However, it remains an open problem to explicitly compute
the infimum over the matrices Aσ when the preparation ρ is arbitrary.
Nevertheless, the computations can be done at least for a preparation ρ∗ of minimum uncertainty (Proposition 6). Indeed, by (22) we get
inf S(ρ∗ , Mσ ) =

σ∈G



log e
−1
.
infσ Tr s (Eρ,σ ) + s Eρ,σ
2 A

Now we can diagonalize Eρ,σ and minimize over its eigenvalues; since s(x) + s(x−1 ) attains its minimum
value at x = 1, this procedure gives Eρ,σ = 1. So, by denoting by σ∗ the state giving the minimum, we
have
~2 ρ∗ −1
(79)
(A ) ,
B σ∗ = B ρ∗ =
Aσ∗ = Aρ∗ ,
4
(80)
inf S(ρ∗ , Mσ ) = S(ρ∗ , Mσ∗ ) = ns(1) log e.
σ∈G

For an arbitrary ρ ∈ G, we can use the last formula to deduce an upper bound for inf σ∈G S(ρ, Mσ ).
2
Indeed, if ρ∗ is a minimum uncertainty state with Aρ∗ = Aρ , then B ρ ≥ ~4 (Aρ )−1 = B ρ∗ by (19), and,
using again the state σ∗ of (79), we find
inf S(ρ, Mσ ) ≤ S(ρ, Mσ∗ ) ≤ S(ρ∗ , Mσ∗ ) = ns(1) log e.

σ∈G

The second inequality in the last formula follows from (77b), (78b) and the monotonicity of s (Prop. 18).
6.2.2 Entropic divergence of Q, P from Mσ
In order to define a state independent measure of the error made in regarding the marginals of Mσ as
approximations of Q and P, we can proceed along the lines of the scalar case in Section 6.1.2. To this end,
we introduce the following vector analogue of the Gaussian states defined in (64):
Gǫ := {ρ ∈ G : Aρ ≥ ǫ1 1, B ρ ≥ ǫ2 1} ,

ǫ ≡ (ǫ1 , ǫ2 ),

ǫi > 0.

(81)

In the vector case, Definition 10 then reads as follows.
Definition 13. The Gaussian ǫ-entropic divergence of Q, P from Mσ ∈ C is
DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) := sup S(ρ, Mσ ).

(82)

ρ∈Gǫ

As in the scalar case, when Mσ is Gaussian, depending on the choice of the product ǫ1 ǫ2 , we can
compute the divergence DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) or at least bound it from below.
Theorem 20. Let the bi-observable Mσ ∈ CG be fixed.

~2
, the divergence DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) is given by
4
log e h
Tr {s (Aσ /ǫ1 ) + s (B σ /ǫ2 )}
DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) = S(ρǫ , Mσ ) =
2

(i) For ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

i
+ aσ · (Aσ + ǫ1 1)−1 aσ + bσ · (B σ + ǫ2 1)−1 bσ , (83)

where ρǫ is any Gaussian state with Aρǫ = ǫ1 1 and B ρǫ = ǫ2 1.
26

Gǫ

~2
, the divergence DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) is bounded from below by
4
"


log e
G
σ
σ
Dǫ (Q, PkM ) ≥ S(ρǫ , M ) =
Tr s (Aσ /ǫ1 ) + s 4ǫ1 B σ /~2
2

(ii) For ǫ1 ǫ2 <

+ a · (A + ǫ1 1)
σ

σ

−1 σ

where ρǫ is any Gaussian state with Aρǫ = ǫ1 1 and B ρǫ =

σ

a +b ·

!−1

~2
B +
1
4ǫ1
σ

σ

b

#

, (84)

~2
1.
4ǫ1

~2
, for ρ ∈ Gǫ we have Nρ,σ ≥ ǫ1 (Aσ )−1 and Rρ,σ ≥ ǫ2 (B σ )−1 ; by
Proof. (i) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥
4
Proposition 18 we get
−1
Tr{s(Nρ,σ
)} ≤ Tr {s (Aσ /ǫ1 )} ,

−1
Tr{s(Rρ,σ
)} ≤ Tr {s (B σ /ǫ2 )} ,

(Aρ + Aσ )−1 ≤ (ǫ1 1 + Aσ )−1 ,

(B ρ + B σ )−1 ≤ (ǫ2 1 + B σ )−1 .

