On Variational Expressions for Quantum Relative Entropies
Mario Berta,1, 2 Omar Fawzi,3 and Marco Tomamichel4
1

Department of Computing, Imperial College London
Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, California Institute of Technology
3
Laboratoire de l’Informatique du Parallélisme, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon
4
Centre for Quantum Software and Information, University of Technology Sydney

arXiv:1512.02615v2 [quant-ph] 8 Nov 2017

2

Distance measures between quantum states like the trace distance and the ﬁdelity can
naturally be deﬁned by optimizing a classical distance measure over all measurement
statistics that can be obtained from the respective quantum states. In contrast, Petz showed
that the measured relative entropy, deﬁned as a maximization of the Kullback-Leibler
divergence over projective measurement statistics, is strictly smaller than Umegaki’s
quantum relative entropy whenever the states do not commute. We extend this result in
two ways. First, we show that Petz’ conclusion remains true if we allow general positive
operator valued measures. Second, we extend the result to Rényi relative entropies and
show that for non-commuting states the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is strictly larger
than the measured Rényi relative entropy for α ∈ ( 12 , ∞), and strictly smaller for α ∈ [0, 12 ).
The latter statement provides counterexamples for the data-processing inequality of the
sandwiched Rényi relative entropy for α < 21 . Our main tool is a new variational expression
for the measured Rényi relative entropy, which we further exploit to show that certain lower
bounds on quantum conditional mutual information are superadditive.
Keywords: Quantum entropy, measured relative entropy, relative entropy of recovery,
additivity in quantum information theory, operator Jensen inequality, convex optimization.
Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcations (2010): 94A17, 81Q99, 15A45.
I.

MEASURED RELATIVE ENTROPY

The relative entropy is the basic concept underlying various information measures like entropy,
conditional entropy and mutual information. A thorough understanding of its quantum generalization is thus of preeminent importance in quantum information theory. We start by considering
measured relative entropy, which is deﬁned as a maximization of the Kullback-Leibler divergence
over all measurement statistics that are attainable from two quantum states.
For a positive measure Q on a ﬁnite set X and a probability measure P on X that is absolutely continuous with respect to Q, denoted P ≪ Q, the relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler
divergence [26] is deﬁned as
X
P (x)
D(P kQ) :=
P (x) log
,
(1)
Q(x)
x∈X

P (x)
Q(x)

= 0 whenever P (x) = 0. By continuity we deﬁne it as +∞ if
where we understand P (x) log
P 6≪ Q. (We use log to denote the natural logarithm.)
To extend this concept to quantum systems, Donald [12] as well as Hiai and Petz [21] studied
measured relative entropy. In the following we restrict ourselves to a d-dimensional Hilbert space
for some d ∈ N. Let us denote the set of positive semideﬁnite operators acting on this space by
P and the subset of density operators (with unit trace) by S. For a density operator ρ ∈ S and
σ ∈ P, we deﬁne two variants of measured relative entropy. The general measured relative entropy
is deﬁned as

(2)
D M (ρkσ) := sup D Pρ,M Pσ,M ,
(X ,M )

2
where the optimization is over ﬁnite sets X and positive operator valued measures (POVMs)
M on X . (More formally, M is a map from X to positive semideﬁnite operators and satisﬁes
P
x∈X M (x) = 1, whereas Pρ,M is a measure on X deﬁned via the relation Pρ,M (x) = tr[M (x)ρ]
for any x ∈ X .) At ﬁrst sight this deﬁnition seems cumbersome because we cannot restrict the size
of X that we optimize over. Therefore, following the works [12, 21, 35], let us also consider the
following projectively measured relative entropy, which is deﬁned as
D P (ρkσ) := sup
{Pi }di=1

(

d
X
i=1

tr[Pi ρ]
tr[Pi ρ] log
tr[Pi σ]

)

,

(3)

where the maximization is over all sets of mutually orthogonal projectors {Pi }di=1 and we spelled
out the Kullback-Leibler divergence for discrete measures. Note that without loss of generality we
can assume that these projectors are rank-1 as any course graining of the measurement outcomes
can only reduce the relative entropy due to its data-processing inequality [29, 49]. Furthermore,
the quantity is ﬁnite and the supremum is achieved whenever ρ ≪ σ, which here denotes that the
support of ρ is contained in the support of σ. (To verify this, recall that the rank-1 projectors form
a compact set and the divergence is lower semi-continuous.)
The ﬁrst of the following two variational expressions for the (projectively) measured relative
entropy is due to Petz [37]. Note that the second objective function is concave in ω so that the
optimization problem has a particularly appealing form.
Lemma 1. For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P non-zero, the following identities hold:
D P (ρkσ) = sup tr[ρ log ω] − log tr[σω] = sup tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[σω] .
ω>0

(4)

ω>0

Moreover, the suprema are achieved when ρ and σ are positive definite operators, i.e. ρ > 0 and
σ > 0.
Proof. If ρ 6≪ σ then the two expressions in the suprema of (4) are unbounded, as expected. We
now assume that ρ ≪ σ. Let us consider the second expression in (4). We write the supremum
over ω > 0 as two suprema over {Pi }di=1 and {ωi }di=1 , where ωi > 0 are the eigenvalues of ω
corresponding to the eigenvectors given by rank-1 projectors Pi . Using the fact that tr[ρ] = 1, we
ﬁnd
sup tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[σω] = sup
ω>0

sup

d
X

{Pi }di=1 {ωi }di=1 i=1

tr[Pi ρ](log ωi + 1) − tr[Pi σ]ωi .

(5)

For i ∈ [d] such that tr[Pi σ] = 0, we also have tr[Pi ρ] = 0, and thus the corresponding term is
zero. When tr[Pi σ] > 0, let us ﬁrst consider tr[Pi ρ] = 0. In this case, the supremum of i-th term
is supωi >0 − tr[Pi σ]ωi = 0 achieved in the limit ωi → 0. Now in the case tr[Pi ρ] > 0 (which is the
only possible case when ρ > 0), observe that the expression is concave in ωi , the inner supremum
is achieved by the local maxima at ωi = tr[Pi ρ]/ tr[Pi σ]. Plugging this into (5), we ﬁnd
sup

d
X

{Pi }di=1 i=1

d
X
tr[Pi ρ]
tr[Pi ρ]
tr[Pi ρ] log
tr[Pi ρ] log
+ tr[Pi ρ] − tr[Pi ρ] = sup
.
tr[Pi σ]
tr[Pi σ]
{Pi }d
i=1

(6)

i=1

This is the expression for the measured relative entropy in (3). The remaining supremum is achieved
because the set of rank-1 projectors is compact and the divergence is lower semi-continuous.

3
It remains to show that the two variational expressions in (4) are equivalent. We have log(1 +
x) ≤ x for all x > −1 and, thus, − log tr[σω] ≥ 1 − tr[σω] for all ω > 0. This yields
sup tr[ρ log ω] − log tr[σω] ≥ sup tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[σω] .
ω>0

(7)

ω>0

Now note that the expression on the left hand side is invariant under the substitution ω → γω for
γ > 0. Hence, as tr[σω] > 0 for ω > 0 and non-zero σ, we can add the normalization constraint
tr[σω] = 1 and we have
sup tr[ρ log ω] − log tr[σω] =
ω>0

sup tr[ρ log ω] − log tr[σω]

(8)

ω>0
tr[σω]=1

≤ sup tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[σω] ,

(9)

ω>0

where we used that log tr[σω] = 1 − tr[σω] when tr[σω] = 1.
Using this variational expression, we are able to answer a question left open by Donald [12,
Sec. 3] as well as Hiai and Petz [21, Sec. 1], namely whether the two deﬁnitions of measured
relative entropy are equal.
Theorem 2. For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P, we have D P (ρkσ) = D M (ρkσ).

