text:
# The Magueijo-Smolin Group is Linear in Five Dimensions

## Abstract

Magueijo and Smolin have introduced a modification of the Lorentz group for the momentum-space transformations in Doubly-Special Relativity. As presented the group is non-linear, but we show that it is a group of fraction-linear transformations in 4 dimensional real projective space. We pass to the associated 5 dimensional linear space and identify the subgroup as a conjugate of the ordinary Lorentz group, giving the conjugating matrix. Taking the dual of the 5-space, we identify a subgroup as the Lorentz transformations about a point different to the origin.

PACS numbers: 03.30.+p, 04.50.+h,04.60.-m

In connection with Doubly-Special Relativity (for a review article see Ref ), Magueijo and Smolin  have introduced a group of transformations on momentum space. These are:

$$\begin{array}{c}p_0^{}=\frac{\gamma (p_0vp_z)}{1+l_P(\gamma 1)p_0l_P\gamma vp_z}\hfill \\ \\ p_x^{}=\frac{p_x}{1+l_P(\gamma 1)p_0l_P\gamma vp_z}\hfill \\ \\ p_y^{}=\frac{p_y}{1+l_P(\gamma 1)p_0l_P\gamma vp_z}\hfill \\ \\ p_z^{}=\frac{\gamma (p_zvp_0)}{1+l_P(\gamma 1)p_0l_P\gamma vp_z}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
for a boost along the z-axis. These equations are non-linear, but can be seen to be fractional-linear. First let us simplify the notation by writing $`\lambda =l_p`$ (the Plank length) and $`v=\mathrm{tanh}\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ is the rapidity parameter. We now write

$$p_\mu =\frac{\pi _\mu }{\pi _4}$$
(2)
where $`\mu =0,1,2,3,p_1=p_x,p_2=p_y,p_3=p_z`$ and $`\pi _4`$ is an extra, fifth, coordinate. A simple check then shows that the transformation (1) is induced by the following linear transformation of the five $`\pi `$ variables.

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _0^{}=\pi _0\mathrm{cosh}\psi +\pi _3\mathrm{sinh}\psi \hfill \\ \pi _1^{}=\pi _1\hfill \\ \pi _2^{}=\pi _2\hfill \\ \pi _3^{}=\pi _3\mathrm{cosh}\psi +\pi _0\mathrm{sinh}\psi \hfill \\ \pi _4^{}=\pi _4+\lambda \left(\pi _0\mathrm{cosh}\psi +\pi _3\mathrm{sinh}\psi \right)\lambda \pi _0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
which is described by the matrix

$$B(\psi )=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{cosh}\psi & 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}\psi & 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{sinh}\psi & 0& 0& \mathrm{cosh}\psi & 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \lambda \left(\mathrm{cosh}\psi 1\right)& 0& 0& \lambda \mathrm{sinh}\psi & 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(4)
The transformations form a 1-parameter group. If, similarly, we compute the matrices for x and y boosts and for spatial rotations, we can write the infinitesimal generator for the general element of the 6-dimensional Lie algebra:

$$l_\lambda =\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}0& a& b& c& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ a& 0& p& q& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ b& p& 0& r& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ c& q& r& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& a\lambda & b\lambda & c\lambda & 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(5)
where $`a,b,c,p,q,r`$ are the parameters for boosts and rotations respectively. The limiting case $`\lambda =0`$ gives the usual Lorentz algebra $`L_0`$ in the first four coordinates.

From direct calculation we find that $`l_\lambda g_\lambda =g_\lambda l_0`$, i.e. $`l_\lambda =g_\lambda l_0g_\lambda ^1`$, where the conjugator $`g_\lambda `$ is given by

$$g_\lambda =\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \lambda & 0& 0& 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(6)
By exponentiation, the Magueijo-Smolin group is conjugate to the ordinary Lorentz transformations (in the first four variables), by the same conjugator $`g_\lambda `$.

For a geometrical characterisation of these 5-dimensional transformations, let us look at the dual space to the space of $`\pi `$’s, with dual transformations defined in the following way. Given a transformation $`M`$ on a space, define a dual transformation $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{M}(\xi ),M(x)=\xi ,x$$
(7)
for a covector $`\xi `$ and vector $`x`$, where $`,`$ represents the contraction between them. This has the homomorphism property that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_2`$ corresponds to $`M_1M_2`$. To find matrix expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`M`$, suppose we have bases $`\epsilon _i`$ and $`e_i`$ in the dual and original spaces, and define

$$\epsilon _i,e_j=A_{ij}$$
(8)
Then for any covector $`\underset{i}{}\xi _i\epsilon _i`$ and vector $`\underset{i}{}x_ie_i`$, it follows from linearity that
$`\underset{i}{}\xi _i\epsilon _i,\underset{j}{}x_je_j=\underset{ij}{}\xi _ix_jA_{ij}`$ , i.e.

$$\xi ,x=\xi ^\mathrm{T}Ax$$
(9)
in matrix notation. Then by (7) and (9) and the arbitrariness of $`\xi `$ and $`x`$ it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=(AM^1A^1)^\mathrm{T}$$
(10)
In orthodox special relativity $`A`$ is the Minkowski $`\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, so for the 5-dimensional case let us extend this minimally by choosing for $`A`$:

$$A=A^1=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\eta & 0^\mathrm{T}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(11)
(writing the matrix in block diagonal form).