By using these inequalities in the expression (77b), we get (83).
~2
(ii) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 <
, the lower bound (84) follows by evaluating S(ρ, Mσ ) at the state ρ = ρǫ ∈
4
~2
Gǫ with Aρǫ = ǫ1 1 and B ρǫ =
1.
4ǫ1
~2
Note that ρǫ does not depend on σ, but only on the parameters defining Gǫ : again, in the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ,
4
the error attains its maximum at a state which is independent of the approximate measurement.
6.2.3 Entropic incompatibility degree of Q and P
By analogy with Section 6.1.3, we can optimize the ǫ-entropic divergence over all the approximate joint
measurements of Q and P .
Definition 14. The Gaussian ǫ-entropic incompatibility degree of Q and P is
σ
G
σ
cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ) := inf Dǫ (Q, PkM ) ≡ inf sup S(ρ, M ).
σ∈G

σ∈G ρ∈Gǫ

(85)

Again, depending on the product ǫ1 ǫ2 , we can compute or at least bound cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ) from below.
Theorem 21.

~2
, the incompatibility degree cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ) is given by
4


 
~
~
G
.
− √
cinc (Q, P; ǫ) = n (log e) ln 1 + √
2 ǫ1 ǫ2
2 ǫ1 ǫ2 + ~

(i) For ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

(86)

The infimum in (85) is attained and the optimal measurement is unique, in the sense that
G
σǫ
cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ) = Dǫ (Q, PkM )

for a unique σǫ ∈ G; such a state is the minimal uncertainty state characterized by
r
r
~ ǫ1
~ ǫ2
σǫ
σǫ
σǫ
σǫ
A =
b = 0,
a = 0,
1,
B =
1,
C σǫ = 0.
2 ǫ2
2 ǫ1

27

(87)

(88)

(ii) For ǫ1 ǫ2 <

~2
2
(cos α) , the incompatibility degree cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ) is bounded from below by
4


1
G
cinc (Q, P; ǫ) ≥ n(log e) ln (2) −
.
2

(89)

The latter bound is


1
n(log e) ln (2) −
2



= S(ρǫ , Mσǫ ) = inf S(ρǫ , Mσ ),

(90)

σ∈G

where the preparation ρǫ is defined in item (ii) of Theorem 20 and σǫ is the state in G such that
aσǫ = 0,

bσǫ = 0,

Aσǫ = ǫ1 1,

B σǫ =

~2
1,
4ǫ1

C σǫ = 0.

(91)

~2
, from the expression (83) we get immediately aσǫ = 0, bσǫ = 0 and by
4
2
2
(19) we have B σ ≥ ~4 (Aσ )−1 . So, by (83) and Propositions 4 and 18, we get B σ = ~4 (Aσ )−1 , and

Proof. (i) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥



 2
~
log e
σ −1
σ
.
(A )
inf Tr s (A /ǫ1 ) + s
inf sup S(ρ, M ) =
σ∈G ρ∈Gǫ
2 Aσ
4ǫ2
σ

By minimizing over all the eigenvalues of Aσ , we get the minimum (86), which is attained if and only if
Aσ is as in (88). Hence, Aσǫ and B σǫ are as in (87). This implies that any optimal state σǫ is a minimum
uncertainty state; so, C σǫ = 0 and the state σǫ is unique.
~2
(ii) In the case ǫ1 ǫ2 <
, by (19) and Proposition 18, inequality (84) implies
4
inf sup S(ρ, Mσ ) ≥

σ∈G ρ∈Gǫ



log e
infσ Tr s (Aσ /ǫ1 ) + s ǫ1 (Aσ )−1 .
2 A

By minimizing over all the eigenvalues of Aσ , we get (89). Then (89) holds for ρǫ as in item (ii) of Theorem
20 and σǫ in (91).
Remark 14 (State independent MUR, vector observables). By means of the above results, we can formulate
the following state independent entropic MUR for the position Q and momentum P . Chosen two positive
thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 , there exists a preparation ρǫ ∈ Gǫ (introduced in Theorem 20) such that, for all
Gaussian approximate joint measurements Mσ of Q and P, we have
S(Qρǫ kMσ1,ρǫ ) + S(Pρǫ kMσ2,ρǫ )



 
~
~


,
−
n
(log
e)
ln
1
+
√
√

2 ǫ1 ǫ2
2 ǫ1 ǫ2 + ~

≥
1


n(log e) ln (2) −
,
2
2

2

~2
,
4
~2
if ǫ1 ǫ2 <
.
4
if ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥

(92)

The inequality follows by (83) and (86) for ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ~4 , and (90) for ǫ1 ǫ2 < ~4 .
Thus, also in the vector case, for every approximate joint measurement Mσ , the total information loss
S(ρ, Mσ ) does exceed the lower bound (92) even if Gǫ forbids preparations ρ with too peaked target distributions. Moreover, chosen ǫ1 and ǫ2 , one can fix again a single ‘bad’ state ρǫ in Gǫ that satisfies (92) for
all Gaussian approximate joint measurements Mσ of Q and P .
2
Whenever ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥ ~4 , the optimal approximating joint measurement Mσǫ is unique in the class of
Gaussian covariant bi-observables; it corresponds to a minimum uncertainty state σǫ which depends only
on the chosen class of preparations Gǫ , that is, on the thresholds ǫ1 and ǫ2 : Mσǫ is the best measurement
for the worst choice of the preparation in that class.

28

Remark 15. For n = 1, the vector lower bound in (92) reduces to the scalar lower bound found in (75) for
two parallel directions u and v; for n ≥ 1, the bound linearly grows with n.

Remark 16. The entropic incompatibility degree cG
inc (Qu , Pv ; ǫ) is strictly positive for cos α 6= 0 (incompatible target observables) and it goes to zero in the limit α → ±π/2 (compatible observables), ~ → 0
(classical limit), and ǫ1 ǫ2 → ∞ (large uncertainty states).

Remark 17 (The macroscopic limit.). Similarly to Remark 6 for scalar target observables, also the MUR
(92) is practically ineffective for macroscopic systems. Indeed, suppose we are concerned with position
and momentum of a macroscopic particle, say the center of mass of a multi-particle system (in this case
n = 3). The states ρ which can be practically prepared have macroscopic widths, say ρ ∈ Gǫ with ‘large’
thresholds ǫ and ǫ1 ǫ2 ≫ ~2 /4. Then, we consider a measuring instrument Mσ∗ having a high precision
with respect to this class of states, but not necessarily reaching a precision near the quantum limits. For
instance, let us take Mσ∗ ∈ CG with Aσ∗ = δ1 1, B σ∗ = δ2 1, and 0 < δ1 ≪ ǫ1 , 0 < δ2 ≪ ǫ2 ; we take it
also unbiased: aσ∗ = 0, bσ∗ = 0. Obviously, δ1 δ2 ≥ ~2 /4 must hold. Then, ∀ρ ∈ Gǫ by (77a) and (78a)
we have
δ2
δ1
δ2
δ1
1,
Fρ,σ∗ = ρ ≤
1,
Eρ,σ∗ = ρ ≤
A
ǫ1
B
ǫ2
0 < S(ρ, Mσ∗ ) =

log e
n log e
Tr {s(Eρ,σ∗ ) + s(Fρ,σ∗ )} ≤
[s(δ1 /ǫ1 ) + s(δ2 /ǫ2 )] .
2
2

By (58) the function s is increasing and in a neighborhood of zero it behaves as s(x) ≃ x2 /2; in the
present case δ1 /ǫ1 ≪ 1 and δ2 /ǫ2 ≪ 1 and, so, we have that the error function is negligible. This is
practically a ‘classical’ case: the preparation has ‘large’ position and momentum uncertainties and the
measuring instrument is ‘relatively good’. In this situation we do not see the difference between the joint
measurement of position and momentum and their separate sharp distributions. Of course the bound (92)
continues to hold, but it is also negligible since ǫ1 ǫ2 ≫ ~2 /4.

