format: text

text:
# Structure of states which satisfy strong subadditivity of quantum entropy with equality

## I Introduction

The von Neumann entropy von:neumann:entropy

$$S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho ,$$

of a density operator $`\rho `$ on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $``$ shares many properties with its classical counterpart, the Shannon entropy

$$H(P)=\underset{x𝒳}{}P(x)\mathrm{log}P(x)$$

of a probability distribution $`P`$ on a discrete set $`𝒳`$. (All logarithms in this work are understood to be to base $`2`$. Also, we will use the terms “state” and “density operator” interchangeably.) For example, both are nonnegative, and equal to $`0`$ if and only if the state (distribution) is an extreme point in the set of all states (distributions), i.e. if $`\rho `$ is pure ($`P`$ is a point mass). Both are concave and, moreover, both are subadditive: for a state $`\rho _{AB}`$ on a composite system $`_A_B`$ with reduced states

$$\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B\left(\rho _{AB}\right),\rho _B=\mathrm{Tr}_A\left(\rho _{AB}\right),$$

it holds that

$$S(\rho _{AB})S(\rho _A)+S(\rho _B).$$

A directly analogous inequality holds for a distribution over a product set and its marginals. (Many more properties of $`S`$ are collected in the review by Wehrl wehrl  and in the monograph ohya:petz .)

We shall view von Neumann entropy as a generalisation of Shannon entropy shannon:info  in the following precise way: if the set $`𝒳`$ labels an orthonormal basis $`\left\{|x:x𝒳\right\}`$ of $`_X`$ we can construct the state

$$\rho _P=\underset{x}{}P(x)|xx|$$

corresponding to the distribution $`P`$. This clearly defines an affine linear map from distributions into states. It is then straightforward to check that

$$S(\rho _P)=H(P),$$

so all properties of von Neumann entropy of a single system also hold for Shannon entropy of a single distribution.

Similarly, for a distribution $`P`$ on a cartesian product $`𝒳\times 𝒴`$, we use the tensor product basis

$$\left\{|xy=|x|y:x𝒳,y𝒴\right\}$$

to define the state $`\rho _P`$ on $`_X_Y`$. Again, it is straightforward to check that reduced states correspond to taking marginals:

$$\mathrm{Tr}_Y\left(\rho _P\right)=\rho _{P|_𝒳},\mathrm{Tr}_X\left(\rho _P\right)=\rho _{P|_𝒴}.$$

Hence all entropy relations for bipartite states also hold for bipartite distributions.

In lieb:ruskai:SSA  Lieb and Ruskai proved the remarkable relation

$$S(\rho _{AB})+S(\rho _{BC})S(\rho _{ABC})+S(\rho _B),$$
(1)
with a tripartite state $`\rho _{ABC}`$ on the system $`_A_B_C`$. It clearly generalises the previous subadditivity relation, which is recovered for a trivial system $`B`$: $`_B=`$. In fact, this inequality plays a crucial role in nearly every nontrivial insight in quantum information theory, from the famous Holevo bound holevo:bound  and the properties of the coherent information schumacher:et-al ; schumacher:qec  to the recently proved additivity of capacity for entanglement–breaking channels shor:ent-break .

The present investigation aims to resolve the problem of characterising the states which satisfy this relation with equality: the main result is theorem 6. Roughly speaking, the strong subadditivity inequality expresses the fact that discarding a subsystem of a quantum system is a dissipative operation, in the sense that it can only destroy correlations with the rest of the world. Our work, therefore, can be interpreted as providing a detailed description of the conditions under which the act of discarding a quantum system can be locally reversed on a particular input. We restrict ourselves to finite dimensional systems in this paper. The question of whether a similar result holds in infinite dimension is left open.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In section II we will review the case of probability distributions: there the solution to our problem is easy to obtain, and in fact well–known. This will provide the intuitive basis for understanding our main result. After that, in section III we review quantum relative entropy and the relation of its monotonicity property to the strong subadditivity inequality. Section IV presents a condition given by Petz for equality in the monotonicity of relative entropy, while section V presents and proves our main result, a structure theorem for states which satisfy strong subadditivity with equality. An essential step is the application of a recent result of Koashi and Imoto koashi:imoto  for which we give a short but non–constructive algebraic proof in the appendix. In section VI, we show how the entropic conditions for quantum error correction as well as the conditions for saturation in the Holevo bound follow as easy corollaries from our structure theorem.

The question of characterising the equality case of strong subadditivity as well as of the monotonicity of relative entropy was considered in earlier work by Petz petz:sufficient , where it was related to the existence of quantum operations with certain properties. Ruskai ruskai:SSA:eq  has given a characterisation in terms of an operator equality, which can be used to show that the states described in our main theorem 6 are indeed equality cases (as she has informed us, this was pointed out to her by M. A. Nielsen after ruskai:SSA:eq  appeared). Neither of these results is as explicit as one could wish for, however, because while both give algebraic criteria which one can check on any given state, they do not yield a simple description of all the states that satisfy equality. This simple description is exactly what our theorem 6 provides.

## II The classical case

Let us first look at the classical case of probability distributions and their Shannon entropies. The exposition is most conveniently phrased in terms of random variables denoted $`A,B,C`$, taking values in $`𝒜,,𝒞`$, respectively, with a joint distribution

$$P_{ABC}(a,b,c)=\mathrm{Pr}\{A=a,B=b,C=c\}.$$

The distribution of $`A`$ is the marginal $`P_A=P_{ABC}|_𝒜`$ of the joint distribution to $`𝒜`$ and similarly for the other variables.

Shannon shannon:info  defined the *mutual information*

$$I(A:B)=H(A)+H(B)H(AB),$$

with $`H(A)=H(P_A)`$ and so on. It is not hard to show that $`I(A:B)0`$ with equality if and only if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are independent.

*Conditional mutual information* is defined as

$$I(A:C|B)=\underset{b}{}P_B(b)I(A:C|B=b),$$

where $`I(A:C|B=b)`$ is the mutual information between the variables $`A`$ and $`C`$ conditional on the event “$`B=b`$”, i.e. $`I(A|_{B=b}:C|_{B=b})`$, with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Pr}\{A|_{B=b}=a,C|_{B=b}=c\}& =\frac{P_{ABC}(a,b,c)}{P_B(b)}\hfill \\ & =:P_{AC|B}(a,c|b).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is straightforward to check that with these definitions one has the *chain rule*

$$I(A:BC)=I(A:B)+I(A:C|B).$$
(2)
This implies the formula

$$I(A:C|B)=H(AB)+H(BC)H(ABC)H(B).$$

Because the left hand side is by definition a convex combination of mutual informations, each of which is always nonnegative, we obtain strong subadditivity for classical distributions.

