text:
# Entanglement sharing in one-particle states

## I Introduction

Entanglement is a property of quantum systems that sets it apart from those that are classical. Although it has been recognized as such from the early days of quantum mechanics, a spurt of understanding entangled states, both mathematically and generating them experimentally, has occurred in the past few years. Due to its potential as a resource in various tasks of quantum information processing it has moved from philosophical debates to the center stage of a large body of concrete work. For a recent review of the ideas involved we refer to DagmarBrusJMP02 .

Entanglement within pure states of a bipartite system can be measured by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrices. For a mixed state, while the entanglement can be measured as the average entanglement of its pure-state decomposition, the existence of an infinite number of such decompositions makes their minimization over this set a nontrivial task. Wootters and Hill WootPRL9899  carried out such a procedure for the case of two two-state (qubit) systems and showed that a new quantity they called concurrence was a measure of entanglement. This facilitated the study of entanglement sharing among many qubits. One view of quantum entanglement, as a correlation that is much stronger than any that is classical, is borne out here as two maximally entangled qubits cannot be entangled with any other, they will necessarily have to give up some of their correlation in order to share it with a third. At this stage the nature of entanglement sharing among many qubits is being studied intensively. Results are known for specific subsets of states in the many qubit Hilbert spaces Woot . Recent work has explored entanglement sharing among higher state (higher than qubits) systems Woot02 .

Due to the possibility of using spins as qubits in quantum computers, there have been many studies of the eigenstates of well known spin Hamiltonians such as the Heisenberg model, Ising model in a transverse field etc. Woot ; Sougato , and related itinerant fermion systems Zanardi . There has been a conjecture that for complex quantum systems, entanglement will be an indicator of quantum phase transitions Nielsen ; Nature . While these latter works have explored complexity from the viewpoint of many particle, thermodynamic, systems, few particle systems that are classically chaotic are also complex in their own way with well-studied spectral transitions occurring in the quantum systems Gutz ; Haake . For bipartite systems of this kind pure-state entanglement has been shown to be sensitive to the presence of classical chaos and the typical value of entanglement has been calculated from random matrix theory (RMT), including the distribution of the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices Arul01 ; JayArul02 ; Zyck .

In this paper we study states in the simplest subspace of the $`2^N`$-dimensional Hilbert space of $`N`$ qubits, the $`N`$-dimensional subspace spanned by vectors with only one qubit in a different state from the rest, in some fixed single qubit basis. These are the “single-particle states” within which we calculate entanglement sharing amongst the $`N`$ qubits. Thus we think of a one-dimensional chain of $`N`$ sites with a single particle hopping among these. The entanglement among the qubits is then the entanglement among the sites themselves. We will use the (spinless) fermion language as the connection between the fermion operators and the spin-half algebra of Pauli matrices is established through the Jordan-Wigner transformation JW . Although, we will not need to use these here due to our restriction to single-particle states, the extension to higher number of particles is then straightforward.

In the integrable case, we show how the onsite potential can decrease the average entanglement present in a state and point to a sharp fall that can be identified in the Harper Hamiltonian to a metal-insulator transition. In the nonintegrable case we show that the average entanglement content increases and saturates along with a classical transition to complete chaos. Simultaneously near neighbor entanglement gets destroyed and distant qubits start to get significantly entangled. The effect of time-reversal symmetry breaking is significant and leads to a larger entanglement content in the state. Random matrix theory is then used to explain these features and is shown to be successful in predicted the distribution of concurrence in an ensemble of chaotic states.

## II Preliminaries

In this section we collect results that set the formalism and notation. For completeness we first recall the definition of concurrence. Consider a bipartite composite system of subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$. A pure-state $`|\psi `$ of the composite system is separable if it can be written as an outer product of states from $`A`$ and $`B`$. In general this is possible only if the reduced density matrices, after tracing out either $`A`$ or $`B`$ is itself a pure-state density matrix. Thus the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrices is a measure of how entangled the pure-state $`|\psi `$ is, and this is also the Shannon entropy of the state in the Schmidt decomposed form PeresPreskill . The entanglement $`E(|\psi )`$ in this case is defined to be the von Neumann entropy of the subsytems described by $`\rho _A`$ or $`\rho _B`$, which are obtained by tracing out the states corresponding to subsystems $`B`$ and $`A`$ respectively:

$$E(|\psi )=\text{tr}(\rho _A\mathrm{log}_2(\rho _A))=\text{tr}(\rho _B\mathrm{log}_2(\rho _B)).$$
(1)
For bipartite density matrices the measures of entanglement are not so easily calculable. The entanglement of formation for a general state $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is defined in the following way. For a given decomposition of the mixed state in terms of ensembles of pure-states $`|\psi _i`$ specified with probabilities $`p_i`$:

$$\rho ^{AB}=\underset{i}{}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,$$
(2)
one may find the average entanglement present in all the pure states involved. The entanglement of formation is then defined as the minimum of this average over all such possible pure-state decompositions:

$$E(\rho ^{AB})=\text{min}\underset{i}{}p_iE(|\psi _i).$$
(3)
This is one of the measures of entanglement, and is called the entanglement of formation as it refers to the optimal ability to form such mixed states from maximally entangled pure states using only local operations on subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ and classical communication between them BBPS . For a general bipartite mixed state no explicit equation is known for this quantity. For a pair of qubits Wootters WootPRL9899  found such an expression that enables one to calculate the entanglement of formation from a knowledge of $`\rho ^{AB}`$, which we recall for completeness.

Defining a spin-flip operator, which takes $`\rho ^{AB}\rho `$ to

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y),$$
(4)
the concurrence of $`\rho `$ is defined to be:

$$C(\rho )=\text{max}\{\sqrt{\lambda _1}\sqrt{\lambda _2}\sqrt{\lambda _3}\sqrt{\lambda _4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}$$
(5)
where $`\lambda _i`$ are the eigenvalues of the non-Hermitian matrix $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. Wootters WootPRL9899  showed that the entanglement of formation of $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is a monotonic function of its concurrence and that as the concurrence varies over its possible range $`[0,1]`$, the entanglement of formation also varies from 0 to 1, thus concurrence is itself a good measure of entanglement.

For eigenstates of the number operator, as we will consider in this paper, the reduced density matrix of two sites has a special form that has already been studied and exploited in the literature. We recall for convenience the structure of these. Consider the $`N`$ fermion density operator $`\rho `$ that commutes with the number operator $`\widehat{N}=_{i=1}^N\widehat{c_i}^{}\widehat{c_i}`$. The site occupation basis is

$$|n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_N=c_1^{n_1}c_2^{n_2}\mathrm{}c_N^{n_N}|0$$
(6)
where $`n_i=0,1`$ and $`|0`$ is the vacuum. Note that there is an isomorphism between these states and the states of $`N`$ qubits. Consider the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{ij}^R`$ of two sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, where without loss of generality we can assume $`i<j`$. Due to the restriction that $`_{i=1}^Nn_i=m`$, this operator has the form:

$$\rho _{ij}^R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v_{ij}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& w_{1ij}& z_{ij}^{}& 0\\ 0& z_{ij}& w_{2ij}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& u_{ij}\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Here

$`v_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`<(1\widehat{n}_i)(1\widehat{n}_j)>`$ (8)
$`u_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`<\widehat{n}_i\widehat{n}_j>`$ (9)
$`w_{1ij}`$ $`=`$ $`<(1\widehat{n}_i)\widehat{n}_j>`$ (10)
$`w_{2ij}`$ $`=`$ $`<\widehat{n}_i(1\widehat{n}_j)>`$ (11)
$`z_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`<\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_i{\displaystyle \underset{l=i+1}{\overset{j1}{}}}(12\widehat{n}_l)>`$ (12)
and $`<\widehat{A}>=\text{tr}(\widehat{A}\rho )`$. The entanglement between the sites (or qubits) $`i`$ and $`j`$ is measured here by the concurrence between them that is given by

$$C_{ij}=C(\rho _{ij}^R)=2\text{max}(|z_{ij}|\sqrt{u_{ij}v_{ij}},0).$$
(13)
For the case $`m=1`$, the single-particle subspace, $`u_{ij}=0`$ and the string of operators in the definition of $`z_{ij}`$ is not there. If we write $`|l=|0,\mathrm{},1_l,\mathrm{},0`$, a general one-particle state is the superposition

$$|\alpha =\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _l^{(\alpha )}|l,$$
(14)
where $`\varphi _l^{(\alpha )}=l|\alpha `$. This then implies that the pairwise concurrence in this state are

$$C_{ij}^\alpha =2|\varphi _i^{(\alpha )}\varphi _j^{(\alpha )}|$$
(15)
States that have large minimum pairwise concurrence can be said to share entanglement better. As a gross but useful measure of entanglement sharing we propose and study the average pairwise concurrence in a given state. For single-particle states then:

$$<C^\alpha >=\frac{1}{d}\underset{i<j}{}C_{ij}^\alpha =\frac{1}{d}\left((\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi _i^{(\alpha )}|)^21\right),$$
(16)
where $`d=N(N1)/2`$. From the structure of the average we see that it has connections to measures of localization. In particular the generalized entropies such as the Renyi entropy are related to the averaged concurrence. For a given discrete probability distribution$`\{p_i,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, the Renyi entropy of order $`q`$ is defined as:

$$S_q^R[p]=\frac{1}{1q}\mathrm{ln}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^q.$$
(17)
This reduces to the usual information entropy as $`q1`$.

Thus

$$<C^\alpha >=\frac{1}{d}\left(\mathrm{exp}(S_{1/2}^R)1\right)$$
(18)
where $`S_{1/2}^R`$ is the Renyi entropy of order one-half. Therefore we expect that delocalized states share entanglement better, as an extreme case the site localized state $`|l`$ has zero average concurrence, as indeed it is a completely separable state. For a study connecting the Renyi entropy to localization we refer to Casati . It must be noted that we make this connection between localization and entanglement in the case of one-particle states; it remains to be seen if there is such a correspondence in the case of many-particle states.

We also note that $`<C^\alpha >2/N`$. This implies that for one particle states of qubits there cannot be states whose minimum pairwise concurrence exceeds $`2/N`$. This is the concurrence of isotropic states, which are defined by identical pairwise density matrices. It is not yet known if the above is true for states with larger number of particles Woot02 .We go beyond the average and also study the distribution of concurrence, $`p(C)`$, in a given ensemble of states, which will be representative of single states. In principle then we can study various other averages of concurrence such as its square etc., although we do not pursue this here.