Remark 18. The scale invariance of the relative entropy extends also in the vector case to the error function
S(ρ, Mσ ), the divergence DǫG (Q, PkMσ ) and the entropic incompatibility degree cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ), as well as
the entropic MUR (92). Indeed, let us consider the dimensionless versions of position and momentum (35)
e P
e introduced in Section 4. Accordingly, we rescale the
and their associated projection valued measures Q,
R
σ
e σ (B) =
fσ x, p)de
e xdp,
e
joint measurement M of (43) in the same way, obtaining the POVM M
B M (e
fσ (e
e =
M
x, p)

1
n exp
(2πλ)


 


i 
i
e−x
e−x
e · Pe
e · Pe
pe · Q
ΠσΠ exp −
pe · Q
.
λ
λ

e and p,
e as well as the components of the Borel set B, are dimensionless.
Here, both the vector variables x
By the scale invariance of the relative entropy, the error function takes the same value as in the dimensioned
case:
e ρ kM
e σ ) + S(P
e ρ kM
e σ ) = S(Qρ kMσ ) + S(Pρ kMσ ).
S(Q
(93)
1,ρ
2,ρ
1,ρ
2,ρ

Then, the scale invariance holds for the entropic divergence and incompatibility degree, too:

where e
ǫ1 :=

e Pk
e M
e σ ) = DG (Q, PkMσ ),
DǫeG (Q,
ǫ

e e e) = cG (Q, P; ǫ),
cG
inc (Q, P; ǫ
inc

κǫ1
λ2 ǫ2
λ2
~2
and e
ǫ2 :=
. In particular e
ǫ1 e
ǫ2 ≥
⇐⇒ ǫ1 ǫ2 ≥
and, in this case, we have
~
κ~
4
4


 λ 
e e e) = cG (Q, P; ǫ) = n (log e) s √~
.
= cG
n (log e) s √
inc (Q, P; ǫ
inc
2 ǫ1 ǫ2
2 e
ǫ1 e
ǫ2

7 Conclusions

We have extended the relative entropy formulation of MURs given in [2] from the case of discrete incompatible observables to a particular instance of continuous target observables, namely the position and
momentum vectors, or two components of them along two possibly non parallel directions. The entropic
29

MURs we found share the nice property of being scale invariant and well-behaved in the classical and
macroscopic limits. Moreover, in the scalar case, when the angle spanned by the position and momentum
components goes to ±π/2, the entropic bound correctly reflects their increasing compatibility by approaching zero with continuity.
Although our results are limited to the case of Gaussian preparation states and covariant Gaussian
approximate joint measurements, we conjecture that the bounds we found still hold for arbitrary states and
general (not necessarily covariant or Gaussian) bi-observables. Let us see with some more detail how this
should work in the case when the target observables are the vectors Q and P .
The most general procedure should be to consider the error function S(Qρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pρ kM2,ρ ) for
an arbitrary POVM M on Rn × Rn and any state ρ ∈ S. First of all, we need states for which neither the
position nor the momentum dispersion are too small; the obvious generalization of the test states (81) is
Sǫ := {ρ ∈ S2 : Aρ ≥ ǫ1 1, B ρ ≥ ǫ2 1} ,

ǫi > 0.

Then, the most general definitions of the entropic divergence and incompatibility degree are:
Dǫ (Q, PkM) := sup [S(Qρ kM1,ρ ) + S(Pρ kM2,ρ )] ,

(94)

cinc (Q, P; ǫ) := inf Dǫ (Q, PkM).