The general form of the transformations on $`\pi `$-space may be written:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\pi \hfill \\ \pi _4\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0^\mathrm{T}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \lambda \epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }I)& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\pi \hfill \\ \pi _4\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Lorentz transformation on the first 4 coordinates, and $`\epsilon `$ is the row vector $`(1,0,0,0)`$. (This is the generalisation of (4) and can be verified using exponentiation and conjugation with (5) and (6).) If $`M`$ is the matrix in (12), it can be verified that

$$M^1=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1& 0^\mathrm{T}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \lambda \epsilon \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1I\right)& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(13)
Then by (10), and the facts that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\eta =\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^1,\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\eta =\mathrm{\Lambda }^T,\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^T=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\eta $$
(14)
and

$$\lambda \epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }^1I)\eta =\lambda \eta \epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{T}I)=\lambda \epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{T}I)$$
(15)
we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }& \lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }I)\epsilon ^\mathrm{T}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]$$
(16)
Thus the transformations dual to (12) may be written

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}x\hfill \\ x^4\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }& \lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }I)\epsilon ^\mathrm{T}& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 1& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}x\hfill \\ x^4\hfill \end{array}\right]$$
(17)
These leave $`x^4`$ fixed, while if $`x^4=1`$ the other coordinates transform by

$$x\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+\lambda \epsilon ^\mathrm{T})\lambda \epsilon ^\mathrm{T}$$
(18)
This is a Lorentz transformation, though not about the origin but about the “Plank-time” point $`\lambda \epsilon ^T`$. Lorentz transformations about this point, and the Lorentz transformations about the origin, are subgroups of the Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ group conjugate to each other by a translation.

Since momentum space is the cotangent space (with cotangents at different points identified using the trivial connection on the flat spacetime), the dual is the tangent space, and we see that the above subgroup when acting in four dimensions is a non-linear (because not origin preserving) set of transformations on the tangent space at an arbitarily chosen origin in the underlying position space. These cannot be the induced maps to maps on the position space which leave the chosen point fixed (since the induced map is linear), and this illustrates the difficulty in finding suitable position space transformations in four dimensions, even non-linear ones.

The fact that $`x^4`$ is left invariant by the Lorentz-type subgroup suggests that the fifth coordinate may be connected with the proper mass, something which appears in orthodox special relativity only as an external parameter. If it does have this significance then mass is entering the formalism just as time previously entered the formalism, changing its status from external parameter to an extra degree of freedom. More general transformations in which the fifth coordinate is changed would then correspond to a freedom to change the proper mass.


format: text

text:
# BLAST-WAVE SNAPSHOTS FROM RHIC

## 1 HBT interferometry in heavy-ion collisions

In heavy-ion collisions we study the collective behaviour of strongly interacting matter. HBT interferometry is a method that helps us to determine the final state of the fireball evolution, the so-called freeze-out. We thus obtain a snapshot of the result to which the collective evolution of the fireball leads.

A particularly interesting phenomenon at the freeze-out is the transverse expansion, as this is not a part of the initial conditions and is entirely generated by pressure of the QCD matter. Another interesting quantity is the freeze-out temperature, which characterizes the end of the collective system evolution. It has been argued $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that both these quantities can be determined unambiguously from single-particle $`p_{}`$ spectra and two-particle HBT correlations.

Here I report on such a project in the framework of the so-called blast-wave model. I analysed identified single-particle spectra $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and HBT correlation radii $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ from central Au+Au collisions at a RHIC energy of $`\sqrt{s}=130A\text{GeV}`$.

## 2 The (blast-wave) model

The main assumptions of this—now widely used—model, which are relevant to this study are:

1. Pions, nucleons and also kaons decouple all quite suddenly from the whole transverse profile of the fireball. For all of them the freeze-out happens at the same proper time, measured in a frame that co-moves longitudinally with the fluid element of the expanding fireball.
2. The radial density distribution at the freeze-out is uniform.
3. Longitudinal expansion is boost-invariant. Heavy-ion experts know this as Bjorken scenario, the rest of the world is familiar with the astrophysical analogue: the Hubble expansion.
4. In this study, the transverse expansion is parametrized through rapidity, which depends linearly on the radial coordinate.

Technically, these assumptions are expressed through the emission function $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which is the Wigner density of the source normalized to the number of particles

$`S(x,p)d^4x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}m_{}\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu u^\mu \mu }{T}}\right)\theta (R_Br)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\tau \tau _0)^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^2}}\right)\tau d\tau d\eta rdrd\varphi ,`$
$`u^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _t\mathrm{cosh}\eta ,\mathrm{sinh}\eta _t\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sinh}\eta _t\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cosh}\eta _t\mathrm{sinh}\eta ),`$ (2)
$`\eta _t`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\eta _f{\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_B}}.`$ (3)
In this notation, space-time coordinates and the momentum in the so-called out-side-long system are parametrized as

$`x^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\tau \mathrm{cosh}\eta ,r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,r\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\tau \mathrm{sinh}\eta )`$ (4)
$`p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(m_{}\mathrm{cosh}y,p_{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},m_{}\mathrm{sinh}y).`$ (5)
Model parameters are to be determined from a fit to data. These include: temperature $`T`$, scaled transverse flow gradient $`\eta _f`$, transverse geometric radius $`R_B`$, mean Bjorken lifetime $`\tau _0`$, and mean proper emission duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is not being determined in this study. For the presentation of the results the average transverse velocity is used

$$v_t=\frac{2}{R_B^2}_0^{R_B}r𝑑r\mathrm{tanh}\eta _t(r).$$
(6)
For simplicity, Boltzmann distribution has been used in Eq. 1. Note that the model is formulated as thermal: it is assumed that particles decouple from a system in local thermal equilibrium with the temperature $`T`$. In the corresponding term, the particle momentum is coupled to the local flow velocity as $`p_\mu u^\mu `$ in order to obtain the energy in the rest frame of the fluid. The strength of this coupling is controlled by the temperature. The lower the temