text:
# Flow equivalence of graph algebras

## 1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to describe various constructions on a directed graph which give rise to equivalences between the associated graph $`C^{}`$-algebras. The graphical constructions in question all have their roots in the theory of flow equivalence for topological Markov chains. Our results will unify the work of several authors over the last few years who have studied similar constructions for Cuntz-Krieger algebras and, more recently, graph $`C^{}`$-algebras (see \[CK, MRS, Ash, D, DS, Br, B1\] amongst others).

The motivation for the graphical constructions we use lies in the theory of subshifts of finite type. A shift space $`(\text{X},\sigma )`$ over a finite alphabet $`𝒜`$ is a compact subset X of $`𝒜^𝐙`$ invariant under the shift map $`\sigma `$. To a directed graph $`E`$ with finitely many edges and no sources or sinks one may associate a shift space $`\text{X}_E`$, called the edge shift of $`E`$, whose alphabet is the edge set of $`E`$ (see \[LM, Definition 2.2.5\]). Edge shifts are examples of subshifts of finite type. Alternatively, to every square $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix $`A`$ with no zero rows or columns one may associate a subshift of finite type $`\text{X}_A`$ (see \[LM, Definition 2.3.7\]).

Two important types of equivalence between shift spaces are conjugacy and flow equivalence. Shift spaces $`(\text{X},\sigma _\text{X})`$ and $`(\text{Y},\sigma _\text{Y})`$ are conjugate ($`\text{X}\text{Y}`$) if there is an isomorphism $`\varphi :\text{X}\text{Y}`$ such that $`\sigma _\text{Y}\varphi =\varphi \sigma _\text{X}`$. The suspension of $`(\text{X},\sigma _\text{X})`$ is

$$\text{SX}:=(\text{X}\times 𝐑)/[(x,t+1)(\sigma _\text{X}(x),t)].$$

Shift spaces $`(\text{X},\sigma _\text{X})`$ and $`(\text{Y},\sigma _\text{Y})`$ are flow equivalent ($`\text{X}\text{Y}`$) if there is a homeomorphism between SX and SY preserving the orientation of flow lines.

By \[LM, Proposition 2.3.9\] every subshift of finite type is conjugate to an edge shift $`\text{X}_E`$ for some directed graph $`E`$. Since the edge connectivity matrix $`B_E`$ of $`E`$ is a $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix such that $`\text{X}_E\text{X}_{B_E}`$, every subshift of finite type is conjugate to a shift described by a $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix. Conversely, every shift described by a $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix $`A`$ is conjugate to an edge shift: Let $`E_A`$ be the directed graph with vertex connectivity matrix $`A`$, then $`\text{X}_{E_A}`$ is conjugate to $`\text{X}_A`$ (see \[LM, Exercise 1.5.6, Proposition 2.3.9\]). Hence subshifts of finite type are edge shifts or shifts associated to $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices.

Conjugacy and flow equivalence for subshifts of finite type may be expressed in terms of $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices: An elementary strong shift equivalence between square $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices $`A,B`$ is a pair $`(R,S)`$ of $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices such that $`A=RS`$ and $`B=SR`$. We say $`A`$ and $`B`$ are strong shift equivalent if there is a chain of elementary strong shift equivalences from $`A`$ to $`B`$. From \[W, Theorem A\] (see also \[LM, Theorem 7.2.7\]) $`\text{X}_A\text{X}_B`$ if and only if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are strong shift equivalent. By \[PS\] $`\text{X}_A\text{X}_B`$ if and only if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related via a chain of elementary strong shift equivalences and certain matrix expansions. Both these matrix operations have graphical interpretations: Following \[LM, Theorem 2.4.14 and Exercise 2.4.9\] an elementary strong shift equivalence corresponds to either an in- or out-splitting of the corresponding graphs. Following \[D, §3\], the matrix expansions in \[PS\] correspond to an out-delay of the corresponding graph.

To a $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix $`A`$ with $`n`$ non-zero rows and columns is associated a $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by partial isometries $`\{S_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ with mutually orthogonal ranges satisfying

$$S_j^{}S_j=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A(i,j)S_iS_i^{}.$$

If $`A`$ satisfies condition (I) the Cuntz-Krieger algebra $`𝒪_A`$ is unique up to isomorphism. Results about Cuntz-Krieger algebras may be expressed in terms of the directed graph $`E_A`$ associated to $`A`$ (see \[EW\] and \[FW\], for instance). More recent results are expressed entirely in terms of $`E_A`$ (see \[KPRR, KPR\] amongst others).

To a row-finite directed graph $`E`$ with finitely many edges and no sources or sinks is associated the universal $`C^{}`$-algebra, $`C^{}(E)`$ generated by partial isometries $`\{s_e:eE^1\}`$ with mutually orthogonal ranges satisfying

$$s_e^{}s_e=\underset{s(f)=r(e)}{}s_fs_f^{}.$$

If $`A`$ is a square $`0`$-$`1`$ matrix which satisfies condition (I), and $`E_A`$ is the associated directed graph, then $`𝒪_AC^{}(E_A)`$ (see \[MRS, Proposition 4.1\]). On the other hand, if $`E`$ satisfies condition (L), then the associated edge connectivity matrix $`B_E`$ satisfies condition (I) and $`C^{}(E)𝒪_{B_E}`$ (see \[KPRR, Proposition 4.1\]). There are similar equivalences between Cuntz-Krieger algebras associated to infinite $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices which are row-finite and certain row-finite directed graphs (see \[PR\], \[BPRSz, Theorem 3.1\]).

By \[CK, Proposition 2.17, Theorems 3.8 and 4.1\] if $`A`$ and $`B`$ satisfy condition (I) and $`\text{X}_A\text{X}_B`$ then $`𝒪_A𝒪_B`$; moreover, if $`\text{X}_A\text{X}_B`$ then $`𝒪_A`$ is stably isomorphic to $`𝒪_B`$. The aim of this paper is to show that the graphical procedures involved in flow equivalence and conjugacy for edge shifts may be applied to arbitrary graphs, and give rise to isomorphisms or Morita equivalences of the corresponding graph $`C^{}`$-algebras. Initial results in this direction were proved in \[D\] for graphs with no sinks and finitely many vertices: Out-splittings lead to isomorphisms of the underlying graph $`C^{}`$-algebras whilst the $`C^{}`$-algebra of an in-split graph is isomorphic to the $`C^{}`$-algebra of a certain out-delayed graph. Further partial results may be found in \[DS\] and \[Br\].

The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the $`C^{}`$-algebra of any directed graph and the gauge invariant uniqueness result used to establish our results. Section 3 deals with out-split graphs, section 4 with in- and out-delays, and section 5 with in-split graphs. Finally section 6 relates our results to those in \[B1\]. Our main results are:

* If $`E`$ is a directed graph and $`F`$ is a proper out-split graph formed from $`E`$ then $`C^{}(E)C^{}(F)`$ (Theorem 3.2).
* If $`E`$ is a directed graph and $`F`$ is an out-delayed graph formed from $`E`$ then $`C^{}(E)`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(F)`$ if and only if $`F`$ arises from a proper out-delay (Theorem 4.2).
* If $`E`$ is a directed graph and $`F`$ is an in-delayed graph formed from $`E`$ then $`C^{}(E)`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(F)`$ (Theorem 4.5).
* If $`E`$ is a directed graph and $`F`$ is an in-split graph formed from $`E`$ then $`C^{}(E)`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(F)`$ if and only if $`F`$ arises from a proper in-splitting (Corollary 5.4).

## 2. The $`C^{}`$-algebra of a directed graph

Here we briefly set out some of the basic definitions and terminology which we use throughout this paper. A directed graph $`E`$ consists of countable sets of vertices and edges $`E^0`$ and $`E^1`$, together with maps $`r,s:E^1E^0`$ giving direction of each edge. The maps $`r,s`$ extend naturally to $`E^{}`$, the collection of all finite paths in $`E`$. The graph $`E`$ is called row-finite if every vertex emits a finite number of edges.

A Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family consists of a collection $`\{s_e:eE^1\}`$ of partial isometries with orthogonal ranges, and mutually orthogonal projections $`\{p_v:vE^0\}`$ satisfying

* $`s_e^{}s_e=p_{r(e)}`$,
* $`s_es_e^{}p_{s(e)}`$,
* if $`v`$ emits finitely many edges then $`p_v=_{s(e)=v}s_es_e^{}`$.

The graph $`C^{}`$-algebra of $`E`$, $`C^{}(E)`$ is the universal $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by a Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family. An important property of a graph $`C^{}`$-algebra is the existence of an action $`\gamma `$ of $`𝐓`$, called the gauge action, which is characterised by

$$\gamma _zs_e=zs_e,\text{ and }\gamma _zp_v=p_v$$

where $`\{s_e,p_v\}C^{}(E)`$ is the canonical Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family and $`z𝐓`$. This gauge action is a key ingredient in the uniqueness theorem which we shall frequently use:

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[BHRSz, Theorem 2.1\] Let $`E`$ be a directed graph, $`\{S_e,P_v\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family and $`\pi :C^{}(E)C^{}(S_e,P_v)`$ the homomorphism satisfying $`\pi (s_e)=S_e`$ and $`\pi (p_v)=P_v`$. Suppose that each $`P_v`$ is non-zero, and that there is a strongly continuous action $`\beta `$ of $`𝐓`$ on $`C^{}(S_e,P_v)`$ such that $`\beta _z\pi =\pi \gamma _z`$ for all $`z𝐓`$. Then $`\pi `$ is faithful.

To apply Theorem 2.1, we exhibit a non-trivial Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family within a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$, which carries a suitable $`𝐓`$-action $`\beta `$.

Some results in this paper require the following result on Morita equivalence of graph algebras. As in \[BHRSz, Remark 3.1\] we define the saturation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)`$ of $`SE^0`$ to be the union of the sequence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(S)`$ of subsets of $`E^0`$ defined inductively as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(S)`$ $`:=`$ $`\{vE^0:v=r(\mu )\text{ for some }\mu E^{}\text{ with }s(\mu )S\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}(S)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(S)\{wE^0:\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<|s^1(w)|<\mathrm{}\text{ and }s(e)=w\text{ imply }r(e)\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(S)\}`$
We note that if $`E`$ is row-finite then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)`$ is the saturation of the hereditary set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(S)`$ as defined in \[BPRSz\].