We show that for eigenstates of quantized classically chaotic systems, the presence or absence of time-reversal symmetry, possibly a generalized time-reversal, lead to very different distributions. Near-zero concurrence are improbable for eigenstates of time-reversal violating Hamiltonians, while they are most probable otherwise. Time evolving states on the other hand, in either case, behave as the eigenstates of time-reversal violating Hamiltonians. We use, as a test model, the Harper Hamiltonian Harper  (for a recent review and references, we point to Artuso94 ) which is an approximate model for electrons in a two-dimensional crystal subjected to a perpendicular magnetic field. This is a model with a rich spectral structure and a metal-insulator transition that continues to be studied from various viewpoints.

## III Effect of onsite potentials

### III.1 Integrable case

In this subsection we study the effect of onsite potentials with a view of also comparing an integrable situation to a nonintegrable one, a more complex one to follow in the next section. We consider the Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_{j+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\widehat{d}_k^{}\widehat{d}_{k+1}+h.c.`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_{j+1}+h.c.)+g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi j/N)\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_j].`$
Here

$$\widehat{d}_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ikj/N)\widehat{c}_j$$
(20)
is the Fourier transform of the site annihilation operator and $`k`$ is a momentum index. We will assume periodic boundary conditions first: $`\widehat{c}_{N+1}=\widehat{c}_1`$, $`\widehat{d}_{N+1}=\widehat{d}_1`$. $`H`$ is a one-dimensional Harper Hamiltonian with the onsite potential being $`\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q)`$. We can think of the large-$`N`$ limit as approaching a flow on the unit torus, with the classical Hamiltonian

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi p)+g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q),$$
(21)
and that we are considering its finite quantum mechanics with $`N`$ states.

We briefly indicate the reasoning involved. Note that the operators

$$\widehat{V}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{c}_{j+1}^{}\widehat{c}_j,\widehat{U}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{d}_k^{}\widehat{d}_{k+1}$$
(22)
are unitary translation operators on the states $`|l`$ and $`|k\widehat{d}_k^{}|0`$: $`\widehat{V}|l=|l+1`$ and $`k+1|=k|U`$. Thus the site and momentum states span a lattice on the conventional unit torus phase space with the translation operators $`V`$ and $`U`$ obeying a finite Weyl commutation relation; they are discrete versions of $`\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{p}a/\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{x}b/\mathrm{})`$ (where $`a,b`$ are phase space shifts) respectively ScBeSa . The torus-quantization implies the condition $`\mathrm{}=h/(2\pi )=A/(2\pi N)`$, where $`A=1`$ is the area of the unit torus phase space. Also with $`a=b=1/N`$, as a lattice translation unit in phase space, and with the eigenvalues of position and momentum being $`l/N`$ and $`k/N`$, leads to the large-$`N`$ or classical Hamiltonian as specified above.

Thus we see that the original Hamiltonian is an integrable one in the classical limit, as it has only a single degree of freedom. From a Bethe-Ansatz perspective the integrability of this Hamiltonian is discussed in Wiegmann . We can also now easily visualize the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian as being localized on the constant energy curves of the classical Hamiltonian. Thus although we cannot solve the eigenvalue problem analytically we can understand the features of all the states involved.

Another modification of the Hamiltonian is the class where the the onsite potential is incommensurate with the lattice, and herein the Harper Hamiltonian shows a rich structure which has been studied extensively. In particular we will modify the Hamiltonian to read

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_{j+1}+h.c.)+g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \sigma j/N)\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_j]$$
(23)
where $`\sigma `$ is a real incommensurability parameter. For $`\sigma /N`$ a fixed irrational number (in the original Harper model, this is the ratio of the flux through a lattice cell to one flux quantum) as $`N`$ tends to infinity a metal-insulator transition occurs at $`g=1`$ where the spectrum is a Cantor set.

Firstly, the case $`g=0`$, $`\sigma =1`$ corresponds to an itinerant particle on the lattice and the eigenfunctions are simply the momentum states $`|k`$. These clearly have pairwise concurrence $`2/N`$ for all pairs and represent optimally-delocalized states in the site basis as far as concurrence go. Due to double degeneracy however there exist also eigenstates that have smaller entanglement. For $`g>0`$ $`\sigma =1`$, the classical Hamiltonian above provides us the well-known phase space of the Harper flow with two elliptic fixed points and two hyperbolic fixed points per cell. From the Hamiltonian we know that the energy eigenvalues are bounded by $`1gE1+g`$. The classical phase space will consist of two separatrices, corresponding to energies of the equilibrium points $`(0,1/2)`$ and $`(1/2,0)`$. Thus we know that for $`0<g<1`$ the quantum states with energies in the range $`1+g<E<1g`$ are dominantly KAM rotational states spread along the sites with the edge states being separatrix states.

There are states that will be localized in the site basis corresponding to torus-quantized states around the elliptic fixed points, while the hyperbolic orbits will provide the separatrix states. When $`g<1`$ there are smooth phase-space curves along the momentum direction and the separatrices localize states in momentum, while at $`g=1`$ the two separatrices form a single diamond square and for $`g>1`$ the separatrices tend to localize states along the position. It is evident that as $`g\mathrm{}`$ there are states that are completely site localized. Thus the classical picture also singles out $`g=1`$ as a special point.

Thus this elementary picture then indicates that as $`g`$ increases the average concurrence will tend to decrease. As a further gross measure we average also over all the states, $`\alpha `$, in the spectrum and show in Fig. 1 the decrease in the average concurrence ($`<C>`$) as a function of $`g`$.

Thus onsite potentials decrease concurrence as they tend to localize states. The point $`g=0`$ has exact double degeneracy and while the momentum states are eigenstates with the maximum concurrence of $`2/N`$, as soon as $`g>0`$ this degeneracy is broken and the states are continuation of combinations of the degenerate states with smaller entanglement. As an effect the apparent $`g0`$ limit is smaller than $`2`$ in Fig. 1.

In the same figure we also show the effect of $`\sigma `$. When $`\sigma `$ is an irrational number larger than unity the transition at $`g=1`$ becomes sharply visible. We note that the average concurrence decreases dramatically as $`g`$ crosses unity, corresponding to a metal-insulator transition in the infinite incommensurate chain. This is again a reflection of the fact that wavefunctions change from a ballistic regime to an exponentially localized one. For rational values of $`\sigma `$ close to these irrational values a transition is still seen, due to finite $`N`$ effects. Thus apart from quantum phase transitions, it is possible that the signature of entanglement will also be present in metal-insulator transitions.

Scaling behaviour with the size of the lattice $`N`$ is illustrated in Fig. 2, where a transition is seen from the scaling law $`<C>N^1`$ for the metallic regime $`g<1`$ to $`<C>N^2`$ for the insulating regime $`g>1`$.

The scaling in the localized or insulating regime is intuitively reasonable, as there will be only a small number of significant components, and hence only an order unity number of pairs can be expected to have significant concurrence, hence the average will go approximately as the inverse of the number of pairs. In the metallic regime there is a more democratic spread of concurrence and results in the $`1/N`$ scaling which we will later see to be the rule for chaotic and random states. At the critical point, $`g=1`$, there does not seem to be a simple good power law fit for the range of $`N`$ $`(101808)`$ values used here, and while this warrants further study, we do not pursue this in this paper.

In Fig. 3 is shown the average concurrence in individual states of a given spectrum as a function of the energy of the state, appropriately scaled. For $`g<1`$ we see that there is a plateau of large concurrence corresponding to states on the rotational KAM invariant curves extending over all of the $`q`$ space, while the edges are the separatrix states. The tails on either side correspond to states that are localized around the elliptic fixed points and represent low-entanglement states on the average, having a tendency to form coteries. As $`g`$ increases the plateau gets squeezed out of existence and only the separatrix states remain at $`g=1`$. For larger $`g`$ the invariant curves between the separatrices extend over the momentum space rather the position and tend to start localizing in the site basis. The very low concurrence states correspond to those that are spread in momentum maximally and therefore highly site localized.

### III.2 Nonintegrable Hamiltonians

Nonintegrable Hamiltonians are the rule for systems with more than one degree of freedom, or for many particle systems. While there are many important interacting models in condensed matter physics such as the Heisenberg model for which entanglement sharing has been studied, the case of nonintegrability with the possibility of chaos has yet to be explored. We begin again with the simplest case of a single-particle spectrum. Building upon the Harper Hamiltonian which we have just discussed, the kicked Harper Hamiltonian then provides us with a suitable model. The fact that we wish to remain on a one-dimensional lattice means that we have to introduce a time-dependent onsite potential to introduce nonintegrability. The kick-type of time dependence leads to simple models that have been extensively studied in the context of quantum chaos. It has been pointed out that similar models are of relevance in cyclotron resonance experiments in antidot arrays IominFishman .

Thus the Hamiltonian we will consider is:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_{j+1}+h.c.)+g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi j/N)\widehat{c}_j^{}\widehat{c}_j`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta (2\pi t/\tau n)].`$
A train of impulses is provided at intervals of time $`\tau /(2\pi )`$. As $`\tau 0`$ we recover the integrable Harper equations. Note that we have set for the nonintegrable case $`\sigma =1`$. The corresponding large-$`N`$, classical Hamiltonian, is

$$H=\mathrm{cos}(2\pi p)+g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi q)\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (2\pi t/\tau n)$$
(25)
from which we get the canonical (area-preserving) map of the unit torus to itself connecting phase-space variables immediately after two consecutive impulses:

$`q_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`q_n\tau \mathrm{sin}(2\pi p_n)`$
$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`p_n+\tau g\mathrm{sin}(2\pi q_{n+1}).`$ (26)
This map has been studied extensively and develops full fledged chaos for large $`\tau `$ Leb90Lima91 . For completeness we illustrate this transition to classical chaos in Fig. 4, fixing $`g=1`$ as in the subsequent calculations too.

As is standard the Floquet operator (quantum map) connecting states just after impulses is the quantum propagator:

$$\widehat{U}(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(i\tau g\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \widehat{q})/h)\mathrm{exp}(i\tau \mathrm{cos}(2\pi \widehat{p})/h).$$
(27)
With $`h=1/N`$, we get the quantum version in the basis spanned by the site-localized states $`|l`$. The spectrum of the Floquet operator is then of interest. We study the average concurrence and the distribution of concurrence, in the eigenstates of the above quantum map. The spectra of quantized chaotic systems are very sensitive to whether time-reversal (TR) symmetry is present or not. However it was seen in JayArul02  that the entanglement in pure states of bipartite chaotic systems, consisting of Hilbert spaces of large dimensions, is not sensitive to TR symmetry. This is because only the density of eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix determines the entanglement in the case studied there. We will see below that concurrence sharing among many qubits is affected crucially by this symmetry. To show this we change the boundary condition on the states $`|l`$ and introduce a phase, or equivalently change the boundary conditions on the site creation operators:

$$|l+N=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\beta )|l;c_{l+N}^{}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\beta )c_l^{},$$
(28)
where $`0<\beta <1/2`$. This shifts the momentum eigenvalues to $`(k+\beta )/N`$. We retain periodic boundary conditions on the momentum states $`|k`$ and note that in this kinematic framework the momentum-site transformation is the Fourier transform

$$\widehat{d}_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(k+\beta )j/N)\widehat{c}_j.$$
(29)
The phase $`\beta `$ is like a magnetic flux line threading the periodic chain, which is a standard way to break the TR symmetry.