Proof. The direction ‘≤’ holds trivially. Moreover, if ρ 6≪ σ, we can choose P1 to be a rank-1
projector such that tr[P1 ρ] > 0 and tr[P1 σ] = 0 and thus D P (ρkσ) = D M (ρkσ) = +∞.
It remains to show the direction ‘≥’ when ρ ≪ σ holds. Let (X , M ) be a POVM. Recall that the
distribution Pρ,M is deﬁned by Pρ,M (x) = tr[M (x)ρ]. Introducing X̄ = {x ∈ X : Pρ,M (x)Pσ,M (x) >
0}, we can write
X
Pρ,M (x)
(10)
D(Pρ,M kPσ,M ) =
Pρ,M (x) log
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄


X
Pρ,M (x) 
(11)
M (x) log
= trρ
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄




Xp
p
Pρ,M (x)
(12)
M (x) log
M (x) .
·1
= trρ
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄

P

(x)

ρ,M
Now observe that for any x ∈ X̄ , the spectrum of the operator Pσ,M
(x) · 1 is included in (0, ∞).
As a result, we can apply the operator Jensen inequality for the function log, which is operator
concave on (0, ∞) and get



X
Pρ,M (x) 
M (x)
D(Pρ,M kPσ,M ) ≤ trρ log 
.
(13)
Pσ,M (x)

x∈X̄

Now we simply choose
X
Pρ,M (x)
ω=
M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄

so that

tr[σω] =

X

x∈X̄

Pσ,M (x)

X
Pρ,M (x)
=
Pρ,M (x) = 1 ,
Pσ,M (x)

(14)

x∈X

and which allows to further bound (13) by tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[σω]. Comparing this with the
variational expression for the measured relative entropy in Lemma 1 yields the desired inequality.
Hence, the measured relative entropy, D M (ρkσ), achieves its maximum for projective rank-1
measurements and can be evaluated using the concave optimization problem in Lemma 1.

4
II.

MEASURED RÉNYI RELATIVE ENTROPY

Here we extend the results of the previous section to Rényi divergence. Using the same notation
as in the previous section, for α ∈ (1, ∞) we deﬁne the Rényi divergence [40] as


X
 P (x) α−1
1
Dα (P kQ) :=
log
P x
(15)
α−1
Q(x)
x∈X

if P ≪ Q and as +∞ if P 6≪ Q. For α ∈ (0, 1) we rewrite the sum as
X
P (x)α Q(x)1−α .

(16)

x∈X

Hence we see that absolute continuity P ≪ Q is not necessary to keep Dα ﬁnite for α < 1. However,
the Rényi divergence instead diverges to +∞ when P and Q are orthogonal.1 It is well known that
the Rényi divergence converges to the Kullback-Leibler divergence when α → 1 and we thus set
P (x)
.
D ≡ D1 . Moreover, in the limit α → ∞ we ﬁnd the max-divergence D∞ (P kQ) = supx∈X log Q(x)
Let us now deﬁne the measured Rényi relative entropy as before, namely

(17)
DαM (ρkσ) := sup Dα Pρ,M Pσ,M .
(X ,M )

We will later show that this is equivalent to the following projectively measured Rényi relative
entropy, which we deﬁne here for α ∈ (1, ∞) as
)
(
X
1
(18)
tr[Pi ρ]α tr[Pi σ]1−α ,
DαP (ρkσ) :=
log QPα (ρkσ) , with QPα (ρkσ) := sup
α−1
d
{Pi }
i=1

i

and analogously for α ∈ (0, 1) with
QPα (ρkσ) := min

{Pi }di=1

(

X

tr[Pi ρ]α tr[Pi σ]1−α

i

)

.

(19)

Note that the supremum in (18) is achieved and DαP (ρkσ) is ﬁnite whenever ρ ≪ σ. Similarly, the
minimum in (19) is non-zero and DαP (ρkσ) is ﬁnite whenever ρ 6⊥ σ, i.e. when the two states are
not orthogonal.
Next we give variational expressions for QPα (ρkσ) similar to the variational characterization of
the measured relative entropy in Lemma 1.
Lemma 3. For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P, the following identities hold:

h
i
 
α

α−1
inf
α
tr
ρω
+
(1
−
α)
tr
σω
for α ∈ (0, 12 )



i
h
ω>0
1
inf α tr ρω 1− α + (1 − α) tr[σω] for α ∈ [ 12 , 1)
QPα (ρkσ) = ω>0

i
h


sup α tr ρω 1− α1 + (1 − α) tr[σω] for α ∈ (1, ∞)

ω>0

h
i1−α
α

 inf tr [ρω]α tr σω α−1
for α ∈ (0, 1)
= ω>0 h 1− 1 iα
.

sup tr ρω α tr[σω]1−α for α ∈ (1, ∞)
ω>0

The infima and suprema are achieved when ρ > 0 and σ > 0.
1

P and Q are orthogonal, denoted P ⊥ Q, if there exists an A ⊆ X such that P (A) = 1 and Q(A) = 0.

(20)

(21)

5
The expressions (21) can be seen as a generalization of Alberti’s theorem [1] for the ﬁdelity
(which corresponds to α = 1/2) to general α ∈ (0, 1) ∪ (1, ∞).
Proof. We ﬁrst show the identity (20). Let us discuss the case α ∈ (0, 1) in detail. Note that the
α
two expressions given for α ∈ (0, 12 ) and α ∈ [ 21 , 1) are equivalent by the transformation ω 7→ ω α−1
(the reason for the diﬀerent ways of writing is to see that the expressions are convex in ω, which
will be useful later, in particular in Theorem 4). We ﬁrst write
i
h
1
inf α tr ρω 1− α + (1 − α) tr[σω] =

ω>0

inf

inf α

{Pi }di=1 {ωi }di=1

X

1
1− α

ωi

i

tr[Pi ρ] + (1 − α)

X

ωi tr[Pi σ] . (22)

i

Let i ∈ [d] be such that tr[Pi ρ] and tr[Pi σ] are both strictly positive (which is the case when ρ > 0
and σ > 0). Then a local (and thus global) minimum for ωi is easily found at the point where



1  − α1
tr[Pi ρ] α
ω
α 1−
.
(23)
tr[Pi ρ] + (1 − α) tr[Pi σ] = 0
=⇒
ωi =
α i
tr[Pi σ]
If both tr[Pi ρ] = tr[Pi σ] = 0 we can chose ωi arbitrarily. If only tr[Pi ρ] = 0 the inﬁmum is achieved
in the limit ωi → 0, and if only tr[Pi σ] = 0 in the limit ωi → ∞. In all these cases the inﬁmum of
the i-th term is zero. Furthermore, it is achieved for a ﬁnite, non-zero ωi when ρ > 0 and σ > 0.
Plugging this solution into the above expression yields
X
tr[Pi ρ]α tr[Pi σ]1−α .
(24)
inf
{Pi }di=1

i∈[d]

This inﬁmum is always achieved since the set we optimize over is compact. Comparing this with
the deﬁnition of QPα (ρkσ) yields the ﬁrst equality.
For the case α ∈ (1, ∞), when ρ ≪ σ, the proof is analogous to the previous argument.
Otherwise, it is simple to see that the supremum is +∞.
Now we show (21). Using (20) and the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality we have
h
i
1 α
QPα (ρkσ) ≥ inf tr ρω 1− α tr [σω]1−α for α ∈ (0, 1) .
(25)
ω>0

However, for any feasible ω > 0 in (20) and λ > 0, λω > 0 is also feasible and choosing λ =

1 α
tr ρω 1− α tr[σω]−α shows that (20) cannot exceed (25). Similarly, by Bernoulli’s inequality,
h
i
1 α
QPα (ρkσ) ≤ sup tr ρω 1− α tr [σω]1−α
ω>0

for α ∈ (1, ∞) .

(26)

And the same argument as above yields the equality.
As for the measured relative entropy, the restriction to rank-1 projective measurements is in
fact not restrictive at all.
Theorem 4. For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P, we have DαP (ρkσ) = DαM (ρkσ).
Proof. For α > 1 we follow the steps of the proof of Theorem 2. Consider any ﬁnite set X and
POVM M with induced measures Pρ,M and Pσ,M . We can write
Dα (Pρ,M kPσ,M ) =

X
1
log
Pρ,M (x)α Pσ,M (x)1−α ,
1−α
x∈X̄

(27)

6
where we can restrict the sum over X̄ = {x ∈ X : Pρ,M (x)Pσ,M (x) > 0}. We then ﬁnd that the
sum satisﬁes
 
 1

α−1
α 1− α

X
X
Pρ,M (x) 
Pρ,M (x)


(28)
M (x)
≤ trρ 
Pρ,M (x)
,
Pσ,M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄

x∈X̄

where the inequality again follows by the operator Jensen inequality and the operator concavity of
1
the function t 7→ t1− α on [0, ∞). Now we set




X
X
Pρ,M (x) α
Pρ,M (x) α−1
ω=
M (x)
so that tr[σω] =
Pρ,M (x)
.
(29)
Pσ,M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X

x∈X̄

Thus, we can bound
X

Pρ,M (x)

x∈X



Pρ,M (x)
Pσ,M (x)

α−1


1
≤ α tr ρω 1− α + (1 − α) tr[σω] .