(95)

ρ∈Sǫ
M

It may happen that Qρ is not absolutely continuous with respect to M1,ρ , or Pρ with respect to M2,ρ ; in this
case, the error function and the entropic divergence take the value +∞ by definition. So, we can restrict
to bi-observables that are (weakly) absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. However,
the true difficulty is that, even with this assumption, here we are not able to estimate (94), hence (95). It
could be that the symmetrization techniques used in [25, 65] can be extended to the present setting, and
one can reduce the evaluation of the entropic incompatibility index to optimizing over all covariant biobservables. Indeed, in the present paper we a priori selected only covariant approximating measurements;
we would like to understand if, among all approximating measurements, the relative entropy approach
selects covariant bi-observables by itself. However, even if M is covariant, there remains the problem that
we do not know how to evaluate (94) if ρ and M are not Gaussian. It is reasonable to expect that some
continuity and convexity arguments should apply, and the bounds in Theorem 21 could be extended to
the general case by taking dense convex combinations. Also the techniques used for the PURs in [12, 14]
could be of help in order to extend what we did with Gaussian states to arbitrary states. This leads us to
conjecture:
cinc (Q, P; ǫ) = cG
(96)
inc (Q, P; ǫ).
Conjecture (96) is also supported since the uniqueness of the optimal approximating bi-observable in Theorem 21.(i) is reminiscent of what happens in the discrete case of two Fourier conjugated mutually unbiased bases (MUBs); indeed, in the latter case, the optimal bi-observable is actually unique among all the
bi-observables, not only the covariant ones [2, Theor. 5]. Similar considerations obviously apply also to
the case of scalar target observables. We leave a more deep investigation of equality (96) to future work.
As a final consideration, one could be interested in finding error/disturbance bounds involving sequential measurements of position and momentum, rather than considering all their possible approximate joint
measurements. As sequential measurements are a proper subset of the set of all the bi-observables, optimizing only over them should lead to bounds that are greater than cinc . This is the reason for which in [2]
an error/disturbance entropic bound, denoted by ced and dinstinct from cinc , was introduced. However, it
was also proved that the equality cinc = ced holds when one of the target observables is discrete and sharp.
Now, in the present paper, only sharp target observables are involved; although the argument of [2] can not
be extended to the continuous setting, the optimal approximating joint observables we found in Theorems
17.(i) and 21.(i) actually are sequential measurements. Indeed, the optimal bi-observable in Theorem 17.(i)
is one of the POVMs described in Examples 2 and 3 (see (74)); all these bi-observables have a (trivial) sequential implementation in terms of an unsharp measurement of Qu followed by sharp Pv . On the other
hand, in the vector case, it was shown in [29, Corollary 1] that all covariant phase-space observables can be
obtained as a sequential measurement of an unsharp version of the position Q followed by the sharp measurement of the momentum P. Therefore, cinc = ced also for target position and momentum observables, in
both the scalar and vector case.
30