###### Theorem 1

$`I(A:C|B)=0`$ if and only if $`A`$ and $`C`$ are conditionally independent given $`B`$, meaning

$$b\text{ s.t. }P_B(b)0A|_{B=b},C|_{B=b}\text{ are independent.}$$

This is the case if and only if

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{ABC}(a,b,c)& =P_B(b)P_{A|B}(a|b)P_{C|B}(c|b)\hfill \\ & =P_A(a)P_{B|A}(b|a)P_{C|B}(c|b),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
i.e. iff $`A`$$`B`$$`C`$ is a Markov chain in this order.

*Proof .* Clearly, the conditions are sufficient. Assume conversely that $`I(A:C|B)=0`$. By definition of the latter quantity, this implies that for all $`b`$ with $`P_B(b)0`$, $`I(A:C|B=b)=0`$. But this implies independence of $`A|_{B=b}`$ and $`C|_{B=b}`$. Hence, eq. (3) follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{ABC}(a,b,c)& =P_B(b)P_{AC|B}(a,c|b)\hfill \\ & =P_B(b)P_{A|B}(a|b)P_{C|B}(c|b)\hfill \\ & =P_A(a)P_{B|A}(b|a)P_{C|B}(c|b).\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

The remainder of the paper is devoted to describing the quantum mechanical generalisation of this equivalence between zero conditional mutual information, conditional independence, the Markov property and the factorization of the joint distribution given in eq. (3).

## III Relative entropy

Our approach to saturation of the strong subaddivity inequality will be via the quantum relative entropy; this quantity was defined by Umegaki umegaki  for two quantum states $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ as

$$S(\rho \sigma )=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho (\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}\sigma )\right)$$

if the support of $`\rho `$ is contained in the support of $`\sigma `$, and $`+\mathrm{}`$ otherwise. We note that this definition generalises the familiar Kullback–Leibler divergence kullback:leibler  of two probability distributions, just as von Neumann entropy generalises Shannon entropy.

For a bipartite state $`\rho _{AB}`$ it is straightforward to check that

$$S(\rho _{AB}\rho _A\rho _B)=S(\rho _A)+S(\rho _B)S(\rho _{AB}),$$
(4)
and the latter quantity is abbreviated $`I(A:B)`$, in formal extension of the definition of Shannon’s mutual information shannon:info  to quantum states.

###### Example 2

Let $`\{p(x),\rho _x\}`$ be an ensemble of quantum states on $``$. The *Holevo quantity $`\chi `$* is defined as

$$\chi \left(\{p(x),\rho _x\}\right)=S\left(\underset{x}{}p(x)\rho _x\right)\underset{x}{}p(x)S(\rho _x).$$

Holevo holevo:bound  showed that this quantity is an upper bound to the mutual information between $`x`$ and the outcomes $`y`$ of any particular measurement performed on the states $`\rho _x`$.

It is easily seen that

$$\chi \left(\{p(x),\rho _x\}\right)=I(A:B),$$

with the bipartite state

$$\rho _{AB}=\underset{x}{}p(x)|xx|_A(\rho _x)_B.$$

For a tripartite state $`\rho _{ABC}`$ we can also consider the information $`I(A:BC)`$, which can be written as

$$S(\rho _{ABC}\rho _A\rho _{BC})=S(\rho _A)+S(\rho _{BC})S(\rho _{ABC}).$$
(5)
The difference between eqs. (5) and (4), which by virtue of the classical chain rule eq. (2) we might call the quantum conditional mutual information $`I(A:C|B)`$ is, therefore,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S(\rho _{ABC}\rho _A\rho _{BC})& S(\rho _{AB}\rho _A\rho _B)\hfill \\ & =S(\rho _{AB})+S(\rho _{BC})S(\rho _{ABC})S(\rho _B).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The right hand side here is nonnegative by strong subadditivity. (Note that this is an important theorem in the quantum case despite being an almost trivial observation classically.) The left hand side, however, can be rewritten as $`S(\rho \sigma )S(T\rho T\sigma )`$, with the states $`\rho =\rho _{ABC}`$ and $`\sigma =\rho _A\rho _{BC}`$, and the quantum operation $`T=\mathrm{Tr}_C`$, the partial trace over $`_C`$, which as a linear map can be written as $`T=\mathrm{id}_{AB}\mathrm{Tr}`$.

Now a theorem of Uhlmann uhlmann  (proved earlier by Lindblad lindblad:mono  for the finite–dimensional case of interest here) says that for all states $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ on a space $``$, and all quantum operations $`T:()(𝒦)`$,

$$S(\rho \sigma )S(T\rho T\sigma ),$$
(7)
so Uhlmann’s theorem implies strong subadditivity and we have equality in the latter if and only if there is equality in the former.

## IV The equality condition <br>for relative entropy

The formulation in the previous section of strong subadditivity as a relative entropy monotonicity under a partial trace operation transforms the question for the equality conditions for the former into the same question for the latter. Note that by the very monotonicity relation, there is a “trivial” case of equality in eq. (7), namely if there exists a quantum operation $`\widehat{T}`$ mapping $`T\rho `$ to $`\rho `$ and $`T\sigma `$ to $`\sigma `$. In fact, this is the only case of equality:

###### Theorem 3 (Petz petz:sufficient )

For states $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$,

$$S(\rho \sigma )=S(T\rho T\sigma )$$

if and only if there exists a quantum operation $`\widehat{T}`$ such that

$$\widehat{T}T\rho =\rho ,\widehat{T}T\sigma =\sigma .$$

Furthermore, on the support of $`T\sigma `$, $`\widehat{T}`$ can be given explicitly by the formula

$$\widehat{T}\alpha =\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}T^{}\left((T\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha (T\sigma )^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(8)
with the adjoint map $`T^{}`$ of $`T`$:

$$T^{}(X)=\underset{i}{}A_i^{}XA_i,\text{ if }T(\alpha )=\underset{i}{}A_i\alpha A_i^{}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Observe that the definition of $`\widehat{T}`$ in eq. (8) depends on $`\sigma `$, thereby automatically ensuring that $`\widehat{T}T\sigma =\sigma `$. Sometimes, we add the subscript $`\sigma `$ to $`\widehat{T}`$ to emphasize the dependence.