(30)

Comparing this with the variational expression in Lemma 3 yields the desired inequality.
For α < 1, we use the same notation as in (27). We further distinguish the cases α ∈ (0, 12 ) and
α ∈ [ 21 , 1). For α ∈ (0, 12 ), we deﬁne


X
Pρ,M (x) α−1
.
(31)
ω=
M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄

We can then evaluate
 
 α 
α−1


h
i
α
Pρ,M (x) α−1 
 X

α−1
tr σω
M (x)
= trσ

Pσ,M (x)

(32)

x∈X̄



≤ trσ

X

x∈X̄

M (x)



Pρ,M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
α
α−1

α



=

X

Pρ,M (x)α Pσ,M (x)1−α .

(33)

x∈X̄

where we used the operator convexity of t 7→ t
on (0, ∞) and the operator Jensen inequality.
Moreover,
X
tr[ρω] =
Pρ,M (x)α Pσ,M (x)1−α .
(34)
x∈X̄

As a result
X

x∈X̄

α

Pρ,M (x)α Pσ,M (x)1−α ≥ α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr[σω α−1 ] .

(35)

Comparing this with the variational expression
3 yields the desired inequality.
 in Lemma

P
Pρ,M (x) α
1
For α ∈ [ 2 , 1) we choose ω = x∈X̄ M (x) Pσ,M (x) , so that


h
i X
1
Pρ,M (x) α−1
tr ρω 1− α ≤
Pρ,M (x)
Pσ,M (x)
x∈X̄
X
tr [σω] =
Pρ,M (x)α Pσ,M (x)1−α ,
x∈X̄

and once again conclude using the variational expression in Lemma 3.

(36)
(37)

7
III.

ACHIEVABILITY OF RELATIVE ENTROPY
A.

Umegaki’s Relative Entropy

Here we compare the measured relative entropy to other notions of quantum relative entropy
that have been investigated in the literature and have found operational signiﬁcance in quantum
information theory. Umegaki’s quantum relative entropy [50] has found operational signiﬁcance as
the threshold rate for asymmetric binary quantum hypothesis testing [21]. For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P,
it is deﬁned as


D(ρkσ) := tr ρ(log ρ − log σ) if σ ≫ ρ and as +∞ if σ 6≫ ρ.
(38)
We recall the following variational expression by Petz [36] (see also [25] for another variational
expression):
D(ρkσ) = sup tr[ρ log ω] − log tr[exp(log σ + log ω)]

(39)

ω>0

= sup tr[ρ log ω] + 1 − tr[exp(log σ + log ω)] .

(40)

ω>0

By the data-processing inequality for the relative entropy [29, 49] and Theorem 2 we always have
D P (ρkσ) = D M (ρkσ) ≤ D(ρkσ) ,

(41)

and moreover Petz [35] showed the inequality D P (ρkσ) ≤ D(ρkσ) is strict if ρ and σ do not commute
(for ρ > 0 and σ > 0). Theorem 2 strengthens this to show that the strict inequality persists even
when we take a supremum over POVMs. In the following we give an alternative proof of Petz’
result and then extend the argument to Rényi relative entropy in Section III B.
Proposition 5. Let ρ ∈ S with ρ > 0 and σ ∈ P with σ > 0. Then, we have
D M (ρkσ) ≤ D(ρkσ)

with equality if and only if

[ρ, σ] = 0 .

(42)

Our proof relies on the Golden–Thompson inequality [19, 46]. It states that for two Hermitian
matrices X and Y , it holds that
tr[exp(X + Y )] ≤ tr[exp(X) exp(Y )]

(43)

with equality if an only if [X, Y ] = 0 as shown in [43].
Proof. First, it is evident that equality holds if [ρ, σ] = 0 since then there exists a projective
measurement that commutes with ρ and σ and thus does not eﬀect the states. For the following,
it is worth writing the variational expressions for the two quantities side by side. Namely, writing
H = log ω, we have
D(ρkσ) = 1 + sup tr[ρH] − tr[exp(log σ + H)]

(44)

H

D M (ρkσ) = 1 + max tr[ρH] − tr[σ exp(H)] ,
H

(45)

where we optimize over all Hermitian operators H. Note that, according to Lemma 1, we can write
a max for (45) because we are assuming ρ > 0 and σ > 0. The inequality in (42) can now be seen
as a direct consequence of the Golden–Thompson inequality.

8
It remains to show that D M (ρkσ) = D(ρkσ) implies [ρ, σ] = 0. Let H ∗ be any maximizer of the
variational problem in (45). Observe now that the equality D M (ρkσ) = D(ρkσ) necessitates
tr[exp(log σ + H ∗ )] = tr[σ exp(H ∗ )] ,

(46)

which holds only if and only if [σ, H ∗ ] = 0 by the equality condition in (43). Now deﬁne the
function
f (H) = tr[ρH] − tr[σ exp(H)] ,

(47)

and since H ∗ maximizes f (H), we must have for all Hermitian ∆,
0 = Df (H ∗ )[∆] = tr[ρ∆] − tr[σ exp(H ∗ )∆] .

(48)

To evaluate the second summand of this Fréchet derivative we used that σ and H ∗ commute. Since
this holds for all ∆ we must in fact have ρ = σ exp(H ∗ ), which means that [ρ, σ] = 0, as desired.
In some sense this result tells us that some quantum correlations, as measured by the relative
entropy, do not survive the measurement process. This fact appears in quantum information theory in various diﬀerent guises, for example in the form of locking classical correlations in quantum
states [11]. (We also point to [38] for the use of measured relative entropy measures in quantum
information theory.) Moreover, since Umegaki’s relative entropy is the smallest quantum generalization of the Kullback-Leibler divergence that is both additive and satisﬁes data-processing (see,
e.g., [47, Sec. 4.2.2]), the same conclusion can be drawn for any sensible quantum relative entropy.
(An example being the quantum relative entropy introduced by Belavkin and Staszewski [4].)
B.

Sandwiched Rényi Relative Entropy

Next we consider a family of quantum Rényi relative entropies [33, 55] that are commonly called
sandwiched Rényi relative entropies and have found operational signiﬁcance since they determine
the strong converse exponent in asymmetric binary quantum hypothesis testing [31]. They are of
particular interest here because they are, for α ≥ 21 , the smallest quantum generalization of the
Rényi divergence that is both additive and satisﬁes data-processing [47, Sec. 4.2.2]. (Examples
for other sensible quantum generalizations are the quantum Rényi relative entropy ﬁrst studied by
Petz [34] and the quantum divergences introduced by Matsumoto [30].)
For ρ ∈ S and σ ∈ P, the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy of order α ∈ (0, 1) ∪ (1, ∞) is
deﬁned as
h 1−α 1−α α i
1
Dα (ρkσ) :=
log Qα (ρkσ) with Qα (ρkσ) := tr σ 2α ρσ 2α
,
(49)
α−1
where the same considerations about ﬁniteness as for the measured Rényi relative entropy apply.
We also consider the limits α → ∞ and α → 1 of the above expression for which we have [33],
D∞ (ρkσ) = inf {λ ∈ R|ρ ≤ exp(λ)σ}

and

D1 (ρkσ) = D(ρkσ) ,

respectively. We recall the following variational expression by Frank and Lieb [17]:

h 1 α−1 1  α i
α−1

 inf α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr ω 2 σ α ω 2
for α ∈ (0, 1)
ω>0
h 1 α−1 1  α i
Qα (ρkσ) =

sup α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr ω 2 σ α ω 2 α−1
for α ∈ (1, ∞) .
ω>0

(50)

(51)

9
Alternatively, we can also write

h 1 α−1 1  α i1−α
α−1

 inf tr[ρω]α tr ω 2 σ α ω 2
ω>0
h 1 α−1 1  α i1−α
Qα (ρkσ) =

sup tr[ρω]α tr ω 2 σ α ω 2 α−1
ω>0

for α ∈ (0, 1)

(52)

for α ∈ (1, ∞) ,

where we have used the same arguments as in the proof of the second part of Lemma 3. By the
data-processing inequality for the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy [3, 17, 33] we always have

1
.
(53)
2
In the following we give an alternative proof of this fact and show that


1
M
[ρ, σ] 6= 0
=⇒
Dα (ρkσ) < Dα (ρkσ) for α ∈
,∞ .
(54)
2

In contrast, at the boundaries α ∈ 21 , ∞ it is known that Dα (ρkσ) = DαM (ρkσ) [18, 24, 31]. (We
refer to [31, App. A] for a detailed discussion.)