###### Lemma 2.2.

Suppose that $`E`$ is a directed graph, $`S`$ a subset of $`E^0`$ and $`\{s_e,p_v\}`$ the canonical Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family. Let $`P=_{vS}p_v`$. Then $`P(C^{}(E))`$ and the corner $`PC^{}(E)P`$ is full if and only if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)=E^0`$.

###### Proof.

By \[PR, Lemma 3.3.1\] the sum $`_{vS}p_v`$ converges to a projection $`P(C^{}(E))`$. We claim that $`PC^{}(E)PI_{\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)}`$. Let $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}`$ be a nonzero element of $`PC^{}(E)P`$, then $`s(\mu )S`$ and so $`p_{s(\mu )}I_{\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)}`$. Thus $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=p_{s(\mu )}s_\mu s_\nu ^{}I_{\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)}`$ establishing our claim.

If $`PC^{}(E)P`$ is full then $`I_{\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)}=C^{}(E)`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)=E^0`$ by \[BHRSz, Section 3\]. Conversely, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)=E^0`$ and $`PC^{}(E)PI`$ for some ideal $`I`$ in $`C^{}(E)`$. By \[BHRSz, Lemma 3.2\] $`H_I=\{v:p_vI\}`$ is a saturated hereditary subset of $`E^0`$ containing $`S`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)`$. Thus $`C^{}(E)=I_{\mathrm{\Sigma }H(S)}I`$ and the result follows. ∎

## 3. Out-Splittings

The following definitions are adapted from \[LM, Definition 2.4.3\]. Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a directed graph. For each $`vE^0`$ which emits an edge, partition $`s^1(v)`$ into disjoint nonempty subsets $`_v^1,\mathrm{},_v^{m(v)}`$ where $`m(v)1`$ (if $`v`$ is a sink, then we put $`m(v)=0`$). Let $`𝒫`$ denote the resulting partition of $`E^1`$. We form the out-split graph $`E_s(𝒫)`$ from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$ as follows: Let

$`E_s(𝒫)^0`$ $`=\{v^i:vE^0,1im(v)\}\{v:m(v)=0\},`$
$`E_s(𝒫)^1`$ $`=\{e^j:eE^1,1jm(r(e))\}\{e:m(r(e))=0\},`$
and define $`r_{E_s(𝒫)},s_{E_s(𝒫)}:E_s(𝒫)^1E_s(𝒫)^0`$ for $`e_{s(e)}^i`$ by

$`s_{E_s(𝒫)}(e^j)`$ $`=s(e)^i\text{ and }s_{E_s(𝒫)}(e)=s(e)^i`$
$`r_{E_s(𝒫)}(e^j)`$ $`=r(e)^j\text{ and }r_{E_s(𝒫)}(e)=r(e).`$
The partition $`𝒫`$ is proper if for every vertex $`v`$ with infinite valency we have $`m(v)<\mathrm{}`$ and only one of the partition sets $`_v^i`$ is infinite.

###### Examples 3.1.

* The partitions which give rise to the out-splittings described in \[LM, Figures 2.4.3–2.4.5\] and \[D, §4.1\] are all examples of proper partitions.
* If we out-split at an infinite valence vertex, taking a partition $`𝒫`$ which has finitely many subsets, such as in

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$`v`$$`w`$$`\mathrm{}`$.......................................................................................................................................................................which splits at $`v`$ to$``$$``$$``$$`v^1`$$`v^2`$$`w`$$`\mathrm{}`$..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
then $`𝒫`$ is proper. If $`𝒫`$ has more than one infinite subset, such as in

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$$`v`$$`w`$....................................................................................................................................................................................................which splits at $`v`$ to $`E_s(𝒫^{}):=`$$``$$``$$``$$`v^1`$$`v^2`$$`w`$$`\mathrm{}`$$`\mathrm{}`$...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
then $`𝒫`$ is not proper. Again $`C^{}(E)`$ is not Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$ since the latter has an additional ideal. If $`𝒫`$ has infinitely many subsets, such as in

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$$`v`$$`w`$....................................................................................................................................................................................................which splits at $`v`$ to $`E_s(𝒫):=`$$``$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$$``$$`v^1`$$`v^2`$$`v^3`$$`w`$.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
then $`𝒫`$ is not proper. In this case, $`C^{}(E)`$ and $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$ are not Morita equivalent: The former is non-simple and the latter simple.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph, $`𝒫`$ a partition of $`E^1`$ and $`E_s(𝒫)`$ the out-split graph formed from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$. If $`𝒫`$ is proper then $`C^{}(E)C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{s_f,p_w:fE_s(𝒫)^1,wE_s(𝒫)^0\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`E_s(𝒫)`$-family. For $`vE^0`$ and $`eE^1`$ set $`Q_v=p_v`$ if $`m(v)=0`$, $`T_e=s_e`$ if $`m(r(e))=0`$,

$$Q_v=\underset{1im(v)}{}p_{v^i}\text{ if }m(v)0\text{ and }T_e=\underset{1jm(r(e))}{}s_{e^j}\text{ if }m(r(e))0.$$

Because $`𝒫`$ is proper $`m(v)<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`vE^0`$ and all of these sums are finite. We claim that $`\{T_e,Q_v:eE^1,vE^0\}`$ is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family in $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$.

The $`Q_v`$’s are non-zero mutually orthogonal projections since they are sums of projections satisfying the same properties. The partial isometries $`T_e`$ for $`eE^1`$ have mutually orthogonal ranges since they consist of sums of partial isometries with mutually orthogonal ranges. For $`eE^1`$ it is easy to see that $`T_e^{}T_e=Q_{r(e)}`$ and $`T_eT_e^{}Q_{s(e)}`$.

For $`eE^1`$ with $`m(r(e))0`$, then since $`r_{E_s}(e^j)r_{E_s}(e^k)`$ for $`jk`$ we have

(3.1)
$$T_eT_e^{}=\left(\underset{1jm(r(e))}{}s_{e^j}\right)\left(\underset{1km(r(e))}{}s_{e^k}\right)^{}=\underset{1jm(r(e))}{}s_{e^j}s_{e^j}^{}.$$

If $`m(r(e))=0`$ then $`T_eT_e^{}=s_es_e^{}`$. For $`vE^0`$ and $`1im(v)`$ put $`_{1,v}^i=\{e_v^i:m(r(e))1\}`$ and $`_{0,v}^i=\{e_v^i:m(r(e))=0\}`$. If $`vE^0`$ has finite valency and is not a sink then $`s^1(v)=_{i=1}^{m(v)}_v^i`$ and for $`1im(v)`$ we have

$$s_{E_s(𝒫)}^1(v^i)=\{e^j:e_{1,v}^i,1jm(r(e))\}_{0,v}^i$$

Hence using (3.1) we may compute

$`Q_v={\displaystyle \underset{1im(v)}{}}p_{v^i}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{1im(v)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{e_{1,v}^i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{1jm(r(e))}{}}s_{e^j}s_{e^j}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{1im(v)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{e_{0,v}^i}{}}s_es_e^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{1im(v)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{e_v^i}{}}T_eT_e^{}={\displaystyle \underset{e:s(e)=v}{}}T_eT_e^{},`$
completing the proof of our claim, since vertices $`vE^0`$ with $`m(v)=0`$ are sinks.

Let $`\{t_e,q_v\}`$ be the canonical generators of $`C^{}(E)`$, then by the universal property of $`C^{}(E)`$ there is a homomorphism $`\pi :C^{}(E)C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$ taking $`t_e`$ to $`T_e`$ and $`q_v`$ to $`Q_v`$. To prove that $`\pi `$ is onto we show that the generators of $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$ lie in $`C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$. If $`w=v^jE_s(𝒫)^0`$ has finite valency or $`w`$ is a sink, then $`p_wC^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$. If $`v^j`$ has infinite valency, then without loss of generality we suppose $`j=1`$. Since $`𝒫`$ is proper it follows that $`v^2,\mathrm{},v^{m(v)}`$ have finite valency, so $`p_{v^2},\mathrm{}p_{v^{m(v)}}C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$ and hence

$$p_{v^1}=Q_vp_{v^2}\mathrm{}p_{v^{m(v)}}C^{}(T_e,Q_v).$$

If $`e^jE_s(𝒫)^1`$ then $`m(r(e))0`$. Since $`p_{r(e)^j}C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$ we have $`s_{e^j}=T_ep_{r(e)^j}C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$. If $`eE_s(𝒫)^1`$ then $`m(r(e))=0`$ and so $`s_e=T_eC^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$.