###### Example 4

As in example 2, let $`\{p(x),\rho _x\}`$ be an ensemble of states on $``$ and define

$$\rho _{AB}=\underset{x}{}p(x)|xx|_A(\rho _x)_B.$$

There we observed that, with $`\sigma =\rho _A\rho _B`$,

$$\chi \left(\{p(x),\rho _x\}\right)=S(\rho \sigma ).$$

Now, let $`\phi `$ be a quantum operation on $``$ (which could be a measurement), and form $`T=\mathrm{id}_A\phi _B`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \chi \left(\{p(x),\rho _x\}\right)& =S(\rho _{AB}\rho _A\rho _B)\hfill \\ & S\left(T\rho _{AB}T(\rho _A\rho _B)\right)\hfill \\ & =\chi \left(\{p(x),\phi \rho _x\}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
which is (a generalistion of) the famous Holevo bound holevo:bound  in the form of a data processing relation.

Equality holds, according to theorem 3, if and only if $`\widehat{T}`$ of eq. (8) maps $`T\rho `$ to $`\rho `$. Note that we may assume without loss of generality that $`\sigma =\rho _A\rho _B`$ is strictly positive. But it is straightforward to check that

$$\widehat{T}_\sigma =\widehat{\mathrm{id}}_{\rho _A}\widehat{\phi }_{\rho _B}=\mathrm{id}\widehat{\phi },$$

hence we have equality in eq. (9) if and only if for all $`x`$, $`\widehat{\phi }\phi \rho _x=\rho _x`$.

###### Remark 5

In barnum:knill  the “transpose channel” $`\widehat{T}`$ of eq. (8), as it is called in ohya:petz , makes an appearance in a slightly different context: there a set of states is subjected to a quantum channel, and the problem is to find the best recovery map which maximises a fidelity criterion for the original states and the images of the channel output states. It was shown that the error using $`\widehat{T}`$ is always at most twice as the minimum error under the optimal recovery map.

## V Structure of states with equality

Let $`\rho _{ABC}`$ be a state on $`_A_B_C`$. As we observed earlier, Uhlmann’s theorem specialized to the states $`\rho _{ABC}`$ and $`\sigma _{ABC}=\rho _A\rho _{BC}`$, along with the map $`T=\mathrm{Tr}_C`$, states that

$$S(\rho _{ABC}\rho _A\rho _{BC})S(\rho _{AB}\rho _A\rho _B).$$

Consequently, theorem 3 provides the condition for equality here: $`\widehat{T}T\rho =\rho `$. Now, because $`T=\mathrm{id}_AR_{BC}`$, with the restriction map $`R_{BC}=\mathrm{id}_B\mathrm{Tr}_C`$, and $`\sigma `$ is a tensor product, we obtain (compare example 4):

$$\widehat{T}=\mathrm{id}_A\widehat{R},$$
(10)
with $`\widehat{R}=\widehat{R}_{\rho _{BC}}`$.

Summarising, in the above monotonicity and hence in strong subadditivity we have equality if and only if

$$\rho _{ABC}=(\mathrm{id}\widehat{R})\rho _{AB}.$$
(11)
We are now in a position to prove our main result:

###### Theorem 6

A state $`\rho _{ABC}`$ on $`_A_B_C`$ satisfies strong subadditivity (eq. (1)) with equality if and only if there is a decomposition of system $`B`$ as

$$_B=\underset{j}{}_{b_j^L}_{b_j^R}$$

into a direct sum of tensor products, such that

$$\rho _{ABC}=\underset{j}{}q_j\rho _{Ab_j^L}\rho _{b_j^RC},$$

with states $`\rho _{Ab_j^L}`$ on $`_A_{b_j^L}`$ and $`\rho _{b_j^RC}`$ on $`_{b_j^R}_C`$, and a probability distribution $`\{q_j\}`$.

*Proof .* The sufficiency of the condition is immediate. The proof of necessity will come from analysing the quantum Markov chain condition, eq. (11).

After defining the quantum operation $`\phi =\mathrm{Tr}_C\widehat{R}`$, the Markov condition gives us

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi )\rho _{AB}=\rho _{AB}.$$
(12)
Consider an operator $`M`$ on $`_A`$ with $`0M𝟙`$, and define a state $`\mu `$ by

$$p\mu =\mathrm{Tr}_A\left(\rho _{AB}(M𝟙)\right),p=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _{AB}(M𝟙)\right).$$

Then, if $`p0`$, eq. (12) implies that $`\phi (\mu )=\mu `$. Varying the operator $`M`$ we obtain a family $`𝐌`$ of states on $`_A`$ invariant under $`\phi `$.

To this we can apply theorem 10 from the appendix. We obtain a decomposition

$$_B=\underset{j}{}_{b_j^L}_{b_j^R},$$
(13)
such that every $`\mu 𝐌`$ can be written

$$\mu =\underset{j}{}q_j(\mu )\rho _j(\mu )\omega _j,$$

with states $`\rho _j(\mu )`$ on $`_{b_j^L}`$ and $`\omega _j`$ on $`_{b_j^R}`$. This, in turn, easily implies the following structure for $`\rho _{AB}`$:

$$\rho _{AB}=\underset{j}{}q_j\rho _{Ab_j^L}\omega _{b_j^R}.$$
(14)
To see this, introduce the quantum operation

$$P_0(\xi )=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{b_j^R}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_j\xi \mathrm{\Pi }_j\right)\omega _j,$$

on $`_B`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$ is the orthogonal projector onto the subspace $`_{b_j^L}_{b_j^R}`$ in eq. (13). (Its dual $`P_0^{}`$ is the subalgebra projection from the appendix, where it is denoted the same way.) Then it is easy to calculate, for arbitrary operators $`M`$ and $`N`$ bounded between $`0`$ and $`𝟙`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _{AB}(MN)\right)& =p\mathrm{Tr}(\mu N)\hfill \\ & =p\mathrm{Tr}\left(P_0(\mu )N\right)\hfill \\ & =p\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mu P_0^{}(N)\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _{AB}\left(MP_0^{}(N)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Tr}\left(\left((\mathrm{id}P_0)\rho _{AB}\right)(MN)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

By linearity, this holds for all operators in place of $`MN`$, so

$$\rho _{AB}=(\mathrm{id}P_0)\rho _{AB},$$

implying eq. (14), because

$$(\mathrm{id}P_0)\xi =\underset{j}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{b_j^R}\left((𝟙\mathrm{\Pi }_j)\xi (𝟙\mathrm{\Pi }_j^{})\right)\omega _j.$$

But theorem 10 also gives information about $`\phi `$: introduce an environment $`_E`$ in state $`\epsilon `$ and a unitary $`U`$ on $`_B_C_E`$ such that

$$\widehat{R}(\alpha )=\mathrm{Tr}_E\left(U(\alpha |00|\epsilon )U^{}\right),$$

with a standard state $`|0_C`$. Because a further trace over $`C`$ gives us $`\phi `$, we obtain the following form for $`U`$ (with $`=_C_E`$):

$$U=\underset{j}{}𝟙_{_{b_j^L}}U_j,$$
(15)
with $`U_j`$ a unitary on $`_{b_j^R}`$.