Theorem 6. Let ρ ∈ S with ρ > 0 and σ ∈ P with σ > 0. For α ∈ 21 , ∞ , we have
DαM (ρkσ) ≤ Dα (ρkσ)

DαM (ρkσ) ≤ Dα (ρkσ)

for α ≥

with equality if and only if

[ρ, σ] = 0 .

(55)

The argument is similar to the proof of Proposition 5 but with the Golden–Thompson inequality
replaced by the Araki–Lieb–Thirring inequality [2, 28]. It states that for X, Y ≥ 0 we have
tr [Y XY ]r ≤ tr [Y r X r Y r ] for r ≥ 1
r

r

r

r

tr [Y XY ] ≥ tr [Y X Y ] for r ∈ [0, 1] ,

(56)
(57)

with equality if and only if [X, Y ] = 0 except for r = 1 as shown in [20].

Proof. We give the proof for α ∈ 21 , 1 and note that the argument for α ∈ (1, ∞) is analogous.
We have the following variational expressions from Lemma 3 and (51):
h 1 1−α
 α i
1
1−α
Qα (ρkσ) = inf α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr ω − 2 σ α ω − 2
(58)
ω>0
i
h
α
(59)
QPα (ρkσ) = min α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr σω α−1 ,
ω>0

where the existence of the minima relies on the fact that both operators have full support. (Note
α
≥ 1, the inequality
also that these two expressions are in fact equivalent for α = 21 .) Since 1−α
then follows immediately by the Araki–Lieb–Thirring inequality (56):
QPα (ρkσ) ≥ Qα (ρkσ)

=⇒

DαM (ρkσ) ≤ Dα (ρkσ) .

(60)

Furthermore, if [ρ, σ] = 0 we have equality. To show that QPα (ρkσ) = Qα (ρkσ) implies [ρ, σ] = 0,
we deﬁne the function
i
h
α
(61)
fα (ω) = α tr[ρω] + (1 − α) tr σω α−1 .
For ωα∗ any minimizer of the variational problem in (59), we have
i
h
1
0 = Dfα(ωα∗ )[∆] = α tr[ρ∆] − α tr σ (ωα∗ ) α−1 ∆ ,

(62)

for all Hermitian ∆. To evaluate the second summand of this Fréchet derivative we used that σ and
ωα∗ commute, which holds by the equality condition for Araki–Lieb–Thirring. We thus conclude
1
that ρ = σ (ωα∗ ) α−1 which implies that [ρ, σ] = 0.

10
IV.

VIOLATION OF DATA-PROCESSING FOR α <

1
2

As a further application of the variational characterization of measured Rényi relative entropy,
we can show that the data-processing for the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy Dα fails for α < 12 .
(Numerical evidence pointed to the fact that data-processing does not hold in this regime [32].)

Theorem 7. Let ρ ∈ S with ρ > 0 and σ ∈ P with σ > 0, and [ρ, σ] 6= 0. For α ∈ 0, 12 , we have
DαP (ρkσ) > Dα (ρkσ).
In particular, there exists a rank-1 measurement that achieves DαP (ρkσ) and thus violates the
data-processing inequality.
Proof. First note that [ρ, σ] 6= 0 implies that the two states are not orthogonal and thus both
quantities are ﬁnite. For α ∈ (0, 21 ) the formulas (58) and (59) still hold. However, in contrast
α
to the proof of Theorem 6 we have 1−α
∈ [0, 1]. Hence, we ﬁnd by the Araki–Lieb–Thirring
inequality (57) that
QPα (ρkσ) ≤ Qα (ρkσ)

=⇒

DαP (ρkσ) ≥ Dα (ρkσ) .

(63)

As in the proof of Theorem 6 we have equality if and only if [ρ, σ] = 0. This implies the claim.
V.
A.

EXPLOITING VARIATIONAL FORMULAS

Some Optimization Problems in Quantum Information

The variational characterizations of the relative entropy (39)–(40), the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy (51)–(52), and their measured counterparts (Lemma 1 and Lemma 3), can be used
to derive properties of various entropic quantities that appear in quantum information theory. We
are interested in operational quantities of the form
M(ρ) := min D(ρkσ) ,
σ∈C

(64)

where D(·k·) stands for any relative entropy, measured relative entropy, or Rényi variant thereof,
and C denotes some convex, compact set of states. For Umegaki’s relative entropy D ≡ D, prominent examples for C include the set of
• separable states, giving rise to the relative entropy of entanglement [53].
• positive partial transpose states, leading to the Rains bound on entanglement distillation [39].
• non-distillable states, leading to bounds on entanglement distillation [52].
• quantum Markov states, leading to insights about the robustness properties of these
states [22].
• locally recoverable states, leading to bounds on the quantum conditional mutual information [8, 16, 41].
• k-extendible states, leading to bounds on squashed entanglement [27].
Other examples are conditional Rényi entropies which are deﬁned by optimizing the sandwiched
Rényi relative entropy over a convex set of product states with a ﬁxed marginal, see, e.g., [48].

11
A central question is what properties of the underlying relative entropy D translate to properties
of the induced measure M(·). For example, all the relative entropies discussed in this paper are
superadditive on tensor product states in the sense that
D(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 kσ1 ⊗ σ2 ) ≥ D(ρ1 kσ1 ) + D(ρ2 kσ2 ) .

(65)

We might then ask if we also have
?

min D(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 kσ12 ) = M(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 ) ≥ M(ρ1 ) + M(ρ2 ) = min D(ρ1 kσ1 ) + min D(ρ2 kσ2 ) . (66)

σ12 ∈C12

σ1 ∈C1

σ2 ∈C2

To study questions like this we propose to make use of the variational characterizations of the form
D(ρkσ) = sup f (ρ, σ, ω)
ω>0

in order to write M(ρ) = min sup f (ρ, σ, ω) = sup min f (ρ, σ, ω) , (67)
σ∈C ω>0

ω>0 σ∈C

where we made use of Sion’s minimax theorem [42] for the last equality. We note that the conditions
of the minimax theorem are often fulﬁlled. The minimization over σ ∈ C then typically simpliﬁes
and is a convex or even semideﬁnite optimization. (As an example, for the measured relative
entropies the objective function becomes linear in σ.) We can then use strong duality of convex
optimization to rewrite this minimization as a maximization problem [7]:
min f (ρ, σ, ω) = max f¯(ρ, σ̄, ω) .

(68)

M(ρ) = sup max f¯(ρ, σ̄, ω) ,

(69)

σ∈C

σ̄∈C̄

This leads to the expression
ω>0 σ̄∈C¯

which, in contrast to the deﬁnition of M(ρ) in (64), only involves maximizations. This often gives
useful insights about M(ρ). As an example, let us come back to the question of superadditivity
raised in (66). We want to argue that the following two conditions on f¯ and C¯ imply superadditivity.
First, we need that the function f¯ is superadditive itself, i.e. we require that
f¯(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 , σ̄1 ⊗ σ̄2 , ω1 ⊗ ω2 ) ≥ f¯(ρ1 , σ̄1 , ω1 ) + f¯(ρ2 , σ̄2 , ω2 ) .