References
[1] Barchielli, A., Gregoratti, M.: Quantum Trajectories and Measurements in Continuous Time: The
Diffusive Case, Lect. Notes Phys. 782, Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg, 2009.
[2] Barchielli, A., Gregoratti, M., Toigo, A.: Measurement uncertainty relations for discrete observables:
Relative entropy formulation, (2016) arXiv:1608.01986.
[3] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Quantum stochastic calculus, operation valued stochastic processes and
continual measurements in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Phys. 26 (1985) 2222–2230.
[4] Barchielli, A., Holevo, A.S., Lupieri, G.: An analogue of Hunt’s representation theorem in quantum
probability, J. Theor. Probab. 6 (1993) 231–265.
[5] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: A quantum analogue of Hunt’s representation theorem for the generator
of convolution semigroups on Lie groups, Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 88 (1991) 167–194.
[6] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Instrumental processes, entropies, information in quantum continual measurements, Quantum Information and Computation 4 (2004) 437–449.
[7] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Instruments and channels in quantum information theory, Optics and
Spectroscopy 99 (2005) 425–432.
[8] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Quantum measurements and entropic bounds on information transmission,
Quantum Information and Computation 6 (2006) 16–45.
[9] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Instruments and mutual entropies in quantum information, Banach Center
Publ. 73 (2006) 65–80.
[10] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Entropic bounds and continual measurements. In Quantum Probability
and Infinite Dimensional Analysis, QP-PQ: Quantum Probability and White Noise Analysis Vol. 20;
Accardi L., Freudenberg W., Schürmann, M. (Eds.); World Scientific, Singapore, 2007; pp. 79–89.
[11] Barchielli, A., Lupieri, G.: Information gain in quantum continual measurements. In Quantum
Stochastic and Information; Belavkin, V.P., Guţǎ, M. (Eds.); World Scientific, Singapore, 2008; pp.
325–345.
[12] Beckner, W.: Inequalities in Fourier analysis, Ann. Math. 102 (1975) 159–182.
[13] Bhatia, R.: Matrix Analysis, Springer, New York, 1997.
[14] Białynicki-Birula, I., Mycielski, J.: Uncertainty relations for information entropy in wave machanics,
Commun. Math. Phys. 44 (1975) 129–132.
[15] Billingsley, P.: Probability and Measure, second edition, Wiley, New York, 1986.
[16] Braunstein, S.L., van Loock, P.: Quantum information with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77
(2005) 513–577.
[17] Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R.: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference - A Practical
Information-Theoretic Approach, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
[18] Buscemi, F., Das, S., Wilde, M.M.: Approximate reversibility in the context of entropy gain, information gain, and complete positivity, Phys Rev A 93 (2016) 062314.
[19] Buscemi, F., Hall, M.J.W., Ozawa, M., Wilde, M.M.: Noise and disturbance in quantum measurements: an information-theoretic approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 050401.
[20] Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P.: Operational Quantum Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1997.

31

[21] Busch, P., Heinonen, T., Lahti, P.: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Physics Reports 452 (2007)
155–176.
[22] Busch, P., Heinosaari, T., Schultz, J., Stevens, N.: Comparing the degrees of incompatibility inherent
in probabilistic physical theories, Europhys. Lett. 103 (2013) 10002.
[23] Busch, P., Lahti, P., Pellonpää, J.-P., Ylinen, K.: Quantum Measurement, Springer, Berlin, 2016.
[24] Busch, P., Lahti, P., Werner, R.: Proof of Heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111
(2013) 160405.
[25] Busch, P., Lahti, P., Werner, R.: Measurement uncertainty relations, J. Math. Phys. 55 (2014) 042111.
[26] Busch, P., Lahti, P., Werner, R.: Quantum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty relations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86 (2014) 1261–1281.
[27] Carlen, E.: Trace Inequalities and Quantum Entropy: An Introductory Course, Contemporary Mathematics, 2010
[28] Carmeli, C., Heinonen, T., Toigo, A.: Position and momentum observables on R and on R3 , J. Math.
Phys. 45 (2004) 2526–2539.
[29] Carmeli, C., Heinonen, T., Toigo, A.: Sequential measurements of conjugate observables, J. Phys. A:
Math. Theor. 44 (2011) 285304.
[30] Cassinelli, G., De Vito, E., Toigo, A.: Positive operator valued measures covariant with respect to an
irreducible representation, J. Math. Phys. 44 (2003) 4768–4775.
[31] Coles, P.J., Berta, M., Tomamichel, M., Whener, S.: Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (2017) 015002.
[32] Coles, P.J., Furrer, F.: State-dependent approach to entropic measurement-disturbance relations, Phys.
Lett. A 379 (2015) 105–112.
[33] Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A.: Elements of Information Theory, second edition, Wiley, Hoboken, New
Jersey, 2006.
[34] Davies, E.B.: Quantum Theory of Open Systems, Academic, London, 1976.
[35] Gibilisco, P., Isola, T.: On a refinement of Heisenberg uncertainty relation by means of quantum
Fisher information, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 375 (2011) 270–275.
[36] Heinosaari, T., Kiukas, J., Schultz, J.: Breaking Gaussian incompatibility on continuous variable
quantum systems, J. Math. Phys. 56 (2015) 082202.
[37] Heinosaari, T., Miyadera, T., Ziman, M.: An invitation to quantum incompatibility, J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 49 (2016) 123001.
[38] Heinosaari, T., Schultz, J., Toigo, A., Ziman, M.: Maximally incompatible quantum observables,
Phys. Lett. A 378 (2014) 1695–1699.
[39] Heinosaari, T., Ziman, M.: The mathematical language of quantum theory: From uncertainty to
entanglement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[40] Heisenberg, W.: Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,
Zeitschr. Phys. 43 (1927) 172–198.
[41] Hirschman, I.I.: A note on entropy, Amer. J. Math. 79 (1957) 152–156.
[42] Holevo, A.S.: Investigations in the General Theory of Statistical Decisions, Proceedings Of the
Steklov Institute of Mathematics 3 (1978)
32