Putting eqs. (14) and (15) together, we finally get:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _{ABC}& =(\mathrm{id}_A\widehat{R})\rho _{AB}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Tr}_E\left((𝟙_AU)\rho _{AB}(𝟙_AU^{})\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{j}{}q_j\rho _{Ab_j^L}\mathrm{Tr}_E\left(U(\omega _{b_j^R}|00|)U^{}\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{j}{}q_j\rho _{Ab_j^L}\rho _{b_j^RC},\hfill \end{array}$$

which is what we wanted to prove. $`\mathrm{}`$

Quantum Markov states on the infinite tensor product of matrix algebras $`_{i=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}M_n()^{(i)}`$ were introduced by Accardi and Frigerio AF . Let $`𝒜_m`$ be the subproduct of the factors with superscript $`im`$. Then $`𝒜_m𝒜_{m+1}`$. A state $`\rho `$ of the infinite tensorproduct is called Markovian if for every integer $`m`$ there exists a unital completely positive mapping $`T_{m,m+1}:𝒜_{m+1}𝒜_m`$ which leaves the state $`\rho `$ (restricted to $`𝒜_m`$) invariant and the subalgebra $`𝒜_{m1}`$ fixed. Accardi and Frigerio call the mapping $`_{m,m+1}`$ quasi–conditional expectation; its dual is the quantum analogue of the Markov kernel in classical probability theory.

Assume that $`𝒜_{m1}=(_A)`$, $`M_n()^{(m)}=(_B)`$ and $`M_n()^{(m+1)}=(_C)`$. If the equality in strong subadditivity is satisfied in this setting, then we have eq. (10) and the dual of $`\widehat{T}`$ is a quasi–conditional expectation. Therefore the equality in strong subadditivity for every $`m`$ yields a quantum Markov state on the infinite system. This property characterises quantum Markov states, see e.g. ohya:petz , p. 201.

We propose to call a state as in eq. (11) a *short quantum Markov chain* (as opposed to the infinite chains introduced in AF ), since we require the existence of the quasi–conditional expectation only for $`(_A_B_C)(_A_B)`$; note that the analogous quasi–conditional expectation $`(_A_B)(_A)`$ exists trivially because the subalgebra to be left invariant is $``$.

###### Corollary 7

For a state $`\rho _{ABC}`$ satisfying strong subadditivity with equality:

$$I(A:C|B)=S(\rho _{AB})+S(\rho _{BC})S(\rho _{ABC})S(\rho _B)=0,$$

the marginal state $`\rho _{AC}`$ is separable.

Conversely, for each separable state $`\rho _{AC}`$ there exists an extension $`\rho _{ABC}`$ such that $`I(A:C|B)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Tucci tucci  has given a criterion for separability based on quantum conditional mutual information. Our above result shows that in his Theorem 1, only conditions 1 and 2 are needed, while 3 and 4 are redundant.

## VI Applications

Theorem 6 provides a convenient framework for synthesizing many previously known facts in quantum information theory. To illustrate the method of its application, we present a couple of special cases from the literature.

###### Example 8

The fundamental problem in quantum error correction is to determine when the effect of a quantum operation $`\phi `$ acting on half of a pure entangled state can be perfectly reversed. Define the coherent information

$$I_c(\sigma ,\phi )=S(\phi \sigma )S\left((\mathrm{id}_A\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma \right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma `$ is any purification of $`\sigma `$ to system $`A`$. In schumacher:qec  it was shown that there exists a quantum operation $`\widehat{\phi }`$ such that

$$(\mathrm{id}_A\widehat{\phi }\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma =\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma $$

if and only if

$$I_c(\sigma ,\phi )=S(\sigma ).$$
(16)
By the Stinespring dilatation theorem stinespring , we may assume that

$$\phi \sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_C\left(U_{BC}(\sigma \psi )U_{BC}^{}\right)$$

for a unitary operator $`U_{BC}`$ and pure state ancilla $`\psi `$ on system $`C`$. If we let $`|\omega =(𝟙_AU_{BC})(|\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma |\psi )`$ then, taking mutual informations with respect to the state $`\omega =|\omega \omega |`$,

$`S(\sigma )`$ $`=I(A:BC)S(A)\text{ and}`$
$`I_c(\sigma ,\phi )`$ $`=I(A:B)S(A).`$
Therefore, eq. (16) holds iff $`I(A:BC)=I(A:B)`$. By theorem 6, we can conclude that

$$\omega =\underset{j}{}q_j\omega _{Ab_j^L}\omega _{b_j^RC}.$$

The recovery procedure $`\widehat{\phi }`$ given the state

$$(\mathrm{id}_A\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_C\omega $$

is then obvious: first measure $`j`$ before preparing the state $`\omega _{b_j^RC}`$ on $`_{b_j^R}_C`$. Next, perform $`U_{BC}^{}`$ and discard the fixed ancilla state $`\psi `$. The output is exactly $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma `$. As an aside, the reason that the solution to this problem was accessible without the results of the present paper is that a closer examination of the situation reveals that, because $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma `$ is pure, only the equality conditions for the usual subadditivity inequality are required in the construction of the reversal map. Strong subadditivity, in this case, is superfluous.

###### Example 9

Returning to our investigation of the Holevo bound from example 4, let $`\{p(x),\rho _x\}`$ be an ensemble of states on $``$, $`\rho _{AB}=_xp(x)|xx|_A(\rho _x)_B`$ and $`\phi `$ a quantum operation on the $`B`$ system. Again by the Stinespring dilation theorem, after possibly adjoining a fixed ancilla and performing a common unitary operation to all the $`\rho _x`$, we may assume without loss of generality that $`B=\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\phi =\mathrm{Tr}_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. An application of theorem 6 then gives the conditions under which

$$\chi (\{p(x),\rho _x\})=\chi (\{p(x),\phi \rho _x\}).$$

Namely,

$$\rho _{A\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}}=\underset{j}{}q_j\underset{x}{}p(x|j)|xx|_A(\rho _x)_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j^L}\omega _{\stackrel{~}{b}_j^R\stackrel{~}{C}},$$

where $`p(x|j)q_j`$ is the joint probability distribution for $`(x,j)`$ and $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{b}_j^R\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ does not depend on $`x`$. In the special case where $`\phi `$ corresponds to a measurement operation, the additional constraint $`[\phi \rho _x,\phi \rho _x^{}]=0`$ must hold because the output system is classical. Given the form of $`\rho _{A\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{C}}`$, this implies $`[(\rho _x)_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j^L},(\rho _x^{})_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j^L}]=0`$ and, in turn, that the states $`\{\rho _x\}`$ all commute. In the language of quantum information, we have found that the accessible information of an ensemble is equal to its Holevo quantity if and only if all the states in the ensemble commute. This condition for equality actually appeared in Holevo’s original paper holevo:bound .