Since $`\pi `$ commutes with the canonical gauge action on each $`C^{}`$-algebra and as $`Q_v0`$ for all $`vE^0`$ it follows from Theorem 2.1 that $`\pi `$ is injective, and the result follows. ∎

###### Remarks 3.3.

* The maximal out-splitting $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of $`E`$ is formed from a partition $`𝒫`$ of $`E^1`$ which admits no refinements. For a graph $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ without sinks $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is isomorphic to the dual graph $`\widehat{E}=(E^1,E^2,r^{},s^{})`$ (where $`r^{}(ef)=f`$ and $`s^{}(ef)=e`$): Since the out-splitting is maximal and there are no sinks, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^0=\{v^e:s(e)=v\},\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{E}^1=\{e^f:s(f)=r(e)\}.$$

The maps $`v^ee`$ and $`e^fef`$ induce an isomorphism from $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ to $`\widehat{E}`$. We define the dual graph $`\widehat{E}`$ of any directed graph $`E`$ to be its maximal out-split graph $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. Since a maximal out-splitting is proper if and only $`E`$ is row-finite we may now use Theorem 3.2 to generalise \[BPRSz, Corollary 2.5\] to any row-finite graph.
* Brenken defines a graph algebra $`G^{}(E)`$ which, under certain conditions, is isomorphic to $`C^{}(E)`$. By \[Br, Theorem 3.4\], $`G^{}(E)`$ and the $`C^{}`$-algebra of its out-splitting are isomorphic if the graph satisfies a certain properness condition (see \[Br, Definition 3.2\]). This result only reduces to $`C^{}(E)`$ when $`E`$ is row-finite.
* For row-finite graphs with finitely many vertices and no sinks, a proof of Theorem 3.2 may be deduced from \[D, §4.1\]. In \[DS, Section 6\] similar results are proved for an “explosion” which is a particular example of an out-splitting operation.
* The $`C^{}`$-algebra of an out-split graph is isomorphic to the $`C^{}`$-algebra of an ultragraph (see \[T\]). Given a directed graph $`E`$ and a partition $`𝒫`$ define the ultragraph $`𝒢(𝒫)=(G^0,𝒢^1,r^{},s^{})`$ as follows: Put $`G^0=E_s(𝒫)^0`$, $`𝒢^1=E^1`$, $`s^{}(e)=s(e)^i`$ if $`e_{s(e)}^i`$, $`r^{}(e)=r(e)`$ if $`m(r(e))=0`$ and

$$r^{}(e)=\{r(e)^i:1im(r(e))\}\text{ if }m(r(e))0.$$

We claim that if $`𝒫`$ is proper then $`C^{}(𝒢(𝒫))C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$. When $`𝒫`$ is proper $`𝒢^0`$ is the set of finite subsets of $`E_s(𝒫)^0`$. Let $`\{p_A,s_e:A𝒢^0,e𝒢^1\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`𝒢(𝒫)`$-family. For $`wE_s(𝒫)^0`$ set $`Q_w=p_w`$ and for $`f^jE_s(𝒫)^1`$ put $`T_{f^j}=s_fp_{r(f)^j}`$. Then $`\{Q_w,T_{f^j}\}`$ is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E_s(𝒫)`$-family in which each $`Q_w0`$. Let $`\{t_{f^j},q_w\}`$ be the canonical generators of $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$, then by the universal property of $`C^{}(E_s(𝒫))`$ there is a map $`\pi :C^{}(E_s(𝒫))C^{}(𝒢(𝒫))`$ sending $`t_{f^j}`$ to $`T_{f^j}`$ and $`q_w`$ to $`Q_w`$. As each $`A𝒢^0`$ is finite, $`C^{}(T_{f^j},Q_w)`$ contains each generator of $`C^{}(𝒢(𝒫))`$, so $`\pi `$ is onto. By \[T, Section 2\] there is an appropriate action of $`𝐓`$ on $`C^{}(𝒢(𝒫))`$, so $`\pi `$ is injective by Theorem 2.1, proving our claim.
* Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ act freely on the edges of a row-finite graph $`E`$, then the induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on the dual graph $`\widehat{E}`$ is free on its vertices. The isomorphism $`C^{}(E)C^{}(\widehat{E})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant, so $`C^{}(E)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }C^{}(\widehat{E})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and by \[KQR, Corollary 3.3\] we have

(3.2)
$$C^{}(E)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }C^{}(\widehat{E}/\mathrm{\Gamma })𝒦\left(\mathrm{}^2(𝐙_2)\right).$$

For instance, there is a free action of $`𝐙_2`$ on the edges of graph $`B_2`$ which consists of a single vertex and two edges (the “flip-flop automorphism” of $`C^{}(B_2)𝒪_2`$ described by \[Ar\]). Equation (3.2) shows that $`𝒪_2\times 𝐙_2`$ is Morita equivalent $`𝒪_2`$.

## 4. Delays

Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a directed graph. A map $`d_s:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that

* if $`wE^0`$ is not a sink then $`d_s(w)=sup\{d_s(e):s(e)=w\}`$,
* if $`d_s(x)=\mathrm{}`$ for some $`x`$ then either $`x`$ is a sink or $`x`$ emits infinitely many edges

is called a Drinen source-vector. Note that only vertices are allowed to have an infinite $`d_s`$-value; moreover if $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`v`$ is not a sink, then there are edges with source $`v`$ and arbitrarily large $`d_s`$-value. From this data we construct a new graph as follows: Let

$`d_s(E)^0`$ $`=\{v^i:vE^0,0id_s(v)\}\text{ and}`$
$`d_s(E)^1`$ $`=E^1\{f(v)^i:1id_s(v)\},`$
and for $`eE^1`$ define $`r_{od}(e)=r(e)^0`$ and $`s_{od}(e)=s(e)^{d_s(e)}`$. For $`f(v)^i`$ define $`s_{od}(f(v)^i)=v^{i1}`$ and $`r_{od}(f(v)^i)=v^i`$. The resulting directed graph $`d_s(E)`$ is called the out-delayed graph of $`E`$ for the Drinen source-vector $`d_s`$.

In the out-delayed graph the original vertices correspond to those vertices with superscript $`0`$; the edge $`eE^1`$ is delayed from leaving $`s(e)^0`$ and arriving at $`r(e)^0`$ by a path of length $`d_s(e)`$. The Drinen source vector $`d_s`$ is strictly proper if, whenever $`v`$ has infinite valency, there is no $`v^i`$ with infinite valency unless $`i=d_s(v)<\mathrm{}`$. A Drinen source vector $`d_s`$ which gives rise to an out-delayed graph $`d_s(E)`$ which may be constructed using a finite sequence of strictly proper Drinen source vectors is said to be proper.

###### Examples 4.1.

* The notion of an out-delay in the context of graph $`C^{}`$-algebras was first introduced in \[CK, §4\] and subsequently generalised in \[D\]. The graphs shown in \[D, §3.1\] are all examples of out-delays for some proper Drinen source-vector where all the edges out of a given vertex are delayed by the same amount.
* The Drinen-Tomforde desingularisation of a graph described in \[DT, Definition 2.2\] is an example of a out-delay with a proper Drinen source-vector: If $`v`$ has infinite valency then the edges with source $`v`$ may be written as $`\{e_i:i𝐍\}`$; we set $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_s(e_i)=i`$ for $`i𝐍`$. If $`v`$ has finite valency then we set $`d_s(v)=0`$ (and so $`d_s(e)=0`$ for all $`es^1(v)`$). If $`v`$ is a sink then we put $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$. The resulting graph $`d_s(E)`$ is row-finite with no sinks.
* Putting $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$ for a sink adds an infinite tail to the sink. If $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$ for all sinks and $`d_s(v)=0`$ for all vertices which emit edges then $`d_s(E)`$ is the graph $`E`$ with tails added to all sinks (cf. \[RS, Lemma 1.4\]).
* Consider the graph $`E`$ shown below.

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$$`v`$$`w`$...................................................................................................................................with out-delay $`d_s(E):=`$$`\mathrm{}`$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`v^3`$$`v^2`$$`v^1`$$`v^0`$$`w^0`$$`\mathrm{}`$.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The Drinen source-vector for this out-delay is not proper since vertex $`v_1`$ has infinite valency. Moreover, the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ is not Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$ since the former $`C^{}`$-algebra has $`2`$ proper ideals and the latter only one.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph and $`d_s:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be a Drinen source-vector. Then $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$ if and only if $`d_s`$ is proper.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume that $`d_s:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is an essentially proper Drinen source-vector. Let $`\{s_f,p_w:fd_s(E)^1,wd_s(E)^0\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`d_s(E)`$-family. For $`eE^1`$ and $`vE^0`$ define $`Q_v=p_{v^0}`$ and

$$T_e=s_{f(s(e))^1}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))^{d_s(e)}}s_e\text{ if }d_s(e)0\text{ and }T_e=s_e\text{ otherwise.}$$

We claim that $`\{T_e,Q_v:eE^1,vE^0\}`$ is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family. The $`Q_v`$’s are non-zero mutually orthogonal projections since the $`p_v`$’s are. The $`T_e`$’s are partial isometries with mutually orthogonal ranges since they are products of partial isometries with this property. For $`eE^1`$ it is routine to check that $`T_e^{}T_e=Q_{r(e)}`$ and $`T_eT_e^{}Q_{s(e)}`$.

If $`vE^0`$ is neither a sink nor has infinite valence, then $`d_s(v)<\mathrm{}`$. If $`d_s(v)=0`$, then we certainly have $`Q_v=_{s(e)=v}T_eT_e^{}`$. Otherwise, for $`0jd_s(v)1`$ we have

(4.1)
$$p_{v^j}=\underset{s(e)=v,d_s(e)=j}{}s_es_e^{}+s_{f(v)^{j+1}}p_{v^{j+1}}s_{f(v)^{j+1}}^{},$$

and since we must have some edges with $`s(e)=v`$ and $`d_s(e)=d_s(v)`$ we have

(4.2)
$$p_{v^{d_s(v)}}=\underset{s(e)=v,d_s(e)=d_s(v)}{}s_es_e^{}.$$

Using (4.1) recursively and (4.2) when $`j=d_s(v)1`$ we see that

$$Q_v=p_{v^0}=\underset{s(e)=v,d_s(e)=0}{}T_eT_e^{}+\mathrm{}+\underset{s(e)=v,d_s(e)=d_s(v)}{}T_eT_e^{}=\underset{s(e)=v}{}T_eT_e^{},$$

and this establishes our claim.

Let $`\{t_e,q_v\}`$ be the canonical generators of $`C^{}(E)`$, then by the universal property of $`C^{}(E)`$ there is a homomorphism $`\pi :C^{}(E)C^{}(d_s(E))`$ which takes $`t_e`$ to $`T_e`$ and $`q_v`$ to $`Q_v`$. It remains to show that $`C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$ is a full corner in $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$.

Let $`\alpha `$ denote the strongly continuous $`𝐓`$-action satisfying, for $`z𝐓`$,

$$\alpha _zs_e=zs_e,\alpha _zs_{f(v)^i}=s_{f(v)^i}\text{ for }1id_s(v)\text{ and }\alpha _zp_{v^i}=p_{v^i}\text{ for }0id_s(v).$$

It is straightforward to check that $`\pi \gamma =\alpha \pi `$ where $`\gamma `$ is the usual gauge action of $`𝐓`$ on $`C^{}(E)`$ and it follows from Theorem 2.1 that $`\pi `$ is injective.