In Fig. 5 the average concurrence is shown as a function of $`\tau `$ for various values of the TR breaking phase $`\beta `$. For any value of this phase it is clear that along with a transition to classical chaos there is an increase in the average pairwise concurrence and corresponds to increasing delocalization of the states. The concurrence sharing saturates after a transition to classical chaos, at around $`\tau =0.6`$, and we expect that in this regime, RMT will be able to model the concurrence, we show below that this expectation is borne out.

It is also clear from this figure that breaking TR symmetry leads to significantly larger entanglement sharing. The effect of time-reversal breaking is pronounced in the chaotic regime as the delocalized states experience the changed boundary conditions. In this figure we also show how sensitive the TR breaking is by changing the phase only slightly. For $`\beta `$ greater than the dimensionless Planck constant $`1/N`$ we see a universal saturation effect. It is interesting that as $`\beta `$ decreases the saturation seems to occur for larger $`\tau `$ which is also a region of larger classical chaos. We may conclude as a general principle that entanglement sharing is more effective in eigenstates of TR breaking Hamiltonians, and that this is a general principle in the context of one-particle states is supported by an analysis using RMT below.

We state results for two universality classes of RMT relevant here, namely from the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE) for time-reversal breaking Hamiltonians, and the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) for TR preserving, spinless systems Haake ; Mehta . We quantify the above observations and note in advance, what we prove further on, that the average concurrence calculated from RMT in the two cases are:

$$<C^\alpha >=\{\begin{array}{cc}4/\pi N\hfill & \text{(GOE)}\hfill \\ \pi /2N\hfill & \text{(GUE)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The Fig. 5 saturation values agree well with these estimates from RMT, which are shown as horizontal lines. However RMT seems to predict a somewhat smaller value than the observed average in the case when there is TR symmetry. Note that the RMT result used above is a finite-$`N`$ exact value. Phase-space localization effects on chaotic eigenfunctions due to classical periodic and homoclinic orbits do lead to significant deviations from RMT ArulNickSteve , however here it is interesting that the deviations seem to be more when there is TR symmetry. Concurrence could be a sensitive measure to study deviations of real eigenfunctions of quantized chaotic systems from RMT predictions; further study on this aspect is required.

The average concurrence promises in the case of the one-particle spectrum to be an interesting measure of localization. We also emphasize that these results are only dependent on the single-particle nature of the states and are independent of the dimensionality, although our models are one-dimensional. Calculations with different $`N`$ not presented here also confirm further the RMT scaling $`<C>N^1`$, which we also observed in the metallic regime of the integrable Harper Hamiltonian, and as in that case we postpone a more extensive scaling analysis.

Time evolution intrinsically involves complex vectors and therefore we expect that time-evolving states will share, under a quantum chaotic evolution, entanglement that is identical with that of TR breaking Hamiltonian eigenstates. This is borne out in Fig. 6 where several cases ranging from near integrable to chaotic are shown. The near-linear increase of the average concurrence in time for near-integrable systems is replaced by a rapid increase to the TR breaking average of $`\pi /2N`$ around which there are small fluctuations. The initial state in all these cases is a site-localized one with null entanglement.

While the average pairwise concurrence of chaotic eigenstates is larger than that of regular states, it is reasonable to expect the opposite if one were to only include near neighbor pairs of sites. We expect that the nearest neighbors are treated preferentially in regular states while for random or chaotic states the connections from one site to another is also random. This expectation comes from the fact that regular states are smoother than the more fragmented structures one finds on a coarse scale for chaotic states. This is in turn related to tori quantization of regular states, as opposed to a situation more akin to superposition of random waves for chaotic states Gutz .

Thus we define the $`r`$-th neighbor average concurrence:

$$C_r^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{ii+r}^{(\alpha )}$$
(31)
In Fig. 7 this is shown, after averaging over the spectrum $`\alpha `$, for various $`r`$ as a function of $`\tau `$

for TR symmetric eigenstates. It is clear that the correlation between near-neighbor pairs is indeed much stronger for regular states. There is a correlation length beyond which the entanglement falls below that of the random or chaotic states average of $`4/\pi N`$. This correlation length is then an interesting quantum length scale of the problem; we call this a quantum scale as it refers to the intrinsically quantum property of entanglement. In Fig. 8 we show how $`C_r^{(\alpha )}`$ falls as a function of $`r`$ for various $`\tau `$, after averaging over the complete spectrum $`\{\alpha \}`$.

### III.3 RMT and concurrence

In this section we derive the averages stated and demonstrated above, as well as the distributions of the concurrence between sites of one-particle states using random matrices as models. The eigenfunction component distributions are derived within RMT by invoking a microcanonical distribution with the constraint being normalization. If $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}x_d`$ are real numbers distributed uniformly over the $`d`$ dimensional spherical surface of unit radius (normalization), the reduced density of $`l`$ variables is given by Haake :

$`P^{(d,l)}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_l)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{l/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((dl)/2)}}`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}}x_n^2\right)^{(dl2)/2}.`$
In the case of TR symmetric systems, there exist time-reversal adapted bases wherein the components of the eigenfunctions are real and these may then be taken to be the $`x_i`$ above with $`d=N`$. In the case of TR breaking Hamiltonians there are no such bases and the eigenfunctions are generically complex, in which case we identify the real and imaginary parts of the state components with the $`x_i`$ and $`d=2N`$ Haake . Thus the average concurrence for the GOE case, relevant for TR symmetric Hamiltonians, may be calculated as the integral:

$$<C>=_{R_2}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2P^{(N,2)}(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{x_1^2x_2^2}=4/\pi N.$$
(33)
The region $`R_2`$ is the interior of the circle $`x_1^2+x_2^21`$. For the GUE case, where the wavefunctions have complex components and $`d=2N`$, the average concurrence is:

$`<C>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{R_4}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3𝑑x_4P^{(2N,4)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`2\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}\sqrt{x_3^2+x_4^2}=\pi /2N.`$
The region $`R_4`$ is now the 4-sphere volume:$`x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^21`$. These are the formulae stated in Eq. (30).

In order to calculate the distributions themselves we choose to use the large $`N`$ forms of the distributions, when the components tend to become independent. Let $`\rho (x)`$ be a single-component distribution of $`x=|\varphi _j^{(\alpha )}|^2`$. The distribution function, $`\rho (x)`$, is known to be different for the two universality classes used here. The GOE distribution, the Porter-Thomas distribution, was first used in the study of nuclear resonance widths RMTrev .

$$\rho (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{N/2\pi x}\mathrm{exp}(Nx/2)\hfill & \text{(GOE)}\hfill \\ N\mathrm{exp}(Nx)\hfill & \text{(GUE).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
Thus the concurrence distribution, $`p(C)`$, is then straightforward to calculate for one particle states. We state the distributions for the scaled concurrence $`c=NC`$:

$$p(c)=_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\delta (c2N\sqrt{xy})\rho (x)\rho (y)𝑑x𝑑y.$$
(36)
The result is:

$$p(c)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1/\pi )K_0(c/2)\hfill & \text{(GOE)}\hfill \\ cK_0(c)\hfill & \text{(GUE),}\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function which has a logarithmic divergence at the origin. The average concurrence, stated in Eq. (30) and derived above, also follow from the single component distributions, i.e., at least in the averages there are no corrections coming from correlations between the components.

We recall that one-particle states that maximally share entanglement are those whose reduced density matrices for all the pairs are identical, such as the non-interacting case eigenstates states $`\varphi _j^{(k)}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ijk/N)/\sqrt{N}`$. If we take the pairwise concurrence, $`2/N`$ in this case to be a marker, the fraction of pairs with concurrence larger than this is

$$_2^{\mathrm{}}p(c)𝑑c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.21},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}.28}\text{for GOE, GUE, resp.}$$
(38)
Thus a significant proportion of the pairwise concurrence in a one-particle random state is higher than $`2/N`$. For large $`c`$ (practically greater than $`2`$) the asymptotic distributions are:

$$p(c)e^{c/2}/\sqrt{\pi c},\sqrt{\pi c/2}e^c$$
(39)
for the two cases of GOE and GUE respectively.

In Fig. 9 we compare the distributions from RMT with numerical calculations. To do this we combine the pairwise concurrence of all the eigenstates into a concurrence ensemble. We see that there is excellent agreement between the theory and numerical calculations, although there are discernible deviations for small concurrence. It must be noted that these distributions are universal, they are independent of system except for the requirement of a classically chaotic limit. Thus it is clear that TR symmetry could play a crucial role in the way entanglement is shared in a quantum state. Also the case of the Gaussian symplectic ensemble has not been considered here due to the additional complexity of a Kramer’s degeneracy.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied entanglement sharing in one-particle states using the measure of concurrence. We have studied the average of the concurrence, spectral averaged concurrence, as well as the distribution of concurrence in a given state. Our attempt has been to begin studying the effect of non-integrability and chaos in this interesting quantum measure that has possible applications in quantum information theory. We have found that chaos in the corresponding quantum system implies that concurrence in individual one-particle states are distributed in an universal manner that depends only on the presence or absence of TR symmetry. The absence of TR symmetry has been shown to lead to more entanglement sharing, and we have quantified these statements with the help of RMT.

Also a transition to chaos has been shown to accompany an increase in the spectral averaged concurrence. We expect that spectral averaging will have small effect in the case of chaotic systems, while there will be much larger state to state fluctuations in the case of regular states. We have also made connections between the averaged concurrence and measures of state localization such as the Renyi entropy, something that enables us to qualitatively understand the behaviour of entanglement sharing in these states. For instance we have demonstrated that for regular states, near-neighbor concurrence is preferred, while for chaotic states there is no such metric preference. Due to the essential simplicity of the concurrence in one-particle states, we have been able to analyze details such as concurrence distributions. It is of much interest to see how many of the conclusions, for instance that concerning the role of TR symmetry, carry over to general states.

The effect of onsite integrable potentials has also been studied and it is noted that transitions such as metal-insulator transitions are reflected in the way entanglement is shared. It is shown that in the metallic regime entanglement is shared better, while in the insulating regime, it is not. This is reasonable due to the connections between wavefunction localization and concurrence noted above. Also the finite-size scaling of the concurrence in the metallic and insulating cases have been noted. A more detailed scaling analysis in all cases, including the critical point is warranted. The hypothesis that quantum information theory will be an approach to study “complex” quantum systems Nielsencomplex  is borne out here in the context of entanglement and single-particle chaos. The way in which many-particle states differ are significant and ongoing work on this will soon be reported.