(70)

And second, we require that the sets C¯ are closed under tensor products in the sense that σ̄1 ∈ C¯1
and σ̄2 ∈ C¯2 imply that σ̄1 ⊗ σ̄2 ∈ C¯12 . Using these two properties, we deduce that
M(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 ) ≥ f¯(ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 , σ̄1 ⊗ σ̄2 , ω1 ⊗ ω2 ) ≥ f¯(ρ1 , σ̄1 , ω1 ) + f¯(ρ2 , σ̄2 , ω2 )

(71)

for any ω1 , ω2 > 0 and any σ̄1 ∈ C¯1 , σ̄2 ∈ C¯2 . Hence, the inequalities also hold true if we maximize
over these variables, implying superadditivity.
B.

Relative Entropy of Recovery

In the following we denote multipartite quantum systems using capital letters, e.g., A, B, C.
The set of density operators on A and B is then denoted S(AB), for example. We also use these
letters as subscripts to indicate which systems operators act on.
As a concrete application, we study the additivity properties of the relative entropy of recovery
deﬁned as [8, 10, 41]
D rec (ρAD kσAE ) := inf D(ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE )) ,
ΓE→D

(72)

12
where the inﬁmum is taken over all trace-preserving completely positive maps ΓE→D . (We restrict
to σA > 0 such that the quantity is surely ﬁnite and the inﬁmum becomes a minimum.) One
motivation for studying the additivity properties of the relative entropy of recovery is the study
of lower bounds on the quantum conditional mutual information and strengthenings of the dataprocessing inequality for the relative entropy [6, 8, 16, 23, 27, 41, 44, 45, 54]. In particular, [8,
Prop. 3] shows that

1 rec ⊗n
,
D
ρABC kρ⊗n
AB
n→∞ n

I(A : C|B) ≥ lim

(73)

where the systems are understood as D = BC and E = B. To obtain a lower bound that does not
involve limits, the authors of [8] use a Finetti-type theorem to show that
lim

n→∞

1 rec ⊗n
M,rec
(ρABC kρAB ) .
D (ρABC kρ⊗n
AB ) ≥ D
n

(74)

with the measured relative entropy of recovery deﬁned as [8] (see also [41, Rmk. 6]),
D M,rec(ρAD kσAE ) := inf D M (ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE )) .
ΓE→D

(75)

(We restrict to σA > 0 such that the quantity is surely ﬁnite and the inﬁmum becomes a minimum.)
This gives an interpretation for the conditional mutual information in terms of recoverability.
The measured relative entropy is superadditive and if this property would translate to D M,rec we
would get an alternative proof for the step (74). Using the variational expression for the measured
relative entropy (Lemma 1) together with strong duality for semideﬁnite programming, we ﬁnd the
following alternative characterization for D M,rec .
Lemma 8. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD) and σAE ∈ S(AE) with σA > 0, and let σAEF be a purification of
σAE . Then, we have
D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) = maximize

tr[ρAD log RAD ]

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0
1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F

(76)

tr[SAF σAF ] = 1 .

Proof. We write
h


i
√
√
ΓE→D (σAE ) = trF ΓE→D (σAEF ) = trF ΓE→D σAF ΨAF :E σAF ,

(77)

where we denote by ΨAF :E the (unnormalized) maximally entangled state between AF : E in the
basis of the Schmidt decomposition of σAEF with respect to AF : E. With this we deﬁne the
Choi-Jamiolkowski state (unnormalized) of the map ΓE→D as

(78)
τADF = ΓE→D ΨAF :E , τAF = ΠσAF ,
where ΠσAF denotes the projector onto the support of σAF . Hence, we can write

√
√
σAF τADF σAF ,
ΓE→D (σAE ) = trF

(79)

and thus we can express the optimization problem for ΓE→D in terms of the Choi-Jamiolkowski
state in (78). Together with the variational characterization of the measured relative entropy
(Lemma 1) we ﬁnd
√
√
D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) =
min
sup tr[ρAD log RAD ] + 1 − tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ] , (80)
τADF ∈Rec(σAE ) RAD >0

13
where Rec(σAE ) := {τADF ≥ 0, τAF = ΠσAF }. We now apply Sion’s minimax theorem [42] to
exchange the minimum with the supremum. The theorem is applicable as Rec(σAE ) is convex and
compact and {ωAD > 0} is convex. Moreover, as the logarithm is operator concave, the function
√
√
(81)
RAD 7→ tr[ρAD log RAD ] + 1 − tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ]
is concave for any ﬁxed τADF . Finally, for any ﬁxed RAD , the function being optimized is linear
on τADF . As a result,
√
√
D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) = sup tr[ρAD log RAD ] + 1 −
max
tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ] . (82)
τADF ∈Rec(σAE )

RAD >0

Now for a ﬁxed RAD > 0, the inner maximization is a semideﬁnite program for which we can write
the following programs:


√
√
minimize:
tr[SAF σAF ]
maximize:
tr τADF σAF RAD σAF
subject to:
τADF ≥ 0
subject to:
1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F .
(83)
σ
τAF = ΠAF
As the primal problem is strictly feasible, Slater’s condition (see, e.g., [7]) is satisﬁed and we have
strong duality. This leads to the expression:
D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) = maximize

tr[ρAD log RAD ] + 1 − tr[SAF σAF ]

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0

(84)

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F .
Observe now that we can restrict the optimization to tr[SAF σAF ] = 1. In fact, for arbitrary feasible
RAD and SAF , we can deﬁne
R̃AD =

RAD
tr[SAF σAF ]

and S̃AF =

SAF
.
tr[SAF σAF ]

(85)

The constraint 1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F is still satisﬁed and the value of the objective function can
only increase,
tr[ρAD log R̃AD ] = tr[ρAD log RAD ] − tr[ρAD ] log tr[SAF σAF ]
≥ tr[ρAD log RAD ] − tr[SAF σAF ] + 1 ,

(86)
(87)

where we used the inequality log x ≤ x − 1 and that tr[ρAD ] = 1. This concludes the proof.
This readily implies that D M,rec is indeed superadditive.
Proposition 9. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD), τA′ D′ ∈ S(A′ D ′ ), σAE ∈ S(AE), and ωA′ E ′ ∈ S(A′ E ′ ) with
σA , ωA′ > 0. Then, we have
D M,rec(ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ kσAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ ) ≥ D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) + D M,rec (τA′ D′ kωA′ E ′ ) .

(88)

Proof. Given feasible operators RAD , SAF for the quantity D M,rec (ρAD kσAE ) and feasible operators
RA′ D′ , SA′ F ′ for the quantity D M,rec(τA′ D′ kωA′ E ′ ), we have
1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F ∧ 1D′ ⊗ SA′ F ′ ≥ RA′ D′ ⊗ 1F ′
=⇒

1DD′ ⊗ SAF ⊗ SA′ F ′ ≥ RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ ⊗ 1F F ′ .

(89)

14
Here we used that A ≥ B =⇒ M ⊗ A ≥ M ⊗ B for M ≥0, which holds since taking the
 tensor
product with M is a positive map. Moreover, we have tr (SAF ⊗ SA′ F ′ )(σAF ⊗ σA′ F ′ ) = 1. In
other words, (RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ , SAF ⊗ SA′ F ′ ) is a feasible pair in the expression (76) for D M,rec (ρAD ⊗
τA′ D′ kσAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ ) and we get
D M,rec (ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ kσAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ ) ≥ tr [(ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) log (RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ )]

= tr [ρAD log RAD ] + tr [τA′ D′ log RA′ D′ ] .

(90)
(91)

Taking the supremum over feasible (RAD , SAF ) and (RA′ D′ , SA′ F ′ ), we get the claimed superadditivity.
Now, if the relative entropy of recovery would be superadditive we could strengthen (74) to
?
1 rec ⊗n
) ≥ D rec (ρABC kρAB ) .
(92)
D (ρABC kρ⊗n
AB
n→∞ n
This together with (73) would lead to a stronger lower bound on the conditional mutual information.
Using strong duality for convex programming we can write D rec in a dual form similar to Lemma 8.

lim

Lemma 10. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD) and σAE ∈ S(AE) with σA > 0, and let σAEF be a purification of
σAE . Then, we have
D rec (ρAD kσAE ) = maximize

tr[ρAD log ρAD ] − D M (ρAD kRAD )

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F

(93)

tr[SAF σAF ] = 1 ,

where RAD is not normalized and the measured relative entropy term is in general negative.
We provide a proof in Appendix A. This is to be compared to our expression for the measured
relative entropy of recovery from Lemma 8, which can be written as
D M,rec(ρAD kσAE ) = maximize

tr[ρAD log ρAD ] − D(ρAD kRAD )

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F

(94)

tr[SAF σAF ] = 1 ,

where RAD is not normalized and the relative entropy term is in general negative. Unfortunately, we
can not solve the open additivity question for the relative entropy of recovery using the variational
expression from Lemma 10. However, we note that the argument ﬂipped relative entropy of recovery
D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) := inf D((IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE )kρAD )
ΓE→D

(95)

becomes additive (restricted to ρA > 0 to assure ﬁniteness and making the inﬁmum a minimum).
Proposition 11. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD) and σAE ∈ S(AE) with ρA > 0, and let σAEF be a purification
of σAE . Then, we have
D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) = maximize

− tr[SAF σAF ]

subject to RAD > 0

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ (log ρAD − log RAD ) ⊗ 1F

(96)

tr[RAD ] = 1 .