By Lemma 2.2 the sum $`_{vE^0}p_{v^0}`$ converges to a projection $`P(C^{}(d_s(E)))`$. We claim that $`C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$ is equal to $`PC^{}(d_s(E))P`$. Note that if $`Ps_\mu s_\nu ^{}P=s_\mu s_\nu ^{}0`$ then $`s_{od}(\mu )=v^0`$ and $`s_{od}(\nu )=w^0`$ for some $`v,wE^0`$, and $`r_{od}(\mu )=r_{od}(\nu )`$.

If $`\mu =\nu =v^0`$ then $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=p_{v^0}=Q_vC^{}(\{T_e,Q_v\})`$. If $`r_{od}(\mu )=u^0`$ for some $`uE^0`$ then there are paths $`\alpha ,\beta E^{}`$ with $`r(\alpha )=r(\beta )=u`$ such that $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha T_\beta ^{}`$ and so $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$. Suppose now that $`r_{od}(\mu )E^0`$. Then $`r_{od}(\mu )=u^q`$ for some $`uE^0`$ and $`0<qd_s(u)`$ and we can write

$$s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha s_{f(u)^1}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^q}s_{f(u)^q}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^1}^{}T_\beta ^{}.$$

for some $`\alpha ,\beta E^{}`$. Suppose $`q>1`$, then since $`d_s`$ is proper, $`f(u)^{q1}`$ has finite valency. If there are no edges in $`E`$ with $`s(e)=u`$ and $`d_s(e)=q1`$ then

(4.3)
$$s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha s_{f(u)^1}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^{q1}}s_{f(u)^{q1}}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^1}^{}T_\beta ^{}.$$

If there are a finite number of edges $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_lE^1`$ with $`s(e_i)=u`$ and $`d_s(e_i)=q1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, then

(4.4)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill s_\mu s_\nu ^{}& =& T_\alpha s_{f(u)^1}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^{q1}}(p_{u^{q1}}s_{e_1}s_{e_1}^{}\mathrm{}s_{e_l}s_{e_l}^{})s_{f(u)^{q1}}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^1}^{}T_\beta ^{}\hfill \\ & =& T_\alpha s_{f(u)^1}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^{q1}}s_{f(u)^{q1}}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(u)^1}^{}T_\beta ^{}_{i=1}^lT_\alpha T_{e_i}T_{e_i}^{}T_\beta ^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Our new expression for $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}`$ may now be analysed as in (4.3) or (4.4), reducing the value of $`q`$ until all $`s_{f(u)^i}`$ terms are removed. Then

$$s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha T_\beta ^{}\underset{s(e)=u,d_s(e)q1}{}T_{\alpha e}T_{\beta e}^{}C^{}(T_e,Q_v),$$

completing the proof of our claim.

Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(\{v^0:vE^0\})=d_s(E)^0`$, it follows from Lemma 2.2 that $`PC^{}(d_s(E))P`$ is a full corner in $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ and hence $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ and $`C^{}(E)`$ are strongly Morita equivalent.

If $`d_s`$ is not proper, then there are at least two vertices $`f(v)^i,f(v)^j`$ with $`0ijd_s(v)`$ emitting infinitely many edges. In this case there is an ideal generated by $`p_{f(v)^i}`$ in $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ which was not present in $`C^{}(E)`$. ∎

We are grateful to Daniel Gow and Tyrone Crisp for pointing out an error in an earlier version of Theorem 4.2 (see also \[CG\]).

###### Remarks 4.3.

* Theorem 4.2 significantly generalises the results in \[D, §3.1\]. Drinen shows a limited number of graph groupoid isomorphisms for row-finite graphs with finitely many vertices and no sinks in which each edge is equally delayed.
* The desingularisation of a non row-finite graph is an example of an out-delay (see Examples 4.1 (ii)). Moreover, any out-delay of a non row-finite graph using a proper Drinen source vector with $`d_s(v)=\mathrm{}`$ for all vertices of infinite valency provides an example of a row-finite graph $`d_s(E)`$ whose $`C^{}`$-algebra is Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$. It follows by \[B2, Corollary 4.6\] that if $`E`$ satisfies condition (K) then $`Prim(C^{}(E))`$ is the primitive ideal space of some AF-algebra.
* If $`d_s:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is a Drinen source-vector then $`E`$ is a deformation retract of $`d_s(E)`$ (see \[St, §3.3\]). The construction of an out-delayed graph replaces each vertex $`v`$ with $`d_s(v)1`$ by the tree $`\{v^i:0id_s(v),f(v)^i:1id_s(v)\}`$ which may be contracted to the root $`v^0`$ and identified with $`v`$ (see also \[GT, §1.5.5\]). In particular $`\pi _1(d_s(E))\pi _1(E)`$ and the universal covering tree $`T`$ of $`E`$ is a deformation retract of the universal covering tree $`T^{}`$ of $`d_s(E)`$. It follows that the boundary $`T`$ of $`T`$ is homeomorphic to the boundary $`T^{}`$ of $`T^{}`$ (see \[KP, §4\]). Hence the Morita equivalence between $`C^{}(E)`$ and $`C^{}(d_s(E))`$ could be obtained for row-finite graphs with no sinks using the Kumjian-Pask description of $`C^{}(E)`$ as a crossed product of $`C_0(T)`$ by $`\pi _1(E)`$ (see \[KP, Corollary 4.14\]).

We now turn our attention to in-delays where edges are delayed from arriving at their range. Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a graph. A map $`d_r:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying

* if $`w`$ is not a source then $`d_r(w)=sup\{d_r(e):r(e)=w\}`$,
* if $`d_r(x)=\mathrm{}`$ then $`x`$ is either a source or receives infinitely many edges

is called a Drinen range-vector. We construct a new graph $`d_r(E)`$ called the in-delayed graph of $`E`$ for the Drinen range-vector $`d_r`$ as follows:

$`d_r(E)^0`$ $`=\{v_i:vE^0,0id_r(v)\}\text{ and}`$
$`d_r(E)^1`$ $`=E^1\{f(v)_i:1id_r(v)\},`$
and for $`eE^1`$ we define $`r_{id}(e)=r(e)_{d_r(e)}`$ and $`s_{id}(e)=s(e)_0`$. For $`f(v)_i`$ we define $`s_{id}(f(v)_i)=v_i`$ and $`r_{id}(f(v)_i)=v_{i1}`$.

###### Examples 4.4.

* Consider the graph $`E`$ shown below, with edges $`\{e_i:i0\}`$ from $`v`$ to $`w`$. If we set $`d_r(e_i)=i`$, $`d_r(v)=0`$ and $`d_r(w)=\mathrm{}`$ then

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$$`v`$$`w`$................................................................................................................................... in-delays to $`d_r(E):=`$$`\mathrm{}`$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`w_0`$$`w_1`$$`w_2`$$`w_3`$$`v_0`$...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
* Observe that putting $`d_r(v)=\mathrm{}`$ for a source adds an infinite “head” to the source. If $`d_r(v)=\mathrm{}`$ for all sources and $`d_r(v)=0`$ for all vertices which receive edges then $`d_r(E)`$ is the graph $`E`$ with heads added to all sources (cf. \[RS, Lemma 1.4\]).

###### Theorem 4.5.

If $`d_r:E^0𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is a Drinen range-vector, then $`C^{}(d_r(E))`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`d_r:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be a Drinen range-vector and $`\{s_e,p_v:ed_r(E)^0,vd_r(E)^1\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`d_r(E)`$-family. For $`vE^0`$ let $`Q_v=p_{v_0}`$ and for $`eE^1`$ put

$$T_e=s_es_{f(r(e))_{d_r(e)}}\mathrm{}s_{f(r(e))_1}\text{ if }d_r(e)0\text{ and }T_e=s_e\text{ otherwise.}$$

It is straightforward to check that $`\{T_e,Q_v\}`$ is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E`$-family in $`C^{}(d_r(E))`$ in which all the projections $`Q_v`$ are non-zero. Let $`\{t_e,q_v\}`$ be the canonical generators of $`C^{}(E)`$, then by the universal property of $`C^{}(E)`$ there is a homomorphism $`\pi :C^{}(E)C^{}(d_r(E))`$ satisfying $`\pi (t_e)=T_e`$ and $`\pi (q_v)=Q_v`$. It remains to show that $`C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$, the image $`\pi `$, is a full corner in $`C^{}(d_r(E))`$.

Let $`\alpha `$ be the strongly continuous $`𝐓`$-action $`\alpha `$ on $`C^{}(d_r(E))`$ satisfying, for $`z𝐓`$,

$$\alpha _z(s_e)=zs_e,\alpha _z(s_{f(v)^i})=s_{f(v)^i}\text{ for }1id_r(v)\text{ and }\alpha _z(p_{v^i})=p_{v^i}\text{ for }0id_r(v).$$

It is straightforward to check that $`\pi \gamma =\alpha \pi `$ where $`\gamma `$ is the usual gauge action on $`C^{}(E)`$ and it follows from Theorem 2.1 that $`\pi `$ is injective.

By Lemma 2.2, the sum $`_{vE^0}p_{v_0}`$ converges to a projection $`P(C^{}(d_r(E)))`$. We claim that $`C^{}(\{T_e,Q_v\})`$ is equal to $`PC^{}(d_r(E))P`$. Note that if $`Ps_\mu s_\nu ^{}P=s_\mu s_\nu ^{}0`$ then $`s_{id}(\mu )=v_0`$ and $`s_{id}(\nu )=w_0`$ for some $`v,wE^0`$ and $`r_{id}(\mu )=r_{id}(\nu )`$.