## VII Discussion

We have exhibited the explicit structure of the tripartite states $`\rho _{ABC}`$ which satisfy strong subadditivity with equality. Not only are they short quantum Markov chains in the sense of AF , it is even the case that the $`A`$ and $`C`$ systems are conditionally independent given $`B`$, in a physically meaningful sense: there is information in the $`B`$ system which can be obtained by a non–demolition measurement, conditioned upon which the quantum state factorises.

By specialising our result to particular types of states, we can easily recover the entropic conditions for quantum error correction and the conditions for saturation in the Holevo bound. In the general case, our theorem characterises exactly when a quantum operation preserves correlations, whether they be classical, in the form of pure entanglement, or more exotic, such as combinations of the two or even bound entanglement horodecki:bound .

We left open the problem of a similar characterisation in infinite dimension (of system $`B`$ — infinite $`A`$ and $`C`$ are covered by our result): we only note that our method will certainly not work, as it relies ultimately on the classification of finite dimensional operator algebras. A further interesting problem could be to address the *approximate* case: if a state *almost* satisfies strong subadditivity, does it mean that its structure is close in some sense to the form of theorem 6? There might be a relation to barnum:knill  (see remark 5), where an approximate fidelity condition was studied.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Chris Fuchs, Mary Beth Ruskai and Ben Schumacher for helpful discussions. PH acknowledges the support of the Sherman Fairchild Foundation and the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant no. EIA-0086038. DP was partially supported by Hungarian OTKA T032662. The work of RJ and AW was supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

## Appendix A An operator algebraic derivation of the Koashi–Imoto theorem

Let $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _K`$ be density operators on the finite–dimensional Hilbert space $``$. We are interested in the quantum operations (completely positive, trace–perserving linear maps) $`T:()()`$ which leave these states invariant:

$$kT\rho _k=\rho _k.$$
(17)
By possibly shrinking $``$ to the minimum joint supporting subspace of the $`\rho _k`$, we may assume that the support of $`\frac{1}{K}_k\rho _k`$ is $``$, which we shall do in the following.

¿From the Stinespring dilation theorem stinespring  it follows that every such $`T`$ can be represented as

$$T\sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left(U_{}(\sigma \epsilon )U_{}^{}\right),$$
(18)
with another Hilbert space $``$, a state $`\epsilon `$ on it, and a unitary acting on $``$.

In koashi:imoto  the following result is proved by an explicit algorithmic construction:

###### Theorem 10 (Koashi, Imoto koashi:imoto )

Associated to the states $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _K`$ there exists a decomposition of $``$ as

$$=\underset{j}{}𝒥_j𝒦_j$$
(19)
into a direct sum of tensor products, such that:

$`1`$. The states $`\rho _k`$ decompose as

$$\rho _k=\underset{j}{}q_{j|k}\rho _{j|k}\omega _j,$$

where $`\rho _{j|k}`$ is a state on $`𝒥_j`$, $`\omega _j`$ is a state on $`𝒦_j`$ (which is independent of $`k`$), and $`(q_{j|k})_j`$ is a probability distribution over $`j`$’s.

$`2`$. For every $`T`$ which leaves the $`\rho _k`$ invariant, every associated unitary from eq. (18) has the form

$$U_{}=\underset{k}{}𝟙_{𝒥_j}U_{𝒦_j},$$

with unitaries $`U_{𝒦_j}`$ on $`𝒦_j`$ that satisfy

$$j\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left(U_{𝒦_j}(\omega _j\epsilon )U_{𝒦_j}^{}\right)=\omega _j.$$

The purpose of this appendix is to present a short (but non–constructive) proof of this theorem, based on the theory of operator algebras. Property 1 of the theorem has previously appeared in a paper of Lindblad lindblad:nocloning  and our approach closely follows the one taken there.

We begin with a slight reformulation of the result, avoiding the environment system $``$:

###### Proposition 11

In the above theorem, property 2 is equivalent to

$`2^{}`$. For every $`T`$ which leaves the $`\rho _k`$ invariant,

$$jT|_{(𝒥_j𝒦_j)}=\mathrm{id}T_j,$$

with $`\mathrm{id}`$ on $`𝒥_j`$ and $`T_j`$ on $`𝒦_j`$ such that $`T_j(\omega _j)=\omega _j`$.

*Proof .* Clearly, $`2`$ implies $`2^{}`$. In the other direction, consider any $`U`$ implementing $`T`$. Clearly, because of $`2^{}`$,

$$U|_{(𝒥_j𝒦_j)}=𝟙_{𝒥_j}U_{𝒦_j},$$

which yields the form $`2`$ for $`U`$. $`\mathrm{}`$ *Proof of theorem 10* Consider the set of quantum operations

$$𝐅=\{F:kF\rho _k=\rho _k\},$$

which is obviously non–empty since it contains $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{id}`$.

With each $`F𝐅`$ we associate the set

$$𝒜_F=\{X():F^{}(X)=X\}$$

of operators left invariant by the adjoint map $`F^{}`$. By lemma 12 this is a $``$–subalgebra of $`()`$ and, in fact, if $`F^{}(X)=_iB_i^{}XB_i`$,

$$𝒜_F=\{B_i,B_i^{}\}^{}=\{X:iXB_i=B_iX,XB_i^{}=B_i^{}X\}$$

is the commutator of the Kraus operators of $`F^{}`$. By the same lemma, this algebra furthermore is the image of $`()`$ under the projection map

$$P^{}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(F^{})^n,$$

whose adjoint is

$$P=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}F^n.$$

Clearly, $`P𝐅`$. Next, define

$$𝒜_0=\underset{F𝐅}{}𝒜_F,$$

which clearly is a $``$–subalgebra itself. Because all dimensions are finite, it can actually be presented as a finite intersection

$$𝒜_0=𝒜_{F_1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{F_M},$$

and in fact there is $`F_0𝐅`$ such that $`𝒜_0=𝒜_{F_0}`$. We may take, for example,

$$F_0=\frac{1}{M}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}F_\mu $$

and use lemma 12. Denote the projection onto $`𝒜_0`$ derived from $`F_0^{}`$ by $`P_0^{}`$.