###### Acknowledgements.

AL thanks Prof. M. K. Verma and other members of the Dept. of Physics, IIT Kanpur, for their invitation and wonderful hospitality during his sabbatical at which this work was done.


format: text

text:
# Upper bound by Kolmogorov complexity for the probability in computable POVM measurement

## 1 Introduction

Algorithmic information theory is a theory of program-size complexity which has precisely the formal properties of classical information theory. In algorithmic information theory, the program-size complexity (or Kolmogorov complexity) $`K(s)`$ of a finite binary string $`s`$ is defined as the length of the shortest binary input for the universal self-delimiting Turing machine to output $`s`$. The concept of program-size complexity plays an important role in characterizing the randomness of a finite or infinite binary string. In this paper we extend algorithmic information theory to quantum region in order to throw light upon an algorithmic feature of quantum mechanics. We show that Kolmogorov complexity gives the upper bound for the probability of each measurement outcome in a computable POVM measurement with countable outcomes performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system.

### 1.1 Main result

In this paper, we consider a quantum measurement performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system. A positive operator-valued measure (POVM) is a collection $`\{E(m)\}`$ of positive semi-definite Hermitian matrices which satisfies $`_mE(m)=I`$ where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. Each $`E(m)`$ is called a POVM element of this POVM. In general, the statistics of outcomes in a quantum measurement are described by a POVM $`\{E(m)\}`$. The label $`m`$ refers to the measurement outcomes that may occur in the experiment. If the state of the quantum system is described by a normalized vector $`|\psi `$ immediately before the measurement, then the probability that result $`m`$ occurs is given by $`\psi |E(m)|\psi `$. On the other hand, if the ensemble of the states of the quantum system is described by a density matrix $`\rho `$ immediately before the measurement, then the probability that result $`m`$ occurs is given by $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho E(m))`$. A POVM measurement is a generalization of a projective measurement which is described by an observable. The number of outcomes in a POVM measurement can be more than the dimension of the state space of the quantum system being measured, whereas the number of outcomes in a projective measurement cannot. In this paper, we relate an argument $`s`$ of $`K(s)`$ to an outcome which may occur in the quantum measurement performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system. Since $`K(s)`$ is defined for all finite binary strings $`s`$, the countable outcomes have to be available in the corresponding quantum measurement. Thus we deal with a POVM measurement and not a projective measurement. (See e.g.  for the details of POVM measurements.)

We say a POVM is computable if one can compute all its POVM elements to any desired degree of precision, and a POVM measurement is said to be computable if it is described by a computable POVM. Our main result is as follows: Let $`\{R(s)\}`$ be a computable POVM on a finite dimensional quantum system whose each element is labeled by a finite binary string. Then there exists an integer $`d`$ such that, for all density matrix $`\rho `$ and all finite binary string $`s`$,

$$K(s)d\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho R(s)),$$
(1)
and also there exists a real number $`c>0`$ such that, for all density matrix $`\rho `$ and all finite binary string $`s`$,

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho R(s))cP(s).$$
(2)
Here $`P(s)`$ is the probability that the (classical) universal self-delimiting Turing machine halts and outputs $`s`$ when it starts on the program tape filled with an infinite binary string generated by infinitely repeated tosses of a fair coin.

The inequality (1) states that, up to an additive constant, $`K(s)`$ is the lower bound for the $`\mathrm{log}_2`$ of the probability of each measurement outcome $`s`$ in a computable POVM measurement with countable outcomes performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system, i.e., $`2^{K(s)}`$ is the upper bound for the probability of each outcome $`s`$ up to a multiplicative constant. On the other hand, the inequality (2) states that, up to a multiplicative constant, $`P(s)`$ is the upper bound for the probability of each measurement outcome $`s`$ in the same measurement. Note that the inequalities (1) and (2) are equivalent to each other.

The computability of a POVM measurement is thought to be intrinsic in the case where one performs the measurement in order to extract a valuable information from a quantum system because in such a case one has to be able to compute to any desired degree of precision all POVM elements of the POVM which describes the measurement. Hence, when one wants to extract a valuable information from a finite dimensional quantum system through a POVM measurement with countable outcomes, one faces with the limitation given by the inequality (1) (equivalently by (2)).

Especially, the inequality (2) is interesting. Since $`P(s)`$ is a probability which results from infinitely repeated tosses of a fair coin, $`P(s)`$ is just a classical probability. In the case where $`\rho `$ is a pure state, the inequality (2) states that a purely quantum mechanical probability bounded from above by a purely classical probability up to a multiplicative constant when one performs a computable POVM measurement with countable outcomes upon a finite dimensional quantum system in the pure state $`\rho `$.

The inequalitis (1) and (2) are obtained through a generalization of the so-called universal probability to a matrix-valued function. The Kolmogorov complexity $`K(s)`$ of a finite binary string $`s`$ is originally defined using the concept of program-size. However, there is another way to define $`K(s)`$ without referring to such a concept, that is, we first introduce a universal probability $`m`$, and then define $`K(s)`$ as $`\mathrm{log}_2m(s)`$. The universal probability is a function from the set of finite binary strings to the open interval $`(0,1)`$. In this paper we generalize the universal probability to a matrix-valued function while keeping the domain of definition the set of finite binary strings. Then this generalized universal probability is identified with an analogue of a POVM, and is called a universal semi-POVM. The inequalities (1) and (2) naturally follow from this identification.

### 1.2 Related works

Our aim is to generalize algorithmic information theory in order to understand the algorithmic feature of quantum mechanics. There are related works whose purpose is mainly to define the information content of an individual pure quantum state, i.e., to define the quantum Kolmogorov complexity of the quantum state , while we will not make such an attempt in this paper.

As we mentioned above, $`K(s)`$ can be defined as the $`\mathrm{log}_2`$ of the universal probability without using the concept of program-size.  took this approach in order to define the information content of a pure quantum state.  first generalized the universal probability to a matrix-valued function $`𝝁`$, called quantum universal semi-density matrix. The $`𝝁`$ is a function which maps any positive integer $`N`$ to an $`N\times N`$ positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix $`𝝁(N)`$ with its trace less than or equal to one.  proposed to regard $`𝝁(N)`$ as an analogue of a density matrix of a quantum system called semi-density matrix. Then, in order to measure the information content of a pure quantum state $`|\psi ^N`$,  introduced the quantum algorithmic entropies $`\underset{¯}{H}(|\psi )`$ and $`\overline{H}(|\psi )`$ as $`\mathrm{log}_2\psi |𝝁(N)\psi `$ and $`\psi |(\mathrm{log}_2𝝁(N))|\psi `$, respectively. In general, the trace of a density matrix has to be equal to one. If the trace of $`𝝁(N)`$ is equal to one, then the quantity $`\psi |𝝁(N)|\psi `$ in the definition of $`\underset{¯}{H}(|\psi )`$ has the meaning of the probability that the outcome is ‘yes’ when one performs the projective measurement described by the projector $`|\psi \psi |`$ upon the quantum system in the mixed state $`𝝁(N)`$. However, the trace of $`𝝁(N)`$ is not equal to one for all but finitely many $`N`$ because of its universality. (This fact is implicitly mentioned in . For completeness, we include a proof of this fact in Appendix A, in addition to the definition of $`𝝁`$.)

In quantum mechanics, what is represented by a matrix is either a quantum state or a measurement operator. In this paper we generalize the universal probability to a matrix-valued function in different way from , and identify it with an analogue of a POVM. We do not stick to defining the information content of a quantum state. Instead, we focus our thoughts on applying algorithmic information theory to quantum mechanics in order to shed light on an algorithmic structure of quantum mechanics. In this line we have the above inequalities (1) and (2).

In each of  and , the quantum Kolmogorov complexity of a qubit string was defined as a quantum generalization of the standard definition of classical Kolmogorov complexity; the length of the shortest input for the universal decoding algorithm $`U`$ to output a finite binary string. Both  and  adopt the universal quantum Turing machine as a universal decoding algorithm $`U`$ to output a quantum state in their definition. However, there is a difference between  and  with respect to the object which is allowed as an input to $`U`$. That is,  can only allow a classical binary string as an input, whereas  can allow any qubit string. The works , , and  are closely related to one another as shown in each of these works. In comparison with our work, since our work is, in essence, based on a generalization of the universal probability, the work  is more related to our work than the works  and . These two works may be related to our work via the work .

### 1.3 Organization of the paper

We begin in Section 2 with some basic definitions, and review some results of algorithmic information theory. In Section 3, we prove the inequalities (1) and (2) via the introduction of a universal semi-POVM as a generalization of the universal probability. In Section 4, we consider the optimality of our upper bound $`2^{K(s)}`$ and $`P(s)`$ for the probability of each measurement outcome $`s`$. Finally, we study some other properties of a universal semi-POVM in Section 5.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Notation

We start with some notation about numbers and matrices which will be used in this paper.

$`\{0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$ is the set of natural numbers, and $`^+`$ is the set of positive integers. $``$ is the set of integers. $``$ is the set of rational numbers, and $`^+`$ is the set of positive rational numbers. $``$ is the set of real numbers, and $``$ is the set of complex numbers. $`_Q`$ is the set of the complex numbers in the form of $`a+ib`$ with $`a,b`$. We define $`\mathrm{log}_20`$ as $`\mathrm{}`$.

We fix $`N`$ to be any one positive integer throughout this paper. For each matrix $`A`$, $`A^T`$ is the transpose of $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ is the adjoint of $`A`$. For each $`K`$, $`M_N(K)`$ is the set of the $`N\times N`$ matrices whose elements are in $`K`$, and $`K^N`$ is the set of column vectors consist $`N`$ complex numbers in $`K`$. For each $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)^T^N`$, $`x`$ is defined as $`(\left|x_1\right|^2+\left|x_2\right|^2+\mathrm{}+\left|x_N\right|^2)^{1/2}`$. For each $`A,BM_N()`$, $`[A,B]`$ is defined as $`ABBA`$. For each $`AM_N()`$, $`A`$ is the operator norm of $`A`$, and $`\mathrm{tr}A`$ denotes the trace of $`A`$. The identity matrix in $`M_N()`$ is denoted by $`I`$. $`U(N)`$ is the set of $`N\times N`$ unitary matrices. $`\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ is the set of $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices. For each $`A,B\mathrm{Her}(N)`$, we write $`AB`$ if $`BA`$ is positive semi-definite, and write $`A<B`$ if $`BA`$ is positive definite. Note that the relation $``$ on $`\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ is a partial order. In this paper we will frequently use the property: $`A\epsilon \epsilon IA\epsilon I`$ for any $`\epsilon 0`$ and any $`A\mathrm{Her}(N)`$. We say $`\rho `$ is a density matrix if $`0\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho )=1`$. $`\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ is the set of $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices whose elements are in $`_Q`$. $`\mathrm{diag}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ is the diagonal matrix whose $`(i,i)`$-elements is $`x_i`$.