If $`r_{id}(\mu )E^0`$, then $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha T_\beta ^{}`$ for some paths $`\alpha ,\beta E^{}`$ and hence $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}C^{}(\{T_e,Q_v\})`$. Suppose $`r_{id}(\mu )E^0`$. Then $`r_{id}(\mu )=r(e)_q`$ for some $`eE^1`$ with $`1qd_r(e)`$ and there are $`\alpha ,\beta E^{}`$ such that $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha s_ep_{f(r(e))_{d_r(e)}}s_e^{}T_\beta ^{}`$ if $`q=d_r(e)`$ and

$$s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_\alpha s_es_{f(r(e))_{d_r(e)}}\mathrm{}s_{f(r(e)_{q+1}}p_{f(r(e))_q}s_{f(r(e))_{q+1}}^{}\mathrm{}s_e^{}T_\beta ^{},$$

otherwise. Since the vertices $`f(r(e))_i`$ for $`2id_r(r(e))`$ emit exactly one edge each, we have $`p_{f(r(e))_i}=s_{f(r(e))_{i1}}s_{f(r(e))_{i1}}^{}`$ and hence we decrease $`q`$ in the expression for $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}`$ until we have $`s_\mu s_\nu ^{}=T_{\alpha e}T_{\beta e}^{}C^{}(T_e,Q_v)`$ as required.

It remains to check that the corner is full. To see this, we note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(E^0)=d_r(E)^0`$ and apply Lemma 2.2. Our result follows. ∎

###### Remarks 4.6.

* Using in-delays we can convert row-finite graphs into locally finite graphs (i.e. graphs where every vertex receives and emits finitely many edges): If $`E`$ is row-finite and $`vE^0`$ receives edges $`\{e_i:i𝐍\}`$, set $`d_r(v)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_r(e_i)=i`$. If $`v`$ is a source we put $`d_r(v)=\mathrm{}`$ and if $`v`$ receives finitely many edges we set $`d_r(v)=0`$. Evidently $`d_r:E^0E^1𝐍`$ is proper. The resulting graph $`d_r(E)`$ is then locally finite with no sources. Thus, combining Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.5 we can show that for any graph $`E`$ there is a locally finite graph with no sinks and sources $`F`$ such that $`C^{}(E)`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(F)`$.
* An in-delay at a vertex $`v`$ with $`d_r(v)1`$ replaces $`vE^0`$ by the tree $`\{v_i:0id_r(v),f(v)_i:1id_r(v)\}`$ where $`v`$ is identified with the leaf $`v_0`$. In combination with Remarks 4.3 (iii) it seems that we may get similar Morita equivalence results if we replace vertices with more general trees (i.e. contractible graphs) where the original vertex lies within the tree itself.
* Not every in-delay can be expressed as an out-delay. To see this observe that for the graph $`E`$ used in Examples 3.1 there can be no out-delay which corresponds to the in-delay described in Example 4.4. It should not be difficult to find examples where the graph contains no sources and sinks.

## 5. In-splittings

The following is adapted from \[LM, Definition 2.4.7\]: Let $`E=(E^0,E^1,r,s)`$ be a directed graph. For each $`vE^0`$ with $`r^1(v)\mathrm{}`$ partition the set $`r^1(v)`$ into disjoint nonempty subsets $`_1^v,\mathrm{},_{m(v)}^v`$ where $`m(v)1`$ (if $`v`$ is a source then we put $`m(v)=0`$). Let $`𝒫`$ denote the resulting partition of $`E^1`$. We form the in-split graph $`E_r(𝒫)`$ from $`E`$ using the partition $`𝒫`$ as follows: Let

$`E_r(𝒫)^0`$ $`=\{v_i:vE^0,1im(v)\}\{v:m(v)=0\},`$
$`E_r(𝒫)^1`$ $`=\{e_j:eE^1,1jm(s(e))\}\{e:m(s(e))=0\},`$
and define $`r_{E_r(𝒫)},s_{E_r(𝒫)}:E_r(𝒫)^1E_r(𝒫)^0`$ by

$`s_{E_r(𝒫)}(e_j)`$ $`=s(e)_j\text{ and }s_{E_r(𝒫)}(e)=s(e)`$
$`r_{E_r(𝒫)}(e_j)`$ $`=r(e)_i\text{ and }r_{E_r(𝒫)}(e)=r(e)_i\text{ where }e_i^{r(e)}.`$
Partition $`𝒫`$ is proper if for every vertex $`v`$ which is a sink or emits infinitely many edges we have $`m(v)=0,1`$. That is, we cannot in-split at a sink or vertex with infinite valency.

To relate the graph algebras of a graph and its in-splittings we use a variation of the method introduced in \[D, §4.2\]: If $`E_r(𝒫)`$ is the in-split graph formed from $`E`$ using the partition $`𝒫`$ then we may define a Drinen range-vector $`d_{r,𝒫}:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ by $`d_{r,𝒫}(v)=m(v)1`$ if $`m(v)1`$ and $`d_{r,𝒫}(v)=0`$ otherwise. For $`e_i^{r(e)}`$ we put $`d_{r,𝒫}(e)=i1`$. Hence, if $`v`$ receives $`n2`$ edges then we create a in-delayed graph in which $`v`$ is given delay of size $`m(v)1`$ and all edges with range $`v`$ are given a delay one less than their label in the partition of $`r^1(v)`$. If $`v`$ is a source or receives only one edge then there is no delay attached to $`v`$.

###### Examples 5.1.

* Examples of proper in-splittings are found in \[LM, Figure 2.4.6\] and \[D, §4.2\].
* An in-splitting is not proper if we in-split at a sink, such as for

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$``$....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................which in-splits at $`v`$ to give $`E_r(𝒫):=`$$``$$``$$``$$``$..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`u`$$`w`$$`v`$$`u`$$`w`$$`v_1`$$`v_2`$
The associated in-delayed graph is

$`d_{r,𝒫}(E):=`$$``$$``$$``$$``$.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`u_0`$$`w_0`$$`v_1`$$`v_0`$
As $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$ has two ideals and $`C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$ one they are not Morita equivalent.
* In-splittings at infinite valence vertices are not proper, such as in

$`E:=`$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`\mathrm{}`$$`u`$$`w`$$`v`$
which in-splits at $`v`$ to give $`E_r(𝒫):=`$

$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`u`$$`w`$$`v_1`$$`v_2`$$`\mathrm{}`$$`\mathrm{}`$
The associated in-delayed graph is

$`d_{r,𝒫}(E):=`$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`u_0`$$`w_0`$$`v_1`$$`v_0`$$`\mathrm{}`$
In this case $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$ has two ideals, whereas $`C^{}(d_r(E))`$ only has one. Thus these algebras are not Morita equivalent.

###### Remark 5.2.

If $`𝒫`$ is proper then every vertex $`v`$ which is either a sink or a vertex of infinite valency occurs only as $`v`$ or $`v_1`$ in $`E_r(𝒫)`$ and only as $`v_0`$ in $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$. In particular, if $`𝒫`$ is a proper partition and $`v`$ is a sink or infinite valence vertex, then there no edges of the form $`e_j`$ for $`j2`$ with $`s(e)=v`$ in $`E_r(𝒫)`$ and no edges of the form $`f(v)_i`$ in $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$.

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph, $`𝒫`$ a partition of $`E^1`$, $`E_r(𝒫)`$ the in-split graph formed from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$ and $`d_{r,𝒫}:E^0E^1𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ the Drinen range-vector defined as above. Then $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$ if and only if $`𝒫`$ is proper.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{s_f,p_w:fd_{r,𝒫}(E)^1,wd_{r,𝒫}(E)^0\}`$ be a Cuntz-Krieger $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$-family. To simplify our definitions, for $`vE^0`$ we put $`s_{f(v)_0}=p_{v_0}`$. For $`eE_r(𝒫)^1`$ we define $`T_e=s_e`$. For $`e_jE_r(𝒫)^1`$ with $`1jm(s(e))`$ we define

$$T_{e_j}=s_{f(s(e))_{j1}}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_1}s_e.$$

For $`1im(v)`$, define $`Q_{v_i}=p_{v_{i1}}`$; if $`m(v)=0`$, define $`Q_v=p_{v_0}`$. Then $`\{T_g,Q_u:gE_r(𝒫)^1,uE_r(𝒫)^0\}`$ is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E_r(𝒫)`$-family with $`Q_u0`$ for all $`u`$.

Let $`\{t_g,q_u\}`$ be the canonical generators of $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$. By the universal property of $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$ there is a homomorphism $`\pi :C^{}(E_r(𝒫))C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$ such that $`\pi (t_g)=T_g`$ and $`\pi (q_u)=Q_u`$. We claim that $`\pi `$ is surjective, that is $`\{T_g,Q_u\}`$ generates $`C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$.

For $`wd_{r𝒫}(E)^0`$ we have $`p_wC^{}(\{T_g,Q_u\})`$ by definition. For $`eE_r(𝒫)^1`$ we have $`s_e=T_eC^{}(\{T_g,Q_u\})`$. Since $`𝒫`$ is proper, by Remark 5.2 there are no edges in $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$ of the form $`f(r(e))_j`$ with $`r(e)`$ a sink. In particular, every edge $`f(v)_j`$ in $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$ is of the form $`f(s(e))_j`$ where $`s(e)`$ has finite valency. For $`1jm(s(e))1=d_{r,𝒫}(s(e))`$

$$T_{e_{j+1}}T_{e_j}^{}=s_{f(s(e))_j}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_1}s_es_e^{}s_{f(s(e))_1}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_{j1}}$$

and since $`v=s(e)`$ has finite valency we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s(e)=v}{}}T_{e_{j+1}}T_{e_j}^{}`$ $`=s_{f(s(e))_j}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_1}\left({\displaystyle \underset{s(e)=v_0}{}}s_es_e^{}\right)s_{f(s(e))_1}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_{j1}}^{}`$
$`=s_{f(s(e))_j}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_1}p_{v_0}s_{f(s(e))_1}^{}\mathrm{}s_{f(s(e))_{j1}}^{}=s_{f(s(e))_j}.`$
Then $`s_{f(s(e))_j}C^{}(T_g,Q_u)`$ and our claim follows.

For $`z𝐓`$ define an action $`\alpha `$ on $`C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$ by $`\alpha _z(p_v)=p_v`$ for $`vd_{r,𝒫}(E)^0`$, $`\alpha _z(s_e)=zs_e`$ for $`eE_r(𝒫)^1`$, and $`\alpha _z(s_{f(v)_i})=s_{f(v)_i}`$ for $`1id_{r,𝒫}(v)`$. Since $`\gamma \pi =\pi \alpha `$ where $`\gamma `$ is the usual gauge action on $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$, by Theorem 2.1 $`C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$.