Lemma 13 gives us the form of $`𝒜_0`$:

$$𝒜_0=\underset{j}{}(_{b_j^L})𝟙_{b_j^R},$$

and, likewise, of $`P_0^{}`$:

$$P_0(\xi )=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{b_j^R}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_j\xi \mathrm{\Pi }_j\right)\omega _j.$$

Thus, we obtain the advertised form of the states:

$$\rho _k=P_0(\rho _k)=\underset{j}{}q_j\rho _{j|k}\omega _j.$$

As for the properties of $`T`$, because $`𝒜_T𝒜_0`$, we have $`T^{}|_{𝒜_0}=\mathrm{id}_{𝒜_0}`$. More explicitly, for $`A(𝒥_j)`$ and $`𝟙(𝒦_j)`$,

$$T^{}(A𝟙)=A𝟙.$$

Now assume $`0A𝟙`$, and consider $`B(𝒦_j)`$ such that $`0B𝟙`$. Then

$$0T^{}(AB)T^{}(A𝟙)=A𝟙𝟙𝟙.$$
(20)
This implies that $`T^{}`$ maps $`(𝒥_j𝒦_j)`$ into itself for all $`j`$, and hence the same applies to $`T`$.

Now, eq. (20) applied with the rank–one projector $`A=|\psi \psi |`$, yields that

$$T^{}(|\psi \psi |B)=|\psi \psi |B^{},$$

with $`B^{}`$ depending linearly on $`B`$. Dependence on $`|\psi \psi |`$ quickly leads to contradiction, so

$$T^{}(AB)=AT_j^{}(B),$$

which gives the desired form of $`T`$:

$$T(\rho \sigma )=\rho T_j(\sigma ),$$

and application to the $`\rho _k`$ yields the invariance of the $`\omega _j`$ under $`T_j`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Here follow the general lemmas about unital completely positive maps which were used in the proof of theorem 10. The first one is a mean ergodic theorem for the dual of a quantum operation. (The statement is essentially the Kovács-Szűcs theorem — see e.g. bratteli:robinson , proposition 4.3.8 — but we give a proof in our setting.)

###### Lemma 12

For a quantum operation $`F`$, the map

$$P^{}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(F^{})^n$$

is a conditional expectation onto the $``$–subalgebra

$$𝒜_F=\{X:F^{}(X)=X\}=\{B_i,B_i^{}\}^{}.$$

*Proof .* First of all, we want to see that $`𝒜_F`$ is a $``$–subalgebra. It is a linear subspace and the Kraus representation shows that if $`F^{}(X)=X`$, then $`F^{}(X^{})=\left(F^{}(X)\right)^{}=X^{}`$.

With this, the Schwarz inequality (see e.g. bratteli:robinson ) gives that for invariant $`X`$,

$$F^{}(X^{}X)F^{}(X^{})F^{}(X)=X^{}X.$$

However, applying a faithful (i.e., non–degenenerate) invariant state, such as $`\frac{1}{K}_k\rho _k`$, leaves only the possibility of equality:

$$F^{}(X^{}X)=X^{}X,$$

from which it follows straightforwardly that the product of invariant operators is again invariant.

For $`X𝒜_F`$, one can confirm by direct calculation that

$$\underset{i}{}[X,B_i]^{}[X,B_i]=F^{}(X^{}X)X^{}X=0,$$

the latter by the previous observation that $`X^{}X`$ is also invariant. But since the left hand side is a sum of positive terms, all of them must be $`0`$, hence $`[X,B_i]=0`$ for all $`i`$. Similarly, $`[X,B_i^{}]=0`$ for all $`i`$.

These facts together say that $`𝒜_F\{B_i,B_i^{}\}^{}`$, while the opposite containment is trivial.

Another application of the Schwarz inequality gives that $`F^{}`$ is a contraction. Hence the mean ergodic theorem for a contraction implies that the limit in the statement exists. (Due to the finite dimensional situation all the relevant topologies coincide.) To see $`P^{}(X)𝒜_F`$, we compute

$$(F^{}P^{})(X)P^{}(X)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}((F^{})^{N+1}(X)F^{}(X)),$$

which is clearly $`0`$ so the image of $`P^{}`$ is contained in $`𝒜_F`$. Since $`P^{}(X)=X`$ when $`X𝒜_F`$, it is also onto and a projection. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 13

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $``$–subalgebra of $`()`$, with a finite dimensional $``$. Then there is a direct sum decomposition

$$=\underset{j}{}_{b_j^L}_{b_j^R},$$

such that

$$𝒜=\underset{j}{}\left(_{b_j^L}\right)𝟙_{b_j^R}.$$

Any completely positive and unital projection $`P^{}`$ of $`()`$ onto $`𝒜`$ is of the form

$$P^{}(X)=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{b_j^R}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_jX\mathrm{\Pi }_j(𝟙_{b_j^L}\omega _j)\right)𝟙_{b_j^R},$$

with the projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j`$ onto the subspaces $`_{b_j^L}_{b_j^R}`$, and states $`\omega _j`$ on $`_{b_j^R}`$.

*Proof .* See takesaki , section I.11. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Galaxy-galaxy lensing results from COMBO-17

## 1. Introduction

Rotation curves of spiral galaxies yield the clearest evidence for the existence of extended dark matter halos in galaxies. Numerical simulations of galaxy formation also predict large dark matter halos and make detailed predictions about their density profile and its relation to the total mass of the halos. However, from observations, only little is known in detail about dark matter halos. Observations of the central parts of low-surface brightness galaxies seem to conflict with the simulations but are difficult to interpret because the effects of the luminous matter have to be taken into account. At large distances from the centers the dark matter is dominating so that the simulations can be tested more directly. But observations of the outer parts of galaxies (at several hundred kpc) are still challenging due to the data requirements. We probe these regions with weak gravitational lensing. In Section 2 we will briefly summarize what is so far known about the dark matter halos of galaxies. In Section 3 the COMBO-17 survey will be presented. Section 4 introduces the method of galaxy-galaxy lensing and how we use it for our measurements which are presented in Section 6. Section 5 gives an overview over other galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements and how COMBO-17 compares to previously used data sets. Finally, in Section 7 we present our conclusion and an outlook.