Let $`S`$ be any set, and let $`f,g:S\mathrm{Her}(N)`$. Then we write $`f(x)=g(x)+O(1)`$ if there is a real number $`c>0`$ such that, for all $`xS`$, $`f(x)g(x)c`$. We also write $`f(x)g(x)`$ if there is a real number $`c>0`$ such that, for all $`xS`$, $`cf(x)g(x)`$ and $`cg(x)f(x)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\{\lambda ,0,1,00,01,10,11,000,001,010,\mathrm{}\}`$ is the set of finite binary strings where $`\lambda `$ denotes the empty string, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is ordered as indicated. We identify any string in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ with a natural number in this order, that is, we consider $`\phi :\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that $`\phi (s)=1s1`$ where the concatenation $`1s`$ of strings $`1`$ and $`s`$ is regarded as a dyadic integer, and then we identify $`s`$ with $`\phi (s)`$. For any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\left|s\right|`$ is the length of $`s`$. A subset $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is called a prefix-free set if no string in $`S`$ is a prefix of another string in $`S`$.

For each $`F:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_N()`$, we say $`F`$ is computable if there exists a total recursive function $`G:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times M_N(_Q)`$ such that, for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and all $`k`$, $`F(s)G(s,k)<2^k`$.

### 2.2 Algorithmic information theory

In the following we review some definitions and results of algorithmic information theory . We assume that the reader is familiar with algorithmic information theory in addition to computability theory.

A computer is a partial recursive function $`C:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ whose domain of definition is a prefix-free set. For each computer $`C`$ and each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`K_C(s)`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{min}\left\{\left|p\right||p\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\&C(p)=s\right\}`$. A computer $`U`$ is said to be optimal if for each computer $`C`$ there exists a constant $`\mathrm{sim}(C)`$ with the following property: if $`C(p)`$ is defined, then there is a $`p^{}`$ for which $`U(p^{})=C(p)`$ and $`\left|p^{}\right|\left|p\right|+\mathrm{sim}(C)`$. It is then shown that there exists a computer which is optimal. We choose any one optimal computer $`U`$ as the standard one for use throughout the rest of this paper, and we define $`K(s)K_U(s)`$, which is referred to as the information content of $`s`$, the program-size complexity of $`s`$, or the Kolmogorov complexity of $`s`$. For each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`P(s)`$ is defined by $`P(s)_{U(p)=s}2^{\left|p\right|}`$. The class of computers is equal to the class of functions which are computed by self-delimiting Turing machines. A self-delimiting Turing machine has a program tape and a work tape. The program tape is infinite to the right, while the work tape is inifinite in both directions. The machine starts with an input string on its program tape and the work tape blank. When the machine halts, the output string is put on the work tape. (For the details of self-delimiting Turing machine, see .) A self-delimiting Turing machine is called universal if it computes an optimal computer. Let $`M_U`$ be a universal self-delimiting Turing machine which computes $`U`$. Then $`P(s)`$ is the probability that $`M_U`$ halts and outputs $`s`$ when $`M_U`$ starts on the program tape filled with an infinite binary string generated by infinitely repeated tosses of a fair coin.

A universal probability is defined through the following two definitions.

###### Definition 2.1.

For any $`r:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}[0,\mathrm{})`$, we say that $`r`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure if $`r`$ satisfies the following two conditions:

1. $`_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}r(s)1`$.
2. There exists a total recursive function $`f:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that, for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)=r(s)`$ and $`nf(n,s)f(n+1,s)`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`m`$ be a lower-computable semi-measure. We say that $`m`$ is a universal probability if for any lower-computable semi-measure $`r`$, there exists a real number $`c>0`$ such that, for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`cr(s)m(s)`$.

Then the following theorem holds.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Both $`2^{K(s)}`$ and $`P(s)`$ are universal probabilities.

By Theorem 2.3, we see that, for any universal probability $`m`$,

$$K(s)=\mathrm{log}_2m(s)+O(1).$$
(3)
Especially we have $`K(s)=\mathrm{log}_2P(s)+O(1)`$. Any universal probability is not computable, which corresponds to the uncomputability of $`K(s)`$. Moreover we can show the following, from which the uncomputability of a universal probability follows.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`m`$ be a universal probability, and let $`f:^+`$ and $`\tau :\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Suppose that both $`f`$ and $`\tau `$ are total recursive functions, and $`m(\tau (n))f(n)`$ for all $`n`$. Then $`inf_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}f(n)>0`$.

The information theoretic feature of algorithmic information theory can be developed as follows. We choose any one computable bijection $`<s,t>`$ from $`(s,t)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Let $`s,t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The joint information content $`K(s,t)`$ of $`s`$ and $`t`$ is defined as $`K(s,t)K(<s,t>)`$. We then define the relative information content $`K(s|t)`$ of $`s`$ relative to $`t`$ by the equation

$$K(s|t)K(t,s)K(t).$$

Finally we define the mutual information content $`K(s:t)`$ of $`s`$ and $`t`$ by the equation

$$K(s:t)K(t)K(t|s)K(s)+K(t)K(s,t).$$

Then, without referring to the concept of program-size,  proved the following relations using the fact that $`2^{K(s)}`$ is a universal probability.

###### Theorem 2.5.

1. $`K(s,t)=K(t,s)+O(1)`$.
2. $`K(s:t)=K(t:s)+O(1)`$.
3. $`K(s:s)=K(s)+O(1)`$.
4. $`cs,t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}cK(s|t)`$.
5. $`cs,t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}cK(s:t)`$.
6. $`K(s:t)=K(t:s)+O(1)`$.
7. $`K(s:s)=K(s)+O(1)`$.
8. $`K(s:\lambda )=O(1)`$.

Thus algorithmic information theory has the formal properties of classical information theory.

## 3 Generalization of universal probability to POVM

In this section we generalize a universal probability to a matrix-valued function. Based on this generalization, we prove our main result: Theorem 3.9.

###### Definition 3.1.

We say $`R`$ is a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ if $`R`$ is a mapping from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ which satisfies $`0R(s)`$ for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}R(s)I`$. We say $`R`$ is a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ if $`R`$ is semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}R(s)=I`$.

Let $`Q`$ be a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The POVM measurement described by $`Q`$ is performed upon a finite dimensional quantum system, and gives one of countable measurement outcomes, which are represented by finite binary strings.

Given $`R`$: semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, it is easy to convert $`R`$ into a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by appending an appropriate positive semi-definite matrix to $`R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}R(s)`$, and then we define $`Q:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ by $`Q(\lambda )=I\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`Q(s^{})=R(s)`$ for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ where $`s^{}`$ is the successor of $`s`$. Then $`Q`$ is a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Thus a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ has a physical meaning in the same way as a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

We say $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM if $`R`$ is a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and there exists a total recursive function $`f:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that, for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)=R(s)`$ and $`nf(n,s)R(s)`$.

In the case where $`N=1`$, Definition 3.2 exactly results in the definition of a lower-computable semi-measure. For the handiness, we do not reqiure in the above definition that the $`f(n,s)`$ conversing to $`R(s)`$ is non-decreasing (i.e., $`f(n,s)f(n+1,s)`$). However, we can equivalently assume that the $`f(n,s)`$ is non-decreasing in the definition. See Appendix B for its proof.

The following is a key theorem for our main result.

###### Theorem 3.3.

If $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM, then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}s\frac{1}{N}R(s)`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure.

###### Proof.

Let $`r:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}[0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`r(s)=\frac{1}{N}R(s)`$. Note that $`A\mathrm{tr}A`$ for any positive semi-definite $`A`$. Thus, since $`0R(s)`$ for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}R(s)I`$, we see that $`_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}r(s)\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}_{s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}R(s)\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}I=1`$. Thus the condition (i) in Definition 2.1 holds for $`r`$.

Next we show that the condition (ii) in Definition 2.1 holds for $`r`$. Since $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM, there exists a total recursive function $`f:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)`$ $`=R(s)`$ and $`nf(n,s)R(s)`$. From the definition of the operator norm, $`f(n,s)`$ is the supremum of $`\psi |f(n,s)|\psi /\psi |\psi `$ such that $`|\psi 0`$ and $`|\psi ^N`$. Since $``$ is dense in $``$, it is easy to see that $`f(n,s)`$ is equal to the supremum of $`\psi |f(n,s)|\psi /\psi |\psi `$ such that $`|\psi 0`$ and each component of $`|\psi `$ is a complex number in the form of $`a+ib`$ with $`a,b`$. Thus, given $`n`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, one can generate a sequence of rational numbers $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{}`$ such that $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}f(n,s)`$ and $`lim_m\mathrm{}p_m=f(n,s)`$. On the other hand, using the property $`ABAB`$, we have $`f(n,s)R(s)`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)`$ $`=R(s)`$. Hence, given $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, one can generate a sequence of rational numbers $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}`$ such that $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}R(s)`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}x_n=R(s)`$. Therefore the condition (ii) in Definition 2.1 holds for $`r`$. Hence $`r`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure. ∎

###### Definition 3.4.

Let $`M`$ be a lower-computable semi-POVM. We say that $`M`$ is a universal semi-POVM if for each lower-computable semi-POVM $`R`$, there exists a real number $`c>0`$ such that for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`cR(s)M(s)`$.

In the case where $`N=1`$, Definition 3.4 exactly results in the definition of a universal probability. The use of the partial order $``$ for the purpose of generalizing lower-computable semi-measure and universal probability to matrix-valued functions is suggested in . Note that if $`M`$ is a universal semi-POVM then, for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`M(s)`$ is positive definite.

A universal semi-POVM may have a simple form as the following theorem says.

###### Theorem 3.5.

If $`m`$ is a universal probability, then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}sm(s)I`$ is a universal semi-POVM.

###### Proof.

Let $`M:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ with $`M(s)=m(s)I`$. Since $`m`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure, it is obvious that $`M`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM. Suppose that $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM. By Theorem 3.3, the mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}s\frac{1}{N}R(s)`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure. Thus, since $`m`$ is a universal probability, there is $`c>0`$ such that, for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`c\frac{1}{N}R(s)m(s)`$. Therefore we have $`\frac{c}{N}R(s)m(s)I`$ for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Hence $`M`$ is a universal semi-POVM. ∎

For this universal semi-POVM $`m(s)I`$, we have $`[m(s)I,m(t)I]=0`$ for all $`s`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. However the following theorem guarantees an existence of a ‘non-trivial’ universal semi-POVM.