If $`𝒫`$ is not proper then there is a non-trivial in-splitting at a sink or a vertex of infinite valency. The graph $`E_r(𝒫)`$ will have at least one more sink or vertex of infinite valency than $`d_{r,𝒫}(E)`$ and hence $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$ will have more ideals than $`C^{}(d_{r,𝒫}(E))`$. ∎

Applying Theorem 5.3 and Theorem 4.5 we have:

###### Corollary 5.4.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph, $`𝒫`$ a partition of $`E^1`$ and $`E_r(𝒫)`$ the in-split graph formed from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$, then $`C^{}(E_r(𝒫))`$ is strongly Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$ if and only if $`𝒫`$ is proper.

## 6. Connections with Strong Shift Equivalence

In \[B1\] the following definition (which generalises one given in \[Ash\]) was given for elementary strong shift equivalence of directed graphs which contain no sinks.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`E_i=(E_i^0,E_i^1,r^i,s^i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ be directed graphs. Suppose there is a directed graph $`E_3=(E_3^0,E_3^1,r_3,s_3)`$ such that:

* $`E_3^0=E_1^0E_2^0`$ and $`E_1^0E_2^0=\mathrm{}`$.
* $`E_3^1=E_{12}^1E_{21}^1`$ where $`E_{ij}^1:=\{eE_3^1:s_3(e)E_i^0,r_3(e)E_j^0\}`$.
* For $`i=1,2`$ there are range and source-preserving bijections $`\theta _i:E_i^1E_3^2(E_i^0,E_i^0)`$ where for $`i\{1,2\}`$, $`E_3^2(E_i^0,E_i^0):=\{\alpha E_3^2:s_3(\alpha )E_i^0,r_3(\alpha )E_i^0\}`$.

Then we say that $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are elementary strong shift equivalent $`(E_1_{ES}E_2)`$ via $`E_3`$.

The equivalence relation $`_S`$ on directed graphs generated by elementary strong shift equivalence is called *strong shift equivalence*. Row-finite graphs which are strong shift equivalent have Morita equivalent $`C^{}`$-algebras (see \[B1, Theorem 5.2\]).

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph with no sinks and $`E_s(𝒫)`$ be an out-split graph formed from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$. Then $`E_{ES}E_s(𝒫)`$.

###### Proof.

One constructs a bipartite graph $`E_3`$ in the following manner. Let $`E_3^0=E^0E_s(𝒫)^0`$. For each $`vE^0`$ draw an edge $`e_v^i`$ to the corresponding split vertices $`v^iE_s(𝒫)^0`$ with $`s(e_v^i)=v`$ and $`r(e_v^i)=v^i`$. For each set of edges $`\{e^i\}_{i=1}^{m(r(e))}E_s(P)^1`$ with $`s(e^i)=v^i`$ and $`r(e^i)\{w^j\}_{j=1}^{m(w)}`$, draw an edge $`e_{v,w}^i`$ with $`s(e_{v,w}^i)=v^i`$ and $`r(e_{v,w}^i)=w`$. The graph $`E_3`$ satisfies the conditions of Definition 6.1 and hence $`E_{ES}E_s(𝒫)`$ via $`E_3`$. ∎

In a similar manner we may show:

###### Proposition 6.3.

Let $`E`$ be a directed graph with no sinks and $`E_r(𝒫)`$ be an in-split graph formed from $`E`$ using $`𝒫`$. Then $`E_{ES}E_r(𝒫)`$.

###### Remark 6.4.

Proposition 6.3 and \[B1, Theorem 5.2\] enable us to give another proof that the $`C^{}`$-algebras of a row-finite directed graph and its in-splitting are Morita equivalent. We have analogous results for in-amalgamations and out-amalgamations as they are the reverse operations of in-splittings and out-splittings.


format: text

text:
# Remarks on entanglement measures and non-local state distinguishability

## I Introduction

Quantum entanglement arises as a joint consequence of the superposition principle and the tensor product structure of the quantum mechanical state space of composite quantum systems. One of the main concerns of a theory of quantum entanglement is to find mathematical tools that are capable of appropriately quantifying the extent to which composite quantum systems are entangled. Entanglement measures are functionals that are constructed to serve that purpose Horo1 ; Intro1 ; Bennett ; Uniqueness ; Rains ; Wootters ; Cost ; Plenio ; Relent2 ; Asy ; Asy2 ; Mu ; Simon ; Neg ; Limits ; Vidal . Initially it was hoped for that a number of natural requirements reflecting the properties of quantum entanglement would be sufficient to establish a unique functional that quantifies entanglement in bi-partite quantum systems Uniqueness . These requirements are the non-increase (monotonicity) of the functional under local operations and classical communication, the convexity of the functional (which amounts to stating that the loss of classical information does not increase entanglement) and the asymptotic continuity. Indeed, for pure quantum states these contraints essentially define a unique measure of entanglement. This uniqueness originates from the fact that pure-state entanglement can asymptotically be manipulated in a reversible manner Bennett  under local operations with classical communication (LOCC). However, for mixed states there is no such unique measure of entanglement, at least not under LOCC (see however, PPT ; Asy3 ). Instead, it depends very much on the physical task underlying the quantification procedure what degree of entanglement is associated with a given state. The distillable entanglement grasps the resource character of entanglement in mathematical form: it states how many maximally entangled two-qubit pairs can asymptotically be extracted from a supply of identically prepared quantum systems Bennett ; Rains . The entanglement of formation Bennett ; Wootters —or rather its asymptotic version, the entanglement cost under LOCC Cost ; Cost2 —quantifies the number of maximally entangled two-qubit pairs that are needed in an asymptotic preparation procedure of a given state.

The relative entropy of entanglement Plenio ; Relent2 ; Asy ; Asy2 ; Mu ; Simon  is an intermediate measure: it has an interpretation in terms of statistical distinguishability of a given state of the closest ’disentangled’ state. This set of ’disentangled’ states could be the set of separable states, or the set of states with a positive partial transpose (PPT states). The relative entropy of entanglement quantifies, roughly speaking, to what minimal degree a machine performing quantum measurements could tell the difference between a given state and any disentangled state Plenio .

It is not unthinkable that the optimal disentangled state may already be distinguishable from the primary state using selective local operations, rather than global ones. Yet, it would be interesting to see what measures of entanglement would arise if one considered only those disentangled states that can not be distinguished locally from the primary state, specifically that both states have identical reductions with respect to both parts of the bi-partite quantum system. In this sense one asks for the degree to which the two states can be distinguished in a genuinely non-local manner.

It is the purpose of this paper to pursue this program. We will discuss three different entanglement measures that are related to this distinguishability problem. Each of these entanglement measures is based on a different state space distance measure, namely on the relative entropy, the relative entropy with interchanged arguments and the trace-norm distance. The properties of these entanglement measures have not been studied so far. We will show that these three quantities are entanglement monotones, thereby qualifying them as proper measures of entanglement.

An interesting byproduct of this work is the result that the relative entropy of entanglement with interchanged arguments is strongly additive, which means that

$$E(\sigma \rho )=E(\sigma )+E(\rho )$$
(1)
for all states $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. Strong additivity implies weak additivity, i.e. $`E(\rho ^n)=nE(\rho )`$ for all states $`\rho `$ and all $`n`$. If one can interpret an entanglement measure as a kind of cost function, weak additivity can be interpreted as the impossibility to get a ’wholesale discount’ on a state. Many measures of entanglement are known to be subadditive, such as the relative entropy of entanglement and the non-asymptotic entanglement of formation. Furthermore, all regularized asymptotic versions of entanglement measures are, by definition, weakly additive. As no strongly additive measure of entanglement has been found so far, one might be led to doubt whether the requirements of (i) monotonicity, (ii) strong additivity, and (iii) convexity are compatible at all. We will show, however, that the relative entropy of entanglement with interchanged arguments, and taken with respect to the set of disentangled states with the same reductions as the primary state, obeys each one of these three requirements, proving that there is no a priori incompatibility between them. It has to be noted, though, that this result is of a rather technical nature, as this measure of entanglement, while being physically meaningful, is not very practical: it yields infinity for any pure entangled state.

## II Notation and definitions

In this work we will consider bi-partite systems consisting of parts $`A`$ and $`B`$, each of which is equipped with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. The set of density operators of the joint system will be denoted as $`𝒮()`$. Let $`𝒟()`$ be either the set of separable states or the set of PPT states, which is the subset of $`𝒮()`$ which consists of the states $`\sigma `$ for which the partial transpose $`\sigma ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a positive operator. In the following, we will consider the proper subset $`𝒟_\sigma ()𝒟()`$ which consists of all those separable states (or PPT states) that are locally identical to $`\sigma `$,

$$𝒟_\sigma ():=\{\rho 𝒟():\rho _A=\sigma _A,\rho _B=\sigma _B\}.$$
(2)
In this definition, subscripts $`A`$ and $`B`$ denote state reductions to the subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. The quantities that will be considered in this paper are all distance measures with respect to this set:

$`E_A(\sigma )`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}S(\rho \sigma ),`$ (3)
$`E_M(\sigma )`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}S(\sigma \rho ),`$ (4)
$`E_T(\sigma )`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}\rho \sigma _1,`$ (5)
where

$$S(\rho \sigma )=\text{tr}[\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho \rho \mathrm{log}_2\sigma ]$$
(6)
is the relative entropy Ohya ; Wehrl , and $`._1`$ stands for the trace norm Bhatia .

The quantity $`E_M`$ in Eq. (4) is the relative entropy of entanglement Plenio ; Relent2  of a state $`\sigma `$ with respect to the set $`𝒟_\sigma ()`$. The original relative entropy of entanglement with respect to the set $`𝒟()`$ (meaning either separable or PPT states) is an entanglement measure that has been extensively studied in the literature Plenio ; Relent2 . Initially formulated as a quantity for bi-partite finite dimensional systems, it has later been generalized to the asymptotic Asy , the multi-partite Mu , and the infinite-dimensional setting Simon . $`E_A`$ in Eq. (3) is essentially the relative entropy with reversed entries, first mentioned in Ref. Plenio . The particular property of this quantity is that it is strongly additive. The quantity $`E_T`$ in Eq. (5) is a distance measure based on the trace norm. All quantities are related to the minimal degree to which a given bi-partite state $`\sigma `$ can be distinguished from any state taken from $`𝒟()`$ that cannot be distinguished by purely local means with operations in $`A`$ or $`B`$ only. This statement will be made more precise in Section VI.