## 2. Dark matter halos of galaxies

The outer parts of dark matter halos of galaxies can only be probed statistically with the dynamics of satellite galaxies or with galaxy-galaxy lensing. While satellite studies have to rely on dynamical equilibrium, galaxy-galaxy lensing can in principle always be applied. Rotation curves of galaxies or strong lensing are only available for the innermost parts of galaxies, up to a few tenth of kpc.

Flat rotation curves have led to the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) model of galaxies which yields a different density profile than the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile favoured by numerical simulations. Most studies so far used the SIS model or a truncated SIS model with a steeper decline in density in the outer parts of the halos. Galaxy-galaxy lensing studies tried to find an outer scale where the density profile starts to deviate from the SIS. It was found that dark matter halos stay isothermal out to at least $`200\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ implying that halos of individual galaxies might overlap (e.g. Brainerd, Blandford, & Smail 1996; Fischer et al. 2000; Hoekstra et al. 2002). So far it has not been tested if the SIS model or the NFW profile provides a better fit to the data.

From studies of the luminous parts of galaxies the Tully-Fisher relation for spiral galaxies and the Faber-Jackson relation for elliptical galaxies have been established according to which the velocity dispersion of galaxies scales with its luminosity as $`\sigma _vL^\eta `$ with $`\eta 0.25`$. It is not clear if such relations also hold on larger scales. Zaritsky et al. (1997) find $`\eta 0`$ from satellite studies while McKay et al. (2001) find $`\eta 0.5`$ from galaxy-galaxy lensing. If $`\eta =0`$ then there is no relation between (aperture) masses of galaxies and their luminosities while in the case of $`\eta =0.5`$ the (aperture) mass of a galaxy is proportional to its luminosity.

From galaxy-galaxy lensing it was further found that early-type galaxies have larger velocity dispersions than late-type galaxies (McKay et al. 2001). However, more investigations are still needed to improve our understanding of dark matter halos of galaxies, their extent, total mass and density profile and how these depend on luminosity, type or redshift of the galaxies.

## 3. The COMBO-17 survey

COMBO-17 (Classifying Objects by Medium-Band Observations in 17 filters, Wolf et al. 2001, 2003) is a deep multi-colour survey that is particularly well suited for studying galaxy-galaxy lensing. All observations were carried out with the Wide Field Imager at the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope on La Silla, Chile, which has a large field-of-view of $`34{}_{}{}^{}\times 33^{}`$. The five survey fields are given in Table 1.

The observations have been finished whereas data reduction is still ongoing for some of the fields. Redshifts and spectral classification for objects brighter than $`R=24`$ is derived from observations in UBVRI and 12 optical medium band filters. Shapes of galaxies are measured from deep $`R`$-band images with limiting magnitudes around $`R=25.5`$ that were taken at the best seeing conditions (below $`0.^{\prime \prime }8`$ PSF). Therefore COMBO-17 provides an unique data set in which redshifts are not only available for the lens galaxies but also for the source galaxies. Spectral classification of the lens galaxies allows us to distinguish lens galaxies of different types.

## 4. Galaxy-galaxy lensing

The aim of galaxy-galaxy lensing is to study the dark matter halos of lens galaxies. Due to the effect of lensing, the images of background galaxies are strechted tangentially with respect to the lens galaxies. Figure 1 illustrates this effect for intrinsically round background galaxies.

The strength of the shear can be calculated for different parametrizations of the lens galaxies. As a first step we will use the SIS model. Due to its simplicity and because it reproduces the flat rotation curves observed in spiral galaxies this model has become quite popular and has been used in most previous studies of galaxy-galaxy lensing. The density profile of the SIS is given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\sigma _v^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{r^2},$$
(1)
and the shear by

$$\gamma (\theta )=\frac{2\pi \sigma _v^2}{c^2}\frac{D_{\mathrm{ds}}}{D_\mathrm{s}}\frac{1}{\theta }=0.035\left(\frac{\sigma }{155\mathrm{kms}^1}\right)^2\left(\frac{\theta }{10^{\prime \prime }}\right)^1\frac{D_{\mathrm{ds}}}{D_\mathrm{s}},$$
(2)
where $`\theta `$ is the angular separation between lens and source, $`\sigma _v`$ the velocity dispersion and $`D_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ are the angular diameters distances between lens and source and observer and source, respectively. For typical lenses and separations the shear is much smaller than the width of the ellipticity distribution of the source galaxies, making it impossible to measure the shear for a single lens-source pair. It can only be measured by averaging over thousands of pairs and thus over hundreds of lens galaxies. Due to the distance factors in Equation (2) the contributions from different pairs have to be scaled appropiately requiring knowledge of the redshifts of lens and source galaxies. Further, it has to be considered that only averaged density profiles of the lens galaxies can be determined. To account for intrinsic differences in the lens population further knowledge on the lenses is needed. This then allows one to split the lens sample into different subsamples according to e.g. luminosity, redshift, spectral type, morphology, stellar mass or environment, or to parametrize the dependence of the velocity dispersion on these quantities. The Tully-Fisher/Faber-Jackson relation is an example of such a parametrization:

$$\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _{}}=\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^\eta $$
(3)
where $`L_{}`$ is a characteristic luminosity and $`\sigma _{}`$ the velocity dispersion of $`L_{}`$ galaxies.

### 4.1. The Measurement

The simplest way of measuring galaxy-galaxy lensing is to determine for each lens-source pair the alignment of the source with the lens given by the tangential ellipticity $`ϵ_t`$ and to measure this alignment as function of distance from the center of the lenses. The tangential ellipticity $`ϵ_t`$ corresponds to $`ϵ_1`$ that would be measured in a coordinate frame that is rotated such that the x-axis is tangentially aligned with respect to the lens. However, often images of background galaxies are distorted by more than one lens. Therefore, especially at large radii, the measurement of the density profile of an isolated galaxy is impossible.

This difficulty can be overcome by the maximum-likelihood technique proposed by Schneider & Rix (1997). There the combined shear from all foreground galaxies is calculated for a given lens model and different values of its parameters. These predictions are then compared to the observed image shapes to find the best fitting values of the parameters. However, because all foreground galaxies have to be identified, no sources close to the field boundaries can be used. So for unfavorable field geometries this method cannot be applied directly. Advantages are that one can directly account for multiple deflections from lenses along the same line-of-sight and from neighbouring lenses and that additional sources of shear from e.g. clusters can be considered easily. We will use this method in our analysis.