Moreover, for τA′ D′ ∈ S(A′ D ′ ) with τA′ > 0 and ωA′ E ′ ∈ S(A′ E ′ ), we have

D̄ rec (σAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ kρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) = D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) + D̄ rec (ωA′ E ′ kτA′ D′ ) .

We provide a proof based on strong duality for convex programming in Appendix A.

(97)

15
C.

Rényi Relative Entropy of Recovery

As a generalization of the measured relative entropy of recovery (75) we deﬁne the measured
Rényi relative entropy of recovery for α ∈ (1, ∞) as (see also [41, Rmk. 6]),
1
log QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE ) ,
α
α−1
QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE ) := inf QM
α
α (ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE )) ,

DαM,rec(ρAD kσAE ) :=
with

(98)
(99)

ΓE→D

and analogously for α ∈ (0, 1) with
QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE ) := sup QM
α (ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE )) ,
α

(100)

ΓE→D

where we restrict to σA > 0 such that the quantity is surely ﬁnite and the inﬁmum/supremum
is achieved. Using the variational expression for the measured Rényi relative entropy (Lemma 3)
together with strong duality for semideﬁnite programming, we ﬁnd the following alternative characterization for QM,rec
.
α
Lemma 12. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD) and σAE ∈ S(AE) with σA > 0, and let σAEF be a purification of
σAE . For α ∈ [ 12 , 1), we have
QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE )
α

= minimize

tr



1− 1
ρAD RADα

α

tr[SAF σAF ]1−α
(101)

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0
1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F .
Similar dual formulas hold for α ∈ (0, 21 ) ∪ (1, ∞).

Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 8 and using the ﬁrst variational formula from Lemma 3, we get
from Sion’s minimax theorem [42] that
QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE ) =
α

i
h
√
√
1− 1
inf α tr ρAD RADα + (1 − α) tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ]

max

τADF ∈Rec(σAE ) RAD >0

(102)

=

inf

max

RAD >0 τADF ∈Rec(σAE )

h

1
1− α

α tr ρAD RAD

i

√

√

+ (1 − α) tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ] .
(103)

The set Rec(σAE ) is convex and compact and {RAD > 0} is convex. Moreover, the function
h
i
√
√
1− 1
RAD 7→ α tr ρAD RADα + (1 − α) tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ]

(104)

is convex for any ﬁxed τADF because of the operator convexity of t 7→ tβ with β = 1 − α1 for
α ∈ [ 12 , 1) (with β ∈ [−1, 0)). Finally, for a ﬁxed RAD , the function being optimized is linear on
τADF . As in (83) we then look at the convex dual of
max

τADF ∈Rec(σAE )

√
√
tr [τADF σAF RAD σAF ] ,

(105)

16
and ﬁnd
QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE )
α

= minimize

α tr



1− 1
ρAD RADα



+ (1 − α) tr[SAF σAF ]

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0

(106)

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F .
Invoking the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality as in the proof of Lemma 3 establishes the
claim.
We ﬁnd that the measured Rényi entropy of recovery is superadditive for all Rényi parameters.
Proposition 13. Let ρAD ∈ S(AD), τA′ D′ ∈ S(A′ D ′ ), σAE ∈ S(AE), and ωA′ E ′ ∈ S(A′ E ′ ) with
σA , ωA′ > 0. For α ∈ (0, 1) ∪ (1, ∞), we have
DαM,rec (ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ kσAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ ) ≥ DαM,rec(ρAD kσAE ) + DαM,rec(τA′ D′ kωA′ E ′ ) .

(107)

Proof. We give the argument for α ∈ [ 21 , 1) based on Lemma 12 and note that the proof for
α ∈ (0, 12 ) ∪ (1, ∞) is similar. Given feasible operators RAD , SAF for the quantity QM,rec
(ρAD kσAE )
α
M,rec
and feasible operators RA′ D′ , SA′ F ′ for the quantity Qα (τA′ D′ kωA′ E ′ ), we apply exactly the same
argument as in (89) and ﬁnd
(ρAD kσAE ) · QM,rec
(τA′ D′ kωA′ E ′ ) .
QM,rec
(ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ kσAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ ) ≤ QM,rec
α
α
α

(108)

This concludes the proof.
Analogously, the relative entropy of recovery (72) is generalized to the Rényi relative entropy
of recovery as (see also [41, Rmk. 6]),
Dαrec (ρAD kσAE ) :=
with
Qrec
α (ρAD kσAE ) :=

1
log Qrec
α (ρAD kσAE )
α−1



 inf Qα (ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE ))
ΓE→D


 sup Qα (ρAD k(IA ⊗ ΓE→D )(σAE ))
ΓE→D

(109)

for α ∈ (1, ∞)
for α ∈ (0, 1) ,

(110)

where we restrict to σA > 0 such that the quantity is surely ﬁnite and the inﬁmum/supremum is
achieved. Now, for the special case of α = 1/2, the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is equal to
the negative logarithm of the ﬁdelity and as the measured ﬁdelity is the same as the ﬁdelity (see,
e.g., [18, Sec. 3.3]), we have
QM
1/2 = Q1/2

as well as

M,rec
Qrec
1/2 = Q1/2 .

(111)

The same holds true at α → ∞ [31]. As such Proposition 13 can be seen as a generalization
of the multiplicativity of the ﬁdelity of recovery [41] that was derived by two of the authors [6].
For the general sandwiched Rényi relative entropy of recovery, we only have preliminary numerics
indicating that they are not additive. Using a non-commutative extension of the techniques from [5,
Sec. 3.3.1], we can write the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy with fractional Rényi parameter
as a semideﬁnite program. Together with the Choi state as in (79), we then get a semideﬁnite
rec . Using this, we found weak numerical evidence for additivity violations for
program for, e.g., D2/3
small dimensional systems. This also challenges the possible additivity of the relative entropy of
recovery D rec (corresponding to the case α = 1).2
2

A very recent preprint [15] has demonstrated by numerical examples that the relative entropy of recovery is indeed
non-additive.

17
VI.

CONCLUSION

We presented variational characterizations of the measured relative entropy and the measured
Rényi relative entropy. Using these formulas we were able to show that these quantities can be
achieved by rank-1 projective measurements instead of general POVMs. We also showed that the
measured Rényi relative entropy is equal to the corresponding sandwiched Rényi relative entropy if
and only if the two quantum states commute (except for the special cases with Rényi parameters 1/2
and ∞ where they are always equal), and gave analytical counterexamples for the data-processing
inequality for the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy with Rényi parameters smaller than 1/2.
Finally, we applied our variational characterizations to analyze the additivity properties of various
relative entropies of recovery.
As an extension of our work it would be desirable to weaken the support conditions in Proposition 5 and Theorem 6 concerning the equality conditions for measured relative entropy and
relative entropy. (We note that this is non-trivial because we make use of the equality conditions for Golden-Thompson and Araki–Lieb–Thirring). Moreover, it would be neat to extend the
concept of measured relative entropy to general, continuous POVMs described by measure spaces
(see, e.g., [51] for the deﬁnition of Kullback-Leibler divergence and Rényi divergence on measure
spaces). Many of the steps still go through and we would like to point to a Jensen inequality for
operator-valued measures [14]. It seems, however, that an extension of this inequality would be
needed [13]. Finally, it would also be interesting to use the variational characterizations presented
in this work for studying the operational entropic quantities mentioned in Section V A. This might
lead to new applications of measured relative entropy in quantum information theory.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge discussions with Fernando Brandão, Douglas Farenick and
Hamza Fawzi. MB acknowledges funding by the SNSF through a fellowship, funding by the
Institute for Quantum Information and Matter (IQIM), an NSF Physics Frontiers Center (NFS
Grant PHY-1125565) with support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF-12500028),
and funding support form the ARO grant for Research on Quantum Algorithms at the IQIM
(W911NF-12-1-0521). Most of this work was done while OF was also with the Department of
Computing and Mathematical Sciences, California Institute of Technology. MT would like to
thank the IQIM at CalTech and John Preskill for his hospitality during the time most of the
technical aspects of this project were completed. He is funded by an ARC Discovery Early Career
Researcher Award fellowship (Grant No. DE160100821).