###### Theorem 3.6.

There exists a universal semi-POVM $`M`$ such that $`[M(s),M(t)]0`$ for any distinct $`s`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We choose any one universal probability $`m`$, and choose any one pair of $`G`$ and $`H\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that $`0<G,HI`$ and $`[G,H]0`$. We define $`M:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ by

$$M(s)=\frac{m(s)}{2}\left(2^{\phi (s)}G+H\right).$$

Then we see that, for any distinct $`s`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$[M(s),M(t)]=\frac{1}{4}m(s)m(t)\left(2^{\phi (s)}2^{\phi (t)}\right)[G,H]0.$$

Since $`m`$ is a lower-computable semi-measure, $`M`$ is shown to be a lower-computable semi-POVM. It follows from $`0<H`$ that there is $`c>0`$ such that $`cIH`$. Thus $`\frac{c}{2}m(s)IM(s)`$. Since $`m(s)I`$ is a universal semi-POVM, $`M`$ is also a universal semi-POVM. ∎

The following theorem is more general form of our main result.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`m`$ be a universal probability, and let $`R`$ be a lower-computable semi-POVM. Then the following (i) and (ii) hold:

1. There exists $`c>0`$ such that, for any normalized $`|\psi ^N`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$\psi |R(s)|\psi cm(s).$$
2. There exists $`c>0`$ such that, for any density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho R(s))cm(s).$$

###### Proof.

It follows from Theorem 3.5 that (i) holds. Using (i) and the spectral decomposition of $`\rho `$, we have (ii). ∎

In order to make more clear the physical implication of Theorem 3.7, we restrict our attention to a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ which is computable. Informally, a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is computable if and only if one can compute all its POVM elements to any desired degree of precision. Thus the computability of a POVM is thought to be inherent in the case where one wants to perform a well-controlled quantum measurement described by the POVM. Using the following lemma, we have our main result about a computable POVM.

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`R`$ be a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. If $`R`$ is computable then $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM.

###### Proof.

Since $`R`$ is computable, there exists a total recursive function $`G:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times M_N(_Q)`$ such that, for all $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and all $`k`$, $`R(s)G(s,k)<2^k`$. We define $`H:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times M_N(_Q)`$ by $`H(s,k)=\frac{1}{2}\left\{G(s,k)+G(s,k)^{}\right\}`$. Then $`H`$ is a total recursive function and, for every $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and every $`k`$, $`H(s,k)\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ and $`R(s)H(s,k)<2^k`$. Thus we have $`H(s,k)2^kIR(s)`$ and $`lim_k\mathrm{}H(s,k)2^kI=R(s)`$. Hence the result follows. ∎

###### Theorem 3.9 (Main result).

Let $`R`$ be a computable POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Then the following hold:

1. There exists $`d`$ such that, for any density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$K(s)d\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho R(s)).$$
(4)
2. There exists $`c>0`$ such that, for any density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho R(s))cP(s).$$
(5)

###### Proof.

Theorem 3.9 immediately follows from Theorem 2.3, (ii) in Theorem 3.7, and Lemma 3.8. ∎

## 4 Optimality of universal semi-POVM

In this section we consider an optimality of a universal semi-POVM. By Theorem 3.5 we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM. and let $`m`$ be a universal probability. Then $`M(s)m(s)I`$.

The following theorem immediately follows from Theorem 4.1. This theorem is the most general form which represents the optimality of a universal-semi POVM from the view point of the probability of each measurement outcome.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`m`$ be a universal probability, and let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM. Then there exist $`c_1>0`$ and $`c_2>0`$ such that, for any density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$$c_1m(s)\mathrm{tr}(\rho M(s))c_2m(s).$$

By Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 4.2, we have Theorem 4.3.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM. Then, for any density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,

$`K(s)`$ $`=\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho M(s))+O(1),`$
$`P(s)`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho M(s)).`$
Thus, if we can perform the POVM measurement described by a universal semi-POVM, then we can achieve the upper bound $`P(s)`$ (or $`2^{K(s)}`$) in Theorem 3.9 up to a multiplicative constant. However any universal semi-POVM is not computable (see Subsection 5.2). Moreover we can show that there is no computable semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ which can achieve the upper bound $`P(s)`$ (or $`2^{K(s)}`$) up to a multiplicative constant. Instead, by the definition of universal semi-POVM, we have the following theorem, which states that we can approximate any universal semi-POVM by a recursive sequence of semi-POVMs on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ from below.

###### Theorem 4.4.

For any universal semi-POVM $`M`$, there exists a sequence $`F_0,F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ of semi-POVMs on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that

1. $`F_n(s)\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ and $`0<F_n(s)F_{n+1}(s)M(s)`$ for all $`(n,s)\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$,
2. the sequence $`F_0,F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ of functions uniformly converges to $`M`$, and
3. the mapping $`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(n,s)F_n(s)`$ is a total recursive function.

###### Proof.

Since $`M`$ is a universal semi-POVM, by Theorem B.1 in Appendix B, there exists a total recursive function $`g:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that, for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}g(n,s)=M(s)`$ and $`ng(n,s)g(n+1,s)M(s)`$. Note that $`0<M(s)`$ for any $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Thus, there exists a total recursive function $`\tau :\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that, for each $`s`$ and $`n`$, $`\tau (n,s)<\tau (n+1,s)`$ and $`0<g(\tau (n,s),s)`$. We define the sequence $`F_0,F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ of semi-POVMs on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by $`F_n(s)=g(\tau (n,s),s)`$. It is then obvious that (i) and (iii) in Theorem 4.4 hold for this sequence. For any $`\epsilon >0`$, there is $`s_0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that $`_{s>s_0}M(s)<\epsilon I`$, so we see that $`F_n(s)M(s)<\epsilon `$ for all $`n`$ and all $`s>s_0`$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that there is $`n_0`$ such that, for all $`n>n_0`$ and all $`ss_0`$, $`F_n(s)M(s)<\epsilon `$. Thus (ii) in Theorem 4.4 holds for the sequence $`F_0,F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ of functions. ∎

For the recursive sequence $`F_0,F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ of semi-POVMs on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ given in Theorem 4.4, $`F_n`$ is a computable semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ for each $`n`$. However, since any universal semi-POVM is not a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (see Subsection 5.2) and $`F_n(s)M(s)`$, $`F_n`$ is not a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ for each $`n`$. Instead, we can also consider the recursive sequence $`G_1,G_2,G_3,\mathrm{}`$ of POVMs defined as follows: Each POVM element of $`G_n`$ is labeled by a finite binary string less than or equal to $`\phi (n)`$. For any $`s<\phi (n)`$, $`G_n(s)`$ is defined as $`F_n(s)`$, and $`G_n(\phi (n))`$ is defined as $`I_{s<\phi (n)}F_n(s)`$. Then, since $`F_n(s)\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$, any given $`n^+`$, one can calculate all POVM elements of $`G_n`$. Note that the POVM measurement described by $`G_n`$ gives one of $`n+1`$ measurement outcomes, each of which is represented by a finite binary string less than or equal to $`\phi (n)`$. By Theorem 4.4, we have the following:

* Any given $`\epsilon >0`$, for all sufficiently large $`n^+`$, if $`s<\phi (n)`$ and $`\rho `$ is a density matrix then $`0\mathrm{tr}(\rho M(s))\mathrm{tr}(\rho G_n(s))<\epsilon `$.

Thus, in the sense that the above statement holds, the recursive sequence $`G_1,G_2,G_3,\mathrm{},G_n,\mathrm{}`$ of POVMs converges to the universal semi-POVM $`M`$ from below as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Other properties of universal semi-POVM

In this section we study the properties of universal semi-POVM further.

### 5.1 Matrix-valued algorithmic information theory

Let $`M`$ be any one universal semi-POVM. The equation (3) suggests defining a matrix-valued Kolmogorov complexity $`𝒦(s)`$ of $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by

$$𝒦(s)\mathrm{log}_2M(s).$$
(6)
For this definition of $`𝒦`$, it follows from Theorem 4.1 that

$$𝒦(s)=K(s)I+O(1).$$
(7)
Further we can define $`𝒦(s,t)`$, $`𝒦(s|t)`$, and $`𝒦(s:t)`$ in the same manner as the definitions of $`K(s,t)`$, $`K(s|t)`$, and $`K(s:t)`$, respectively. Then using (7) we see that all the relations in Theorem 2.5 hold for these $`𝒦`$’s in place of the $`K`$’s.

Note that $`K(s)`$ is originally defined using the concept of program-size. Since $`𝒦(s)`$ is related to $`K(s)`$ through the equation (7), $`𝒦(s)`$ have the meaning of program-size in some weak sense. It is interesting if we can find a more concrete definition of $`𝒦(s)`$ using something like the concept of program-size instead of the equation (6). However, this is still open.

In order to measure the information content of a quantum state $`|\psi ^N`$,  introduced the quantum algorithmic entropies $`\underset{¯}{H}(|\psi )`$ and $`\overline{H}(|\psi )`$ of $`|\psi `$ as $`\mathrm{log}_2\psi |𝝁(N)\psi `$ and $`\psi |(\mathrm{log}_2𝝁(N))|\psi `$, respectively, using his quantum universal semi-density matrix $`𝝁`$ (see Appendix A for its definition). In this behalf note that, for our universal semi-POVM $`M`$, the following holds for any normalized $`|\psi ^N`$:

$$K(s)=\mathrm{log}_2\psi |M(s)\psi +O(1)=\psi |(\mathrm{log}_2M(s))|\psi +O(1).$$

Thus $`\mathrm{log}_2\psi |M(s)\psi `$ and $`\psi |(\mathrm{log}_2M(s))|\psi `$ are independent of $`|\psi `$ up to an additive constant. So it would seem difficult to measure the information content of a quantum state $`|\psi `$ using these quantities in the similar manner to , although such an attempt is not the purpose of this paper.

### 5.2 Relation to universal probability

We say $`x^N`$ is computable if each component of $`x`$ is in the form of $`a+ib`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are computable real numbers. Theorem 5.1 describes a property of a universal semi-POVM as a universal probability.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM, and let $`x^N`$ be computable with $`x=1`$. Then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}sx^{}M(s)x`$ is a universal probability.

###### Proof.

Since $`x`$ is computable, $`x^{}M(s)x`$ is shown to be a lower-computable semi-measure. Let $`m`$ be a universal probability. Then, by Theorem 4.1, we see that $`x^{}M(s)xm(s)`$. Thus the result follows. ∎

Let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM. Then, by Theorem 5.1, each diagonal element $`M_{ii}(s)`$ of $`M(s)`$ is a universal probability as a function of $`s`$, and $`\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}(M(s))`$ is also a universal probability as a function of $`s`$. Since any universal probability is not computable, any one diagonal element $`M_{ii}(s)`$ is not computable. Hence any universal semi-POVM is not computable. If $`M`$ is a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, then, since $`M`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM, we can show that $`M`$ is computable. Thus any universal semi-POVM is not a POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

### 5.3 Computable unitary invariance

We say $`AM_N()`$ is computable if each element of $`A`$ is in the form of $`a+ib`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are computable real numbers. The following theorem states an invariance of a POVM measurement described by a universal semi-POVM under computable unitary transformation on the quantum state being measured.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`M`$ be a universal semi-POVM, and let $`UU(N)`$ be computable. Then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}sU^{}M(s)U`$ is a universal semi-POVM.