The properties of $`E_A`$, $`E_M`$ and $`E_T`$ that will be investigated consist of the following well-known list of (non-asymptotic) properties of proper entanglement measures Bennett ; Plenio ; Limits ; Vidal ; Uniqueness :

* If $`\sigma 𝒮()`$ is separable, then $`E(\sigma )=0`$.
* There exists a $`\sigma 𝒮()`$ for which $`E(\sigma )>0`$.
* Convexity: Mixing of states does not increase entanglement: for all $`\lambda [0,1]`$ and all $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2𝒮()`$

$`E(\lambda \sigma _1+(1\lambda )\sigma _2)\lambda E(\sigma _1)+(1\lambda )E(\sigma _2).`$ (7)
* Monotonicity under local operations: Entanglement cannot increase on average under local operations: If one performs a local operation in system $`A`$ leading to states $`\sigma _i`$ with respective probability $`p_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, then

$$E(\sigma )\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_iE(\sigma _i).$$
(8)
* Strong additivity: Let $``$ have the structure $`^{(1)}^{(2)}`$, with

$`^{(1)}=_A^{(1)}_B^{(1)},^{(2)}=_A^{(2)}_B^{(2)}.`$ (9)
For all $`\sigma ^{(1)}𝒮(^{(1)})`$ and $`\sigma ^{(2)}𝒮(^{(2)})`$ then

$$E(\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})=E(\sigma ^{(1)})+E(\sigma ^{(2)}).$$
(10)

For a thorough discussion of these properties, see Refs. Horo1 ; Uniqueness . Functionals with the properties (i)-(iv) will as usual be denoted as entanglement montones.

## III Properties of $`E_A`$

The first statement that we will prove is the property of $`E_A`$ to be an entanglement monotone in the abovementioned sense, the second will be the strong additivity property.

Proposition 1. $`E_A:𝒮()^+\{\mathrm{}\}`$ with

$$E_A(\sigma ):=\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}S(\rho ||\sigma ).$$
(11)
has the properties (i)-(iv), i.e., it is an entanglement monotone.

Proof. Properties (i) and (ii) are obvious from the definition, given that the relative entropy is not negative for all pairs of states. Let $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2𝒮()`$, and let $`\rho _1𝒟_{\sigma _1}()`$ and $`\rho _2𝒟_{\sigma _2}()`$ be (not uniquely defined) states that are ’closest’ to $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$, respectively, in the sense that for $`i=1,2`$

$`E_A(\sigma _i)=S(\rho _i\sigma _i).`$ (12)
Such states always exist, due to the lower-semicontinuity of the relative entropy, and due to the fact that the sets $`𝒟_{\sigma _1}()`$ and $`𝒟_{\sigma _2}()`$ are compact. Then, for any $`\lambda [0,1]`$,

$$\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2𝒟_{\lambda \sigma _1+(1\lambda )\sigma _2}().$$
(13)
The convexity of $`E_A`$ hence follows from the joint convexity of the relative entropy, and one obtains

$`\lambda E_A(\sigma _1)`$ $`+`$ $`(1\lambda )E_A(\sigma _2)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\lambda S(\rho _1\sigma _1)+(1\lambda )S(\rho _2\sigma _2)`$
$``$ $`S(\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2\lambda \sigma _1+(1\lambda )\sigma _2).`$
This is property (iii). The monotonicity of $`E_A`$ under local operations can be shown as follows: As mixing can only reduce the degree of entanglement as measured in terms of $`E_A`$, it is sufficient to prove that Eq. (8) holds with

$`\sigma _i`$ $`:=`$ $`(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}/p_i,`$ (15)
$`p_i`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}],`$ (16)
where $`A_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are operators satisfying $`_{i=1}^NA_i^{}A_i=\mathrm{𝟙}`$. Let $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$ be the state that satisfies $`E_A(\sigma )=S(\rho \sigma )`$. The state that is obtained after the measurement on $`\rho `$ is given by

$`\rho _i:=(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}/\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}].`$ (17)
As a consequence of $`\rho 𝒟()`$ also

$$\rho _i𝒟_{\sigma _i}()$$
(18)
holds for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The Kraus operators act in the Hilbert space of one party only and therefore,

$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}].`$
This is where the assumption that $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$ enters the proof. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iS(\rho _i||\sigma _i)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}]S(\rho _i||\sigma _i).`$ (20)
The right hand side of Eq. (III) can now be bounded from above by $`S(\rho \sigma )`$, by virtue of an inequality of Ref. Wehrl  (see also Plenio ), i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}]S(\rho _i||\sigma _i)S(\rho ||\sigma ).`$ (21)
Let $`\omega _i𝒟_{\sigma _i}()`$ be the state satisfying $`E_A(\sigma _i)=S(\omega _i||\sigma _i)`$, then

$`E_A(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`S(\rho ||\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iS(\omega _i||\sigma _i)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iE_A(\sigma _i).`$
This is property (iii), the monotonicity under local operations.

Proposition 2. $`E_A`$ is strongly additive.

Proof. Let $``$ be a finite-dimensional Hilbert space with the above product structure $`=^{(1)}^{(2)}`$, and let $`\rho 𝒮()`$. From the conditional expectation property of the relative entropy Ohya  with respect to the partial trace projection it follows that

$`S(\rho ||\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})=S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]||\sigma ^{(1)})+S(\rho ||\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\sigma ^{(2)})`$
for all $`\sigma ^{(1)}𝒮(^{(1)})`$, $`\sigma ^{(2)}𝒮(^{(2)})`$, such that

$`S(\rho ||\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})`$ $`=`$ $`S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]||\sigma ^{(1)})+S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]||\sigma ^{(2)})`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`S(\rho ||\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\text{tr}_1[\rho ]),`$
and hence

$`S(\rho ||\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\text{tr}_1[\rho ]||\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)}).`$ (24)
Moreover, if $`\rho 𝒟_{\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)}}()`$ for given $`\sigma ^{(1)}𝒮(^{(1)})`$ and $`\sigma ^{(2)}𝒮(^{(2)})`$, then also

$$\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\text{tr}_1[\rho ]𝒟_{\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)}}().$$
(25)
This in turn implies that any ’closest’ state $`\rho 𝒟_{\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)}}()`$ that satisfies $`E_A(\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})=S(\rho \sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})`$ can be replaced by $`\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\text{tr}_1[\rho ]`$, which again satisfies

$`E_A(\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})`$ $`=`$ $`S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\text{tr}_1[\rho ]\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`S(\text{tr}_2[\rho ]\sigma ^{(1)})+S(\text{tr}_1[\rho ]\sigma ^{(2)}).`$
Therefore,

$$E_A(\sigma ^{(1)}\sigma ^{(2)})=E_A(\sigma ^{(1)})+E_A(\sigma ^{(2)}),$$
(27)
meaning that $`E_A`$ is strongly additive.

According to the statistical interpretation given in Section VI, $`E_A`$ has the property to be divergent for sequences of mixed states converging to pure states, and hence does not distinguish pure states in their degree of entanglement. Therefore, it is not a very practical measure of entanglement. However, as it is the only strongly additive entanglement monotone known to date, it appears fruitful to investigate the conditional expectation property of the relative entropy of entanglement further in order to try to construct strongly additive entanglement monotones that have the ability to discriminate between the degrees of entanglement of pure states.

## IV Properties of $`E_M`$

In this section we will investigate the properties of the quantity $`E_M`$. First we will show that the relative entropy of entanglement $`E_M`$ retains all properties of an entanglement monotone if one additionally requires that the closest disentangled state has the same reductions as the primary state. This observation implies a simplification when it comes to actually evaluating the relative entropy of entanglement, be it with analytical or with numerical means, because the dimension of the feasible set is smaller.

Proposition 3. $`E_M:𝒮()^+`$ with

$$E_M(\sigma )=\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}S(\sigma \rho )$$
(28)
is an entanglement monotone with properties (i)-(iv).

Proof. Properties (i), (i), and (iii) can be shown just as before. Again for states $`\sigma ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2𝒮()`$ and $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$ $`\rho _1𝒟_{\sigma _1}()`$, $`\rho _2𝒟_{\sigma _2}()`$ it follows that

$$A\rho A^{}/\text{tr}[A\rho A^{}]𝒟_{A\sigma A^{}/\text{tr}[A\sigma A^{}]}()$$
(29)
for all $`A`$, and

$$\lambda \rho _1+(1\lambda )\rho _2𝒟_{\lambda \sigma _1+(1\lambda )\sigma _2}().$$
(30)
With the notation of the proof of property (iv),

$`E_M(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`S(\sigma ||\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iS(\sigma _i||\omega _i)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iE_M(\sigma _i).`$
Hence, the relative entropy of entanglement is still an entanglement monotone when one restricts the set of feasible PPT or separable states to those that are locally identical to a given state. At first it does not even seem obvious that $`E_M`$ is even different from the original relative entropy of entanglement. In fact, all states $`\sigma `$ considered in Ref. Plenio  satisfy

$$E_M(\sigma )=\underset{\rho 𝒟()}{inf}S(\sigma \rho ).$$
(32)
Also, for all $`UU`$ and $`OO`$-symmetric states the two quantities are obviously the same. This version of the relative entropy of entanglement is strictly sub-additive, just as the relative entropy of entanglement with respect to the unrestricted sets of separable states or PPT states. However – on the basis of numerical studies – it turns out that the two quantities are not identical general, and that there exist states for which the two entanglement measures do not give the same value S1 . This means that the disentangled state that can be least distinguished from a given primary state may have the property that it can already be locally distinguished.