## 5. COMBO-17 compared to previous data sets used for measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing

Galaxy-galaxy lensing has been first measured by Brainerd et al. (1996). Since then it has been applied to a number of very different data sets ranging from the very small but deep Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN) to the shallow but large Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The most detailed analysis that is currently available uses the SDSS to systematically study the dependence of dark matter halos on luminosity, type and environment of the lens galaxies (McKay et al. 2001). This is possible from spectroscopy of their lens galaxies which is usually not available for deep surveys like COMBO-17. However, the SDSS is limited to studies of local galaxies ($`z<0.3`$). Due to the accurate photometric redshifts and the spectral classification, we will be able to extend the measurements from SDSS to higher redshifts and to probe the evolution of dark matter halos.

COMBO-17 has the further advantage that photometric redshifts are also available for all source galaxies which has so far only been the case for the investigation of galaxy-galaxy lensing in the HDFN by Hudson et al. (1998). All other previous studies including that on the SDSS data had to use redshift probability distributions at least for the source galaxies, some also for the lens galaxies. These redshift probability distributions that estimate the redshift of a galaxy from its magnitude can be derived from redshift surveys. However, for deep data sets the redshift probability distributions have to be extrapolated to the faint magnitudes of the source galaxies which could bias the results. With COMBO-17 we are not dependent on such extrapolations which renders our results more reliable. Further, the knowledge of redshifts will decrease the noise because foreground and background galaxies can be better separated.

## 6. Galaxy-galaxy lensing results from COMBO-17

To parametrize the lens galaxies we use the SIS model with a Tully-Fisher/ Faber-Jackson relation described by Equations (1), (2) and (3). As characteristic luminosity we adopt $`L_{}=10^{10}L_{}`$ where $`L_{}`$ is derived from the absolute magnitude in the SDSS r-band. We take all galaxies with $`z_\mathrm{d}=0.20.7`$ and $`R=1822`$ as lens galaxies but distinguish also between an early- and late-type lens sample. This distinction is purely based on the colours of the galaxies, no morphological information has been used. Source galaxies are all resolved galaxies (half-light radius greater than size of the PSF) with $`z_\mathrm{s}=0.31.55`$ and $`R=1824`$. We further demand $`z_\mathrm{s}>z_\mathrm{d}+0.1`$ and exclude source galaxies that have a neighbour within 10 pixel (corresponding to $`2.38^{\prime \prime }`$) as their shape measurements might be influenced by the neighbour. This selection makes it possible that a galaxy is treated as both lens and source, depending on the second galaxy in a lens-source pair. $`z=1.55`$ is the maximum redshift that can be reliably assigned in the classification given the template libraries and the filter set of COMBO-17. We will use only two of the survey fields: the A 901 field and the S 11 field.

First we fit $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\eta `$ simultaneously. We tried different separations and finally ended up using all pairs with $`20\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$$`<r<150\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ which yields the most significant results. Figure 2 shows the likelihood contours for all lenses and for early-type and late-type galaxies separately. The contours correspond to 1-$`\sigma `$, 2-$`\sigma `$ and 3-$`\sigma `$. They have been determined directly from the likelihoods of the different values for the parameters.

The best-fitting parameters together with their 1-$`\sigma `$ limits are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _{}=164_{24}^{+20}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,\hfill & \eta =0.36_{0.12}^{+0.11}\hfill & \text{all lenses}\hfill \\ \sigma _{}=198_{42}^{+32}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,\hfill & \eta =0.28_{0.16}^{+0.17}\hfill & \text{early-type lenses}\hfill \\ \sigma _{}=146_{38}^{+28}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,\hfill & \eta =0.33_{0.16}^{+0.18}\hfill & \text{late-type lenses}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
This shows that early-type galaxies have larger velocity dispersions while no clear dependence of $`\eta `$ on galaxy type is seen.

When trying different ranges of allowed separations between lens and source galaxies we found that the best-fit velocity dispersion becomes smaller when inluding pairs with larger separations. This already indicates that the velocity dispersion of the dark matter halos is not constant but decreasing. We tested this assumption by fitting the velocity dispersion for separations $`20\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$$`<r<r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ where we varied only $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ but fixed $`\eta =0.35`$. Figure 3 shows the results, again for all lens galaxies, early-types and late-types.

Figure 3 clearly shows that the SIS is not a good model at all. Outside about $`r=150\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ the best-fit velocity dispersion is continously falling and is larger for the early-type sample. But probably most interesting is the rise in velocity dispersion in the inner parts of the halos which is most clearly seen for the early-type sample. A velocity dispersion that is first rising and then declining is exactly what is expected for dark matter halos that can be described by NFW halos!

## 7. Conclusions and Outlook

Using the most simple model for describing dark matter halos of galaxies, the SIS model, we have measured the velocity dispersions of galaxies with galaxy-galaxy lensing and tested how these depend on luminosity and spectral type. We find $`\sigma _{}160\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`\eta 0.35`$ averaged over all lens galaxies and larger velocity dispersions for early-type galaxies. These results are in good agreement with previous findings.

However, we also find that the SIS is not a good model for describing dark matter halos of galaxies but that the NFW profile might be more appropriate. Therefore our results on the mean velocity dispersion or the relation between velocity dispersion and luminosity or spectral type of the lens galaxies can only be regarded as preliminary because these results might depend sensitively on the range in separation over which the fit is performed. We will test if the NFW profile provides a better fit to the data. Having found a better parametrization of the radial profile of dark matter halos we can then calculate aperture masses and reanalyse the dependencies of the density profile or mass on luminosity and spectral type of the galaxies.

Once the whole data set from COMBO-17 is available we can improve the statistics and also test the dependence of halo properties on environment, stellar mass or redshift of the galaxies.

#### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the BMBF/DLR project 50 OR 0106, the BMBF/DESY project O5AE2PDA/8, and the DFG under the project SCHN 342/3-1.

## References

Brainerd, T. G., Blandford, R. D., & Smail, I. 1996 ApJ, 466, 623

Fischer, P. et al. 2000 AJ, 120, 1198

Hoekstra, H. Franx M., Kuijken K., Carlberg R. G., & Yee, H. K. C., astro-ph/0211633

Hudson, M. J., Gwyn, S. D. J., Dahle, H., & Kaiser, N. 1998 ApJ, 503, 531

McKay, T. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0108013

Schneider, P., & Rix, H.-W. 1997 ApJ, 474, 25

Wolf, C., Dye, S., Kleinheinrich, M., Rix, H.-W., Meisenheimer, K., & Wisotzki, L. 2001 A&A, 377, 442

Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Borch, A., Dye, S., & Kleinheinrich, M. 2003 A&A, 401, 73

Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., White, S. D. M. ApJ, 478, 39