###### Proof.

We note the property that $`ABX^{}AXX^{}BX`$ for any $`A,B\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and any $`XM_N()`$. Since $`U`$ is computable, $`U^{}M(s)U`$ is shown to be a lower-computable semi-POVM. Let $`m`$ be a universal probability. Then, by Theorem 4.1, we see that $`U^{}M(s)Um(s)IM(s)`$. Thus the result follows. ∎

Let $`UU(N)`$ be a computable, and let $``$ be a POVM measurement described by a universal semi-POVM. Suppose that, any given state $`\rho `$, we first evolve $`\rho `$ by the unitary transformation $`U`$, and then perform the measurement $``$ for the transformed state (i.e., $`U\rho U^{}`$). Then, by Theorem 5.2, the whole POVM measurement for $`\rho `$ is shown to be still described by a universal semi-POVM.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Hiroshi Imai and Keiji Matsumoto for their support.

## Appendix A Quantum universal semi-density matrix

We reproduce the definition of quantum universal semi-density matrix from  as follows.

###### Definition A.1.

Let $`\sigma :^+_{N1}\mathrm{Her}(N)`$. We say $`\sigma `$ is a lower semicomputable semi-density matrix if $`\sigma `$ satisfies the following conditions:

1. For each $`N^+`$, $`0\sigma (N)\mathrm{Her}(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}(\sigma (N))1`$.
2. There exists a total recursive function $`f:^+\times _{N1}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that, for each $`N^+`$, $`lim_k\mathrm{}f(N,k)=\sigma (N)`$ and $`kf(N,k)\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)\&f(N,k)f(N,k+1)`$.

###### Definition A.2.

Let $`𝛍`$ be a lower semicomputable semi-density matrix. We say $`𝛍`$ is a quantum universal semi-density matrix if for any lower semicomputable semi-density matrix $`\sigma `$, there exists a real number $`c>0`$ such that, for all $`N^+`$, $`c\sigma (N)𝛍(N)`$.

###### Theorem A.3.

If $`𝛍`$ is a quantum universal semi-density matrix, then $`\mathrm{tr}(𝛍(N))<1`$ for all but finitely many $`N^+`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝝁`$ is a lower semicomputable semi-density matrix, there exists a total recursive function $`f`$ on $`^+\times `$ such that, for each $`N^+`$, $`lim_k\mathrm{}f(N,k)=𝝁(N)`$ and $`kf(N,k)\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)\&f(N,k)𝝁(N)`$. Let $`𝝁_{ii}(N)`$ be the $`(i,i)`$-element of $`𝝁(N)`$, and let $`f_{ii}(N,k)`$ be the $`(i,i)`$-element of $`f(N,k)`$. Then, since $`\mathrm{tr}(𝝁(N))1`$, we see that $`𝝁_{ii}(N)1_{ji}f_{jj}(N,k)`$. Especially, for any $`N`$ with $`\mathrm{tr}(𝝁(N))=1`$, we have $`𝝁_{ii}(N)=lim_k\mathrm{}1_{ji}f_{jj}(N,k)`$. On the other hand, it follows from $`_{i=1}^N𝝁_{ii}(N)1`$ that $`\mathrm{min}\{𝝁_{ii}(N)1iN\}1/N`$. Therefore, any given $`\epsilon >0`$, for each sufficiently large $`N`$, there is $`i`$ such that $`1iN`$ and $`𝝁_{ii}(N)<\epsilon `$.

Now, contrary to Theorem A.3, let us assume that, for infinitely many $`N^+`$, $`\mathrm{tr}(𝝁(N))=1`$. Then, given $`\epsilon ^+`$, by checking for each $`(N,i,k)`$ in an exhaustive order whether $`1_{ji}f_{jj}(N,k)<\epsilon `$ holds or not, one can find $`(N,i)`$ such that $`𝝁_{ii}(N)<\epsilon `$. Let $`m`$ be any one universal probability, and we define the lower semicomputable semi-density matrix $`\sigma `$ by $`\sigma (N)=\mathrm{diag}(m(\phi ^1(1)),\mathrm{},m(\phi ^1(N)))`$. Then, since $`𝝁`$ is a quantum universal semi-density matrix, for this $`\sigma `$, there is $`c_\sigma >0`$ such that if $`1iN`$ then $`c_\sigma m(\phi ^1(i))𝝁_{ii}(N)`$. It follows that there exists a total recursive function $`\tau :\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that, for any $`n`$, $`m(\tau (n))2^n`$. This contradicts Theorem 2.4. Thus we have Theorem A.3. ∎

## Appendix B On the definition of lower-computable semi-POVM

The following theorem guarantees that one can equivalently assume that $`f(n,s)`$ converging to $`R(s)`$ is non-decreasing in Definition 3.2.

###### Theorem B.1.

$`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM if and only if $`R`$ is a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and there exists a total recursive function $`f:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)=R(s)`$ and $`nf(n,s)f(n+1,s)`$.

For the proof of Theorem B.1 we need the following lemma, which is an elementary result of linear algebra.

###### Lemma B.2.

For any $`A\mathrm{Her}(N)`$, $`0A`$ if and only if all principal minors of $`A`$ are non-negative.

By Lemma B.2, given $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$, one can effectively check whether $`AB`$ holds or not.

###### Proof of Theorem B.1.

Assume that $`R`$ is a semi-POVM on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and there exists a total recursive function $`f:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ such that for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}f(n,s)=R(s)`$ and $`nf(n,s)R(s)`$. Let $`g:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ be a total recursive function such that $`g(n,s)=f(n,s)2^nI`$. Then, for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}g(n,s)=R(s)`$ and $`ng(n,s)<R(s)`$. Thus, for each $`s`$ and $`n`$, there is a positive real number $`c`$ such that $`cIR(s)g(n,s)`$, and then, for this $`c`$, there is an $`m`$ such that $`m>n`$ and $`R(s)g(m,s)cI`$. So we have $`g(n,s)g(m,s)`$. Thus, given $`s`$ and $`n`$, by checking $`g(n,s)g(k,s)`$ for each $`k>n`$ in increasing order, one can finally find an $`m`$ with $`g(n,s)g(m,s)`$. Therefore there exists a total recursive function $`\tau :\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that, for each $`s`$ and $`n`$, $`\tau (n,s)<\tau (n+1,s)`$ and $`g(\tau (n,s),s)g(\tau (n+1,s),s)`$. We define a total recursive function $`h:\times \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{Her}_{}(N)`$ by $`h(n,s)=g(\tau (n,s),s)`$. Then, for each $`s\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}h(n,s)=R(s)`$ and $`nh(n,s)h(n+1,s)`$. Hence, $`R`$ is a lower-computable semi-POVM.

The other implication is obvious. Thus the theorem is obtained. ∎


text:
# Ion-dominated plasma and the origin of jets in quasars

## 1 Introduction

Jets have been observed in many systems including active galaxies, X-ray binaries, black holes X-ray transients, supersoft X-ray sources and young stellar objects (Königl 1997, Livio 1999, Mirabel 2001). Each of these systems is considered to contain an accretion disk, while jet-speeds have been verified to be of the order of the escape velocity at the vicinity of the central object (Mirabel 1999, Livio 1999 and the references therein). Recent observations of the M87 galaxy reveal a significant jet-collimation already at 100 gravitational radii from the central engine, and that jet-launching should occur close to the last stable orbit (Biretta et al. 2002).

Several scenarios have been suggested to uncover the mechanisms underlying jet-initiations and their connection to accretion disks (Pudritz & Norman 1986). In most of these models magnetic fields (-MFs) are considered to play the major role in powering and collimating jets (e.g., the magneto-centrifugal acceleration model of Blandford & Payne 1982, the ion-torus model of Rees et al. 1982, X-point model of Shu et al. 1995, ADAF and ADIOS models of Narayan & Yi 1995 and Blandford & Begelman 1999).

Previous radiative hydrodynamical studies without magnetic fields have confirmed the formation of a transition layer (-TL) between the disk and the corona, governed by thermally-induced outflows (Hujeirat & Camenzind 2000). The aim of this paper is show that incorporating large scale magnetic fields (-MFs) manifests such formation and dramatically strengthen the dynamic of the in- and out-flows. Moreover, the TL is shown to be an optimal runaway region where highly energetic ion-jets start off. The back reaction of jet-flows on the structure of the disk and on the corona surrounding the nucleus is investigated also.

The study is based on self-consistent 3D axi-symmetric quasi-stationary MHD calculations, taking into account magnetic and hydro-turbulent diffusion, and adopting the two-temperature description (Shapiro et al. 1976). This adaptation is fundamental as 1) the dynamical time scale around the last stable orbit may become shorter than the Coulomb-coupling time. Therefore turbulent dissipation, adiabatic or shock compression preferentially heat up the ions rather than electrons ($`T_\mathrm{i}\rho _\mathrm{i}^{2/3}`$, while $`T_\mathrm{e}\rho _\mathrm{i}^{1/3}`$). 2) Taking into account that ions radiate inefficiently, having virial-heated ions in the vicinity of the last stable orbit is essential for the total energy-budget of large scale jets.