Example 4. We have numerically evaluated the difference $`E_R(\rho _p)E_M(\rho _p)`$ between the (ordinary) relative entropy of entanglement $`E_R`$ and the modified quantity $`E_M`$ for states on $`^2^2`$ of the form

$$\rho _p:=p|\psi \psi |+(1p)\mathrm{𝟙}/4,p[0,1],$$
(33)
where

$$|\psi :=\left(|0,0+(1+i)|0,1+(1i)|1,0\right)/5^{1/2}.$$
(34)
Figure 1 shows this difference $`E_R(\rho _p)E_M(\rho _p)`$ as a function of $`p[0,1]`$. The difference is in fact quite small, but significant, given the accuracy of the program Num . Numerical studies indicate that differences of this order of magnitude are typical for generic quantum states on $`^2^2`$.

## V Properties of $`E_T`$

We now turn to the third quantity $`E_T`$, the minimal distance of a state $`\sigma `$ to the set $`𝒟_\sigma ()`$ with respect to the trace-norm difference. We will show that also this quantity is a proper measure of entanglement. Other physically interesting quantities of this type have been considered in the literature, in particular, the minimal Hilbert-Schmidt distance of a state to the set of PPT states HS1 ; HS ; Witte . For the latter quantity the resulting minimization problem can in fact be solved HS1 . However, then the resulting quantity is unfortunately no proper entanglement measure NotHS .

Proposition 5. $`E_T:𝒮()^+`$ with

$$E_T(\sigma )=\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}\sigma \rho _1$$
(35)
is an entanglement monotone with properties (i) - (iv).

Proof. Clearly, $`E_T(\rho )=0`$ for a state $`\rho 𝒟()`$. In order to show convexity one can proceed just as in the proofs of Proposition 1 and 3: the convexity then follows from the triangle inequality for the trace norm. The remaining task is to show that it is monotone under local operations. Again,

$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}]`$
$`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}]`$
for all $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$, and $`(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}/p_i𝒟_{\sigma _i}`$. Hence,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iE_T(\sigma _i)=`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\underset{\rho _i𝒟_{\sigma _i}()}{\mathrm{min}}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}/p_i\rho _i_1,`$
and since

$`\underset{\rho _i𝒟_{\sigma _i}()}{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}/p_i\rho _i_1`$ (38)
$``$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\sigma (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})\rho (A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}_1}{p_i}},`$
we arrive at

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_iE_T(\sigma _i)\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})(\sigma \rho )(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}_1.$$
(39)
Property (iv) then follows from Lemma 6 (presented below), which yields

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iE_T(\sigma _i)`$ $``$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})|\sigma \rho |_1`$ (40)
$``$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\text{tr}[(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})^{}(A_i\mathrm{𝟙})|\sigma \rho |]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{\mathrm{min}}\sigma \rho _1=E_T(\sigma ).`$
Hence, $`E_T`$ is monotone under local operations.

Lemma 6. Let $`A,B`$ be complex $`n\times n`$ matrices, and assume that $`B=B^{}`$. Then

$$ABA^{}_1A^{}A|B|_1$$
(41)
holds.

Proof. The trace norm$`._1`$ is a unitarily invariant norm, and $`ABA^{}`$ is a normal matrix Bhatia . Hence

$$A(BA^{})_1(BA^{})A_1$$
(42)
(see Ref. Bhatia ), and therefore,

$`(BA^{})A_1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A^{}AB^{}BA^{}A)^{1/2}]`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\text{tr}[(A^{}A|B|^2A^{}A)^{1/2}]`$
$`=`$ $`A^{}A|B|_1,`$
which gives rise to Eq. (41).

Hence, $`E_T`$ is a proper entanglement monotone, yet it does not exhibit an additivity property, and it is not asymptotically continuous on pure states. It should be noted that the weaker condition $`E_T((\sigma ))E_T(\sigma )`$ for all trace-preserving maps $``$ corresponding to local operations with classical communication and all states $`\sigma `$ follows immediately from the fact that the trace norm fulfills

$$(\sigma )(\rho )_1\sigma \rho _1$$
(44)
for all trace-preserving completely positive maps $``$ and all states $`\sigma ,\rho `$. The Hilbert-Schmidt norm in turn does not have this property NotHS .

## VI Distance measures and state distinguishability

In this section we will give an interpretation of the three quantities $`E_A`$, $`E_M`$ and $`E_T`$ in terms of hypothesis testing. The problem of distinguishing quantum mechanical states can be formulated as testing two competing claims, see Refs. Hiai ; Stein ; Fuchs . In this setup one considers a single dichotomic generalized measurement acting on a state that is known to be either $`\omega `$ or $`\xi `$, with equal a priori probabilities. The measurement is represented by two positive operators $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟙}E`$, with $`E`$ satisfying $`0E\mathrm{𝟙}`$. On the basis of the outcome of the measurement one can then make the decision to accept either the hypothesis that the state $`\omega `$ has been prepared (the null-hypothesis), or the hypothesis that the state $`\xi `$ has been prepared (the alternative hypothesis). The error probabilities of first and second kind related to this decision are given by

$`\alpha (\omega ,\xi ;E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{tr}[\omega (\mathrm{𝟙}E)],`$ (45)
$`\beta (\omega ,\xi ;E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{tr}[\xi E].`$ (46)
The trace-norm difference of the two states $`\omega `$ and $`\xi `$ can be written in terms of these error probabilities as follows. According to the variational characterisation of the trace norm,

$$\omega \xi _1=\underset{X,X1}{\mathrm{max}}\text{tr}[(\omega \xi )X],$$
(47)
where $`.`$ denotes the standard operator norm Bhatia . There is a one-to-one relation between the allowed $`X`$ appearing here and the set of hypothesis tests: $`E=(X+\mathrm{𝟙})/2`$. Hence, $`\text{tr}[(\omega \xi )X]=2\text{tr}[(\omega \xi )E]`$ implying that the quantity $`E_T`$ can be interpreted as

$$E_T(\sigma )=2\underset{\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()}{inf}\underset{E}{\mathrm{max}}\left(1\alpha (\sigma ,\rho ;E)\beta (\sigma ,\rho ;E)\right),$$
(48)
with $`E`$ any test ($`0E\mathrm{𝟙}`$). Due to the restriction $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$, one compares the primary state $`\sigma `$ only with those separable (PPT) $`\rho `$ that have the same reductions as $`\sigma `$. Clearly, tests consisting of tensor products $`E=E_AE_B`$ cannot distinguish such states at all, as the outcomes will exhibit the same probability distributions for both states.

The quantum hypothesis tests related to $`E_T`$ are restricted to a single measurement on a single bi-partite quantum system. The quantities $`E_M`$ and $`E_A`$ can in some sense be considered the asymptotic analogues of $`E_T`$. The connection between the relative entropy and the error probabilities in quantum hypothesis testing has been thoroughly discussed in Refs. Hiai ; Stein ; Fuchs . In the asymptotic setting one considers sequences consisting of tuples of $`n`$ identically prepared states, $`\omega ^n`$ and $`\xi ^n`$, and a sequence of tests $`\{E_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`0E_n\mathrm{𝟙}`$ and $`E_n`$ operates on an $`n`$-tuple. To every test in the sequence, one can again ascribe two error probabilities:

$`\alpha _n(\omega ,\xi ;E_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{tr}[\omega ^n(\mathrm{𝟙}E_n)]`$ (49)
$`\beta _n(\omega ,\xi ;E_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`\text{tr}[\xi ^nE_n].`$ (50)
For any $`\epsilon >0`$ define Stein

$`\beta _n^{}(\omega ,\xi ;\epsilon ):=`$
$`\mathrm{min}\{\beta _n(E_n):0E_n\mathrm{𝟙},\alpha _n(\omega ,\xi ;E_n)<\epsilon \}.`$ (51)
It has been shown Stein  that for any $`0\epsilon <1`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\beta _n^{}(\epsilon )=S(\omega \xi ).$$
(52)
This means that if one requires that the error probability of first kind is no larger than $`\epsilon `$, then the error probability of second kind goes to zero according to Eq. (52). Having this in mind, the quantity $`E_M`$ can be interpreted as an asymptotic measure of distinguishing $`\sigma 𝒟()`$ from the closest $`\rho 𝒟_\sigma ()`$ with the same reductions as $`\sigma `$. In turn, $`E_A`$ is a similar quantity but with the roles of $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ reversed. The asymmetry comes from the asymmetry of the roles of the error probabilities of first and second kind.

Note that, within this interpretation, the divergence of $`E_A`$ on pure states becomes plausible. If $`\xi `$ is pure, choosing the sequence of tests $`\{E_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with

$$E_n:=\mathrm{𝟙}\xi ^n$$
(53)
yields a $`\beta _n`$ equal to zero for any $`n`$ (this can only happen for pure $`\xi `$) and an $`\alpha _n`$ equal to $`\text{tr}[\omega \xi ]^n`$, which always becomes smaller than any chosen value of $`\epsilon >0`$ from some finite value of $`n`$ onwards (that is, presuming $`\omega \xi `$). Hence, for any choice of $`\epsilon `$ there is a finite value of $`n`$, say $`n(\epsilon )`$, such that $`\beta _n^{}(\epsilon )=0`$ for $`nn(\epsilon )`$. Asymptotical convergence of $`\beta _n^{}(\epsilon )`$ is therefore faster than exponential so that $`\{\mathrm{log}\beta _n^{}(\epsilon )/n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ tends to minus infinity.

## VII Summary and Conclusion

In this paper we have investigated three variants of the relative entropy of entanglement, all three of which can be related to the problem of distinguishing a primary state from the closest disentangled or PPT state that has the same reductions as the primary state. This approach was motivated by the desire to flesh out the genuinely non-local distinguishability of a primary state from the closest disentangled state. The three functionals have been found to be legitimate measures of entanglement. Additionally, one functional has the property of being strongly additive, thereby showing that monotonicity, convexity and strong additivity are compatible in principle. This additivity essentially originates from the conditional expectation property of the relative entropy. In the light of this observation it appears interesting to further study the implications of the conditional expectation property of the relative entropy on quantum information theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank M. Horodecki, R.F. Werner, and M. Hayashi for helpful remarks. This work has been supported by the EQUIP project of the European Union, the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation, the EPSRC and the ESF programme for ”Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Computation”.