[43] Holevo, A.S.: Infinitely divisible measurements in quantum probability theory, Theory Probab. Appl.
31 1986 493–497.
[44] Holevo, A.S.: Statistical Structure of Quantum Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics m 67; Springer,
Berlin, 2001.
[45] Holevo, A.S.: Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, Quaderni della Normale;
Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2011.
[46] Holevo, A.S.: Quantum Systems, Channels, Information, de Gruiter, Berlin, 2012.
[47] Horn, R.A., Zhang, F.: Basic Properties of the Schur Complement. In The Schur Complement and
Its Applications, Zhang, F. (Ed.), Numerical Methods and Algorithms, 4, Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp.
17–46.
[48] Kiukas, J., Lahti, P., Ylinen, K.: Normal covariant quantization maps, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 319 (2006)
783–801.
[49] Kiukas, J., Schultz, J.: Informationally complete sets of Gaussian measurements, J. Phys. A: Math
Theor. 46 (2013) 485303.
[50] Maassen, H., Uffink, J.B.M.: Generalized entropic uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988)
1103–1106.
[51] Maccone, L.: Entropic information-disturbance tradeoff, EPL 77 (2007) 40002.
[52] Ohya, M., Petz, D.: Quantum entropy and its use, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
[53] Ozawa, M.: Position measuring interactions and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Phys. Lett. A
299 (2002) 1–7.
[54] Ozawa, M.: Physical content of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation: limitation and reformulation, Phys.
Lett. A 318 (2003) 21–29.
[55] Ozawa, M.: Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and
disturbance in measurement, Phys. Rev. A 67 (2003) 042105.
[56] Ozawa, M.: Heisenberg’s original derivation of the uncertainty principle and its universally valid
reformulations, Current Sci. 109 (2015) 2006–2016.
[57] Petz, D.: Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Statistics, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
[58] Robertson, H.: The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34 (1929) 163–164.
[59] Simon, R., Mukunda, N., Dutta, B.: Quantum-noise matrix for multimode systems: U (n) invariance,
squeezing, and normal forms, Phys. Rev. A 49 (1994) 1567–1583.
[60] Simon, R., Sudarshan, E.C.G., Mukunda, N.: Gaussian-Wigner distributions in quantum mechanics
and optics, Phys. Rev. A 36 (1987) 3868–3880.
[61] Topsøe, F.: Basic concepts, identities and inequalities — the toolkit of Information Theory, Entropy
3 (2001) 162–190.
[62] Weedbrook, C., Pirandola, S., Garcı́a-Patrón, R., Cerf, N.J., Ralph, T.C., Shapiro, J.H., Lloyd, S.:
Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 621–669.
[63] Wehner, S., Winter, A.: Entropic uncertainty relations — a survey, New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 025009.
[64] Werner, R.F.: Quantum harmonic analysis on phase spaces, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1983) 1404–1411.
[65] Werner, R.F.: The uncertainty relation for joint measurement of position and momentum, Quantum
Information and Computation 4 (2004) 546–562.
[66] Werner, R.F.: Uncertainty relations for general phase spaces, Front. Phys. 11 (2016) 110305.

33