## 2 Formation of the super-Keplerian layer

Angular momentum in standard disks (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973, hereforth SS-disks) is transported outwards mainly via small scale magneto-hydrodynamical turbulence. Magnetic fields (-MFs) however were assumed to be weak, and remain so during the whole viscous evolution of the disk. Here we adopt a different view. Let $`\nu _{\mathrm{tot}}=\nu _{\mathrm{HD}}+\nu _{\mathrm{Mag}}=\alpha (P_{\mathrm{gas}}+\pi _\mathrm{B})/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a modified dynamical viscosity (see the caption of Figure 1 for elaboration). Unlike $`\nu _{\mathrm{HD}}`$ which transports angular momentum outwards, $`\nu _{\mathrm{Mag}}`$ transports angular momentum in the vertical direction, provided that $`B_\mathrm{P}`$ is of large scale topology. Taking into account that $`\nu _{\mathrm{HD}}`$ in SS-disks decreases inwards, a transition radius $`R_{\mathrm{Tr}}`$ at which result111If $`\nu _{\mathrm{Mag}}`$ is too small, then magnetic fields are frozen-in to the gas approximately. In this case $`B\rho ^{2/3}`$, and B must increase inwards, irrespectively, whether the disk is standard or advection-dominated. the time scale of angular momentum removal by MFs at $`R_{\mathrm{Tr}}`$ is of the same order as that by the turbulent viscosity. Hence

$$\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}}{\tau _{tur}}\alpha (\frac{H}{r})(\frac{V_\mathrm{s}}{V_\mathrm{A}})^21,$$
(1)
where $`V_\mathrm{s},V_\mathrm{A}`$ are the sound and transverse $`\mathrm{Alf}\stackrel{`}{\mathrm{v}}\mathrm{en}`$ speeds $`(V_\mathrm{A}=\sqrt{B_\mathrm{P}B_\mathrm{T}/4\pi \rho })`$, respectively. Taking into account that $`H/r\alpha `$, we end up with $`V_\mathrm{A}\alpha V_\mathrm{s}.`$ The last optimistic inequality applies everywhere in the disk, irrespective whether turbulence is mediated by $`\pi _\mathrm{B}`$ or not. Therefore, vertical transport of angular momentum via MFs is at least as efficient as $`\alpha `$viscosity. This is even more justified by the fact that Balbus-Hawley instability in Keplerian-disks amplifies initially weak fields to considerably large values, but remain still below equipartition (Hawley et al. 1996). Imposing appropriate boundary conditions, and carrying the MHD-Box calculations with high spatial resolution, MFs could be amplified up to equipartition (Ziegler 2002), yielding thereby $`\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}<\tau _{tur}`$. Furthermore, the dynamo-action model proposed by Tout & Pringle 1992, if applied, would make $`\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}`$ even shorter.

To be noted here that when taking a more realistic density and temperature stratification in global 3D MHD disk-calculations, vertical transport of angular momentum is inevitable (Arlt 2002).

Efficient vertical transport of angular momentum rises the following important issues: 1) Turbulence in the disk need not be dissipated, or it might be even suppressed by the amplified $`B_\mathrm{P}`$. This allows accretion to evolve without necessarily emitting the bulk of the their potential energy as radiation, and gives rise to energy re-distribution. 2) Accretion flows may not proceed as slowly as in SS-disk, but they may turn into advection-dominated222The flow is said to be advection-dominated if transport via fluid-motion dominates viscous re-distribution.. This occurs because the time scale of angular momentum removal from the disk scales as:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}\rho V_\mathrm{T}H/B_\mathrm{P}B_\mathrm{T}r^{3/2},$$
(2)
where $`V_\mathrm{T}(=r\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the angular velocity (Fig. 1). This indicates that angular momentum removal is more efficient at smaller radii.

To maintain dynamical stability, angular momentum removal from the disk should be compensated by rapid advection from larger radii, i.e., $`\tau _{\mathrm{adv}}=\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}`$. Further, rapid and steady generation of $`B_\mathrm{T}`$ in the disk yields $`B_\mathrm{P}/B_\mathrm{T}=H_\mathrm{d}/r.`$ The later two conditions imply that the radial velocity $`U_\mathrm{r}V_\mathrm{A}`$, which means that the stronger the MF threading the disk, the more advection-dominated it becomes, and therefore the faster is the establishment of the super-Keplerian layer.

Based on the present calculations (see the caption of Figure 1 and figures 2- 4), it is found that: 1) Angular velocity in the transition layer (TL) adopts approximately the profile $`\mathrm{\Omega }r^{5/4}`$. 2) Energy dissipation is injected primarily into the ions that cool predominantly through fast outflows. 3) The generated toroidal magnetic field is quenched by a magnetic diffusion (reconnection) and fast outflows. The width of the TL is pre-dominantly determined through the transverse variation of the ion-pressure across the jet, i.e., $`H_\mathrm{W}=P_\mathrm{i}/P_\mathrm{i}0.2r`$, and so strongly dependent on whether the flow is a one- or two-temperature plasma. In the steady-state case, this implies:

$$\rho r^{7/4},T_\mathrm{i}r^{1/2},U_\mathrm{r}r^{1/4},B_\mathrm{P}/B_\mathrm{T}\mathrm{const}.$$
(3)
We note that $`U_\mathrm{r}`$ adopts a profile and attains values similar to those in the innermost part of the disk. Provided that energy exchange between the matter in the disk and in the TL is efficient, the incoming matter can easily be re-directed into outwards-oriented motions. This implies that the Bernoulli number (Be) can change sign in dissipative flows. As Fig. 4 shows, Be is everywhere negative save the TL, where it attains large positive values, so that the ion-plasma can start its kpc-journey.

Worth-noting is the resulting MF topology. Apparently, the outflow is sufficiently strong to shift the MF lines outwards, while the large diffusivity prevents the formation of large electric currents along the equator. In the corona however, MFs are too weak to halt the diffusive plasma in the dynamically unstable corona against gravity, and instead, they drift with the infalling gas inwards. In the case of very weak MFs ($`\beta 0.1`$), our calculations indicate a considerably weak outflow. This is a consequence of the tendency of the MFs to establish a monopole like-topology, i.e, a one-dimensional MF-topology in which $`\mathrm{B}_\theta 0`$. In this case, the magnetic tension $`\pi _\mathrm{B}`$ becomes inefficient in feeding the matter in the TL with the angular momentum required for launching jets, indicating herewith that cold accretion disks alone are in-appropriate for initiating winds (Ogilvie & Livio 2001).

Comparing the flux of matter in the wind to that in the disk, we find that $`\dot{}_\mathrm{W}/\dot{}_\mathrm{d}=\mathrm{const}.1/20`$. The angular momentum flux associated with the wind is $`\dot{𝒥}_\mathrm{W}/\dot{𝒥}_\mathrm{d}=\mathrm{a}(\dot{}_\mathrm{W}/\dot{}_\mathrm{d})r^{1/4},`$ where $`\mathrm{a}`$ is a constant of order unity. Consequently, at $`r=3\times 10^2R_{\mathrm{Sch}}`$, almost $`25\%`$ of the total accreted angular momentum in the disk re-appears in the wind.
Why is the TL geometrically thin?
In stratified dissipative flows the density scale height is much smaller than the scale height of the angular velocity (Hujeirat & Camenzind 2000). Since the flow in TL rotates super-Keplerian, Coriolis forces act to compress the disk-matter and make its density scale height even smaller. This implies that advective-disks are geometrically thin, much thinner than what ADAF-solutions predict.
On the other hand, unless there is a significant energy flux that heats up the plasma from below, as in the case of stars, heat conduction will always force the BH-coronae to collapse dynamically. To elaborate this point, let us compare the conduction time scale with the dynamical time scale along $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{P}`$-field at the last stable orbit of a SMBH:

$$\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{cond}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}}=\frac{r\rho U_\mathrm{r}}{\kappa _0T_\mathrm{i}^{5/2}}=4.78\times 10^4\rho _{10}T_{\mathrm{i},10}^{5/2}_8,$$
(4)
where $`\rho _{10}`$, $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{i},10}`$ and $`_8`$ are respectively in $`10^{10}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`10^{10}`$K and in $`10^8_{}`$ units. This is much less than unity for most reasonable values of density and temperature typical for AGN-environments. In writing Eq. 4 we have taken optimistically the upper limit $`c/\sqrt{3}`$ for the velocity, and set $`\kappa _0=3.2\times 10^8`$ for the ion-conduction coefficient. When modifying the conduction operator to respect causality, we obtain $`\tau _{\mathrm{cond}}/\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}U_\mathrm{r}/c`$, which is again smaller than unity.
This agrees with our numerical calculations which rule out the possibility of outflows along the rotation axis, and in particular not from the highly unstable polar region of the BH, as ADAF-solutions predict.

## 3 Summary

We have presented a multi-layer model for initiating ion-jets in AGNs. The model agrees with a previous numerical study which confirmed the formation of thermally-induced outflows in the transition layer (Hujeirat & Camenzind 2000). Here we have shown that incorporating the effects of MFs manifests their formation and dramatically strengthen their dynamics.

Three ingredients for initiating winds have been detected: 1) a highly diffusive plasma dominated by virial-hot ions, 2) large scale magnetic fields that efficiently transport angular momentum from the disk into the TL, where the plasma rotates super-Keplerian, and 3) an underlying advection-dominated accretion disk.

Taking into account that the corona is dynamically unstable, adopting a large scale magnetic topology, and allowing ion-electron thermal decoupling appear to force accretion flows to undergo a global energy re-distribution: confined inflows (negative Bernoulli number) in the equatorial region and in the corona, and thermally and magneto-centrifugally-driven outflows in the TL characterized through a positive Bernoulli number. This feature may survive under different conditions: strong MFs suppress turbulence, weakening thereby the effect of the turbulent-viscosity and dominate the transport of angular momentum. On the other hand weak MFs in rotating stratified flows would be amplified via dynamo-action and reach equipartition, beyond which turbulence is again suppressed. This interplay between MFs and turbulent-viscosity, Balbus-Hawley and Parker instabilities may settle into an equilibrium state, in which inflows are simultaneously associated with low-cooling out-flowing ion-plasma.

We note that in the absence of thermal conduction and adopting the one-temperature description, low-viscosity radiatively inefficient HD and MHD accretion flows become inevitably convection-dominated. Therefore, in the early phases of jet-initiation, CDAFs may play an important role in powering the jets in AGNs and microquasars (Abramowicz et al. 2002).

The multi-layer model presented here accommodates some elements of BP82. In particular, we agree with BP82 about the necessity for a super-Keplerian rotation of the plasma overlying the accretion disk. However, the plasma here is dominated by highly-diffusive and virial-hot ions; it does not require a special $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{P}`$alignment with respect to the disk-normal to enable jet-launching, as ideal-MHD treatment requires. While our results agrees with the ion-torus model with respect to the necessity of 2T-plasma to maintain the ions hot for a significant time of their propagation-life in the ISM, no signatures for the formation of ion-supported tori have been detected (Rees et al. 1982).

Our results differ from ADAF and ADIOs in several issues, and in particular with respect to 1) the existence of a layer adjusting to the disk, where the plasma is found to rotate super-Keplerian, 2) the configurations of the in- and the out-flows, 3) stability of the corona in the vicinity of the BH, 4) the transition from SS-disk to advection-dominated disks and 5) with respect to the essence of Bernoulli number in dissipative flows, i.e., a positive Bernoulli number is necessary but not sufficient for outflows (Abramowicz et al. 2000).

Finally, we note that since the flow in the TL is highly dissipative (strengthen thermal and rotational coupling with the central nucleus), the innermost region of the disk rotates synchronously with Kerr black holes (due to the frame dragging effect), and since $`\tau _{\mathrm{rem}}`$ decreases with radius and depends inversely on $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{P}`$, we think that the plasma attached to the poloidal magnetic field would be forced to deposit its angular momentum to the plasma in the TL, thereby considerably enhancing the centrifugal power and ejecting the ion-plasma into space with relativistic speeds.