Appendix A: Proofs for Results in Section V

Proof of Lemma 10. We start by writing out the relative entropy of recovery as a convex optimization program,
D rec (ρAD kσAE ) = tr[ρAD log ρAD ]+ minimize

− tr[ρAD log γAD ]
√
√
subject to γAD = trF [ σAF τADF σAF ]
τADF ≥ 0

(A1)

τAF = ΠσAF ,
where the notation is as
of Lemma 8. Clearly, the ﬁrst and last constraint can be
√in the proof
√
σAF τADF σAF and τAF ≤ ΠσAF without changing the solution. The
relaxed to γAD ≤ trF

18
Lagrangian can then be written as
√
√
L(γ, τ, R, S) = − tr[ρAD log γAD ] + tr [RAD (γAD − trF [ σAF τADF σAF ])]
+ tr [SAF (τAF − ΠσAF )]

= − tr[ρAD log γAD ] + tr[RAD γAD ] − tr [τADF
− tr [SAF ΠσAF ] ,

√
√
( σAF RAD σAF − SAF )]

(A2)
(A3)

where we introduced the variables RAD ≥ 0 and SAF ≥ 0. In order to compute the dual objective
function, we should take the inﬁmum of this quantity over γAD > 0 and τADF ≥ 0. Using the
variational expression for the measured relative entropy (Lemma 1) we ﬁnd
inf

γAD >0, τADF ≥0

L(γ, θ, R, S) = −D M (ρAD kRAD ) + 1 − tr[SAF ΠσAF ] ,

(A4)

√
√
when SAF ≥ σAF RAD σAF . With Slater’s strong duality and a change of variable S̄AF :=
−1/2
−1/2
σAF SAF σAF (but not including the bar in the following), we get
D rec (ρAD kσAE ) = tr[ρAD log ρAD ]+ maximize

− D M (ρAD kRAD ) + 1 − tr[SAF σAF ]

subject to SAF > 0, RAD > 0

(A5)

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ RAD ⊗ 1F .

Adding the constraint tr[SAF σAF ] = 1 as in the proof of Lemma 8 concludes the proof.
Proof of Proposition 11. We start by writing out the argument ﬂipped relative entropy of recovery
as a convex optimization program,
D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) = minimize

tr[γAD log γAD ] − tr[γAD log ρAD ]
√
√
subject to γAD = trF [ σAF τADF σAF ]
τADF ≥ 0

(A6)

τAF = ΠσAF ,
where the notation is as in the proof of Lemma 8. The Lagrangian can be written as
√
√
L(γ, τ, T, S) = tr[γAD log γAD ] − tr[γAD log ρAD ] + tr [TAD (γAD − trF [ σAF τADF σAF ])]
+ tr [SAF (τAF − ΠσAF )]

= tr[γAD log γAD ] + tr[γAD (TAD − log ρAD )]
√
√
− tr [SAF ΠσAF ] − tr [τADF ( σAF TAD σAF − SAF )] ,

(A7)

(A8)

where TAD and SAF are Hermitian operators. In order to compute the dual objective function, we
should take the inﬁmum of this quantity over γAD > 0 and τADF ≥ 0. From the last expression
√
√
we get SAF ≥ σAF TAD σAF and we also know how to optimize the ﬁrst expression as it is an
entropy maximization question:
inf tr[γAD log γAD ] + tr[γAD (TAD − log ρAD )] .

γAD >0

(A9)

It is optimized when γAD = exp(log ρAD − TAD + α1AD ) for some α [9]. This means that this
inﬁmum is given by
inf tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD + α1AD ) (log ρAD − TAD + α1AD )]
α

+ tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD + α1AD ) (TAD − log ρAD )]

= inf α tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD + α1AD )]

(A10)

= inf αeα tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD )]

(A11)

= − tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD − 1AD )] .

(A12)

α

α

19
−1/2

−1/2

With Slater’s strong duality and a change of variable S̄AF := σAF SAF σAF
the bar in the following), we get
D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) = maximize

(but not including

− tr[SAF σAF ] − tr[exp(log ρAD − TAD − 1AD )]

subject to 1D ⊗ SAF ≥ TAD ⊗ 1F .

(A13)

We now do another change of variable (but not including the bar in the following)
RAD := exp(log ρAD − TAD − 1AD ) as well as

1D ⊗ S̄AF := 1D ⊗ SAF + 1ADF ,

(A14)

and the program becomes
D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) = maximize

− tr[SAF σAF ] + 1 − tr[RAD ]

subject to RAD > 0

(A15)

1D ⊗ SAF ≥ (log ρAD − log RAD ) ⊗ 1F .
Observe now that we can add the constraint tr[RAD ] = 1. In fact, let
R̄AD :=

RAD
tr[RAD ]

and

S̄AF := SAF + log tr[RAD ] .

(A16)

This solution satisﬁes the constraint and the objective value becomes
− tr[S̄AF σAF ] + 1 − tr[R̄AD ] = − tr[SAF σAF ] − log tr[RAD ] ≥ − tr[SAF σAF ] + 1 − tr[RAD ] .
(A17)
This concludes the proof of (96).
To prove (97) ﬁrst note that it is immediate from the deﬁnition of the argument ﬂipped relative
entropy of recovery that
D̄ rec (σAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ kρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) ≤ D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) + D̄ rec (ωA′ E ′ kτA′ D′ ) ,

(A18)

and in the following we prove inequality in the other direction using the dual representation (96). Given feasible operators RAD , SAF for the quantity D̄ rec (σAE kρAD ) and feasible operators RA′ D′ , SA′ F ′ for the quantity D̄ rec (ωA′ E ′ kτA′ D′ ), we have
1D ⊗ SAF ≥ (log ρAD − log RAD ) ⊗ 1F ∧ 1D′ ⊗ SA′ F ′ ≥ (log τA′ D′ − log RA′ D′ ) ⊗ 1F ′
=⇒ 1DD′ ⊗ (SAF ⊗ 1A′ F ′ + 1AF ⊗ SA′ F ′ )


≥ (log ρAD − log RAD ) ⊗ 1A′ D′ + 1AD ⊗ (log τA′ D′ − log RA′ D′ ) ⊗ 1F F ′

= log(ρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) − log(RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ ) ⊗ 1F F ′ ,

(A19)

just by multiplying with identities and adding the resulting operator inequalities. Moreover, we
have tr[RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ ] = 1. Hence, (RAD ⊗ RA′ D′ , SAF ⊗ 1A′ F ′ + 1AF ⊗ SA′ F ′ ) is a feasible pair in
the expression (96) for D̄ rec (σAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ kρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) and we get
D̄ rec (σAE ⊗ ωA′ E ′ kρAD ⊗ τA′ D′ ) ≥ − tr[(SAF ⊗ 1A′ F ′ + 1AF ⊗ SA′ F ′ )(σAF ⊗ ωA′ F ′ )]
= − tr[SAF σAF ] − tr[SA′ F ′ ωA′ F ′ ] .

(A20)
(A21)

Taking the supremum over feasible (RAD , SAF ) and (RA′ D′ , SA′ F ′ ), we ﬁnd the claimed additivity.

20

[1] P. M. Alberti.
“A Note on the Transition Probability over C*-Algebras”.
Letters in Mathematical Physics 7: 25–32 (1983).
[2] H. Araki. “On an Inequality of Lieb and Thirring”. Letters in Mathematical Physics 19(2): 167–170
(1990).
[3] S. Beigi.
“Sandwiched Rényi Divergence Satisfies Data Processing Inequality”.
Journal of Mathematical Physics 54(12): 122202 (2013).
[4] V. P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski. “C*-algebraic Generalization of Relative Entropy and Entropy”.
Annals Henri Poincaré 37(1): 51–58, (1982).
[5] A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski.
Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2001).
[6] M. Berta and M. Tomamichel.
“The Fidelity of Recovery Is Multiplicative”.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62(4): 1758–1763 (2016).
[7] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press (2004).
[8] F. G. S. L. Brandão, A. W. Harrow, J. Oppenheim, and S. Strelchuk. “Quantum Conditional Mutual
Information, Reconstructed States, and State Redistribution”. Physical Review Letters 115(5): 050501
(2015).
[9] V. Chandrasekaran and P. Shah.
“Relative entropy optimization and its applications”.
Mathematical Programming 161(1): 1–32 (2017).
[10] T. Cooney, C. Hirche, C. Morgan, J. P. Olson, K. P. Seshadreesan, J. Watrous, and M. M. Wilde.
“Operational meaning of quantum measures of recovery”. Physical Review A 94(2): 022310 (2016).
[11] D. DiVincenzo, M. Horodecki, D. Leung, J. Smolin, and B. Terhal. “Locking Classical Correlations in
Quantum States”. Physical Review Letters 92(6): 067902 (2004).
[12] M. J. Donald. “On the Relative Entropy”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 105(1): 13–34
(1986).
[13] D. R. Farenick. “Private Communication”, (2015).
[14] D. R. Farenick and F. Zhou.
“Jensen’s Inequality Relative to Matrix-Valued Measures”.
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 327(2): 919–929 (2007).
[15] H. Fawzi and O. Fawzi. “Relative entropy optimization in quantum information theory via semidefinite
programming approximations”. Preprint, arXiv: 1705.06671 (2017).
[16] O. Fawzi and R. Renner. “Quantum Conditional Mutual Information and Approximate Markov
Chains”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 340(2): 575–611 (2015).
[17] R. L. Frank and E. H. Lieb.
“Monotonicity of a Relative Rényi Entropy”.
Journal of Mathematical Physics 54(12): 122201 (2013).
[18] C. A. Fuchs. Distinguishability and Accessible Information in Quantum Theory. Phd thesis, University
of New Mexico, (1996). Available at arXiv: quant-ph/9601020v1.
[19] S. Golden. “Lower Bounds for the Helmholtz Function”. Physical Review 137(4B): B1127–B1128
(1965).
[20] F. Hiai.
“Equality Cases in Matrix Norm Inequalities of Golden-Thompson Type”.
Linear and Multilinear Algebra 36(4): 239–249 (1994).
[21] F. Hiai and D. Petz. “The Proper Formula for Relative Entropy and its Asymptotics in Quantum
Probability”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 143(1): 99–114 (1991).
[22] B. Ibinson, N. Linden, and A. Winter.
“Robustness of Quantum Markov Chains”.
Communications in Mathematical Physics 277(2): 289–304 (2007).
[23] M. Junge, R. Renner, D. Sutter, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter. “Universal recovery from a decrease of
quantum relative entropy”. Preprint, arXiv: 1509.07127 (2015).
[24] R. König, R. Renner, and C. Schaﬀner. “The Operational Meaning of Min- and Max-Entropy”.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55(9): 4337–4347 (2009).
[25] H. Kosaki. “Relative Entropy of States: A Variational Expression”. Journal of Operator Theory
16(2): 335–348, (1986).
[26] S.
Kullback
and
R.
A.
Leibler.
“On
Information
and
Sufficiency”.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22(1): 79–86 (1951).
[27] K. Li and A. Winter. “Squashed Entanglement, k-Extendibility, Quantum Markov Chains, and Recovery
Maps”. Preprint, arXiv: 1410.4184 (2014).

21
[28] E. H. Lieb and W. E. Thirring. “Inequalities for the Moments of the Eigenvalues of the Schrödinger
Hamiltonian and Their Relation to Sobolev Inequalities”. In The Stability of Matter: From Atoms to
Stars, chapter III, pages 205–239. Springer (2005).
[29] G.
Lindblad.
“Completely
Positive
Maps
and
Entropy
Inequalities”.
Communications in Mathematical Physics 40(2): 147–151 (1975).
[30] K. Matsumoto. “A New Quantum Version of f-Divergence”. Preprint, arXiv: 1311.4722 (2014).
[31] M. Mosonyi and T. Ogawa. “Quantum Hypothesis Testing and the Operational Interpretation of
the Quantum Rényi Relative Entropies”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 334(3): 1617–1648
(2015).
[32] M. Müller-Lennert. Quantum Relative Rényi Entropies. Master thesis, ETH Zurich,
[33] M. Müller-Lennert, F. Dupuis, O. Szehr, S. Fehr, and M. Tomamichel. “On Quantum Rényi Entropies:
A New Generalization and Some Properties”. Journal of Mathematical Physics 54(12): 122203 (2013).
[34] D. Petz. “Quasi-entropies for Finite Quantum Systems”. Reports on Mathematical Physics 23(1): 57–65
(1986).
[35] D. Petz. “Sufficient Subalgebras and the Relative Entropy of States of a von Neumann Algebra”.
Communications in Mathematical Physics 105(1): 123–131 (1986).
[36] D.
Petz.
“A
Variational
Expression
for
the
Relative
Entropy”.
Communications in Mathematical Physics 114(2): 345–349 (1988).
[37] D. Petz. Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Statistics. Springer (2008).
[38] M. Piani.
“Relative Entropy of Entanglement and Restricted Measurements”.
Physical Review Letters 103(16): 160504 (2009).
[39] E.
Rains.
“A
Semidefinite
Program
for
Distillable
Entanglement”.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47(7): 2921–2933 (2001).
[40] A. Rényi. “On Measures of Information and Entropy”. In Proc. 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 547–561, Berkeley, California, USA(1961).
[41] K. P. Seshadreesan and M. M. Wilde. “Fidelity of Recovery, Squashed Entanglement, and Measurement
Recoverability”. Physical Review A 92(4): 042321 (2015).
[42] M. Sion. “On General Minimax Theorems”. Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics 8: 171–176, (1958).
[43] W.
So.
“Equality
Cases
in
Matrix
Exponential
Inequalities”.
SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 13(4): 1154–1158 (1992).
[44] D. Sutter, O. Fawzi, and R. Renner. “Universal recovery map for approximate Markov chains”.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 472: 2186
(2016).
[45] D. Sutter, M. Tomamichel, and A. W. Harrow. “Strengthened Monotonicity of Relative Entropy via
Pinched Petz Recovery Map”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62(5): 2907–2913 (2016).
[46] C.
J.
Thompson.
“Inequality
with
Applications
in
Statistical
Mechanics”.
Journal of Mathematical Physics 6(11): 1812 (1965).
[47] M. Tomamichel. Quantum Information Processing with Finite Resources — Mathematical Foundations.
volume 5 of SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physics, Springer International Publishing (2016).
[48] M. Tomamichel, M. Berta, and M. Hayashi. “Relating Different Quantum Generalizations of the Conditional Rényi Entropy”. Journal of Mathematical Physics 55(8): 082206 (2014).
[49] A. Uhlmann. “Relative entropy and the Wigner-Yanase-Dyson-Lieb concavity in an interpolation theory”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 54(1): 21–32 (1977).
[50] H. Umegaki. “Conditional Expectation in an Operator Algebra”. Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 14: 59–85,
(1962).
[51] T. van Erven and P. Harremoes.
“Rényi Divergence and Kullback-Leibler Divergence”.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60(7): 3797–3820 (2014).
[52] V. Vedral. “On Bound Entanglement Assisted Distillation”. Physics Letters A 262(2-3): 121–124
(1999).
[53] V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio.
“Entanglement Measures and Purification Procedures”.
Physical Review A 57(3): 1619–1633 (1998).
[54] M.
M.
Wilde.
“Recoverability
in
quantum
information
theory”.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A 471(2182): 20150338 (2015).
[55] M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang.
“Strong Converse for the Classical Capacity
of Entanglement-Breaking and Hadamard Channels via a Sandwiched Rényi Relative Entropy”.

22
Communications in Mathematical Physics 331(2): 593–622 (2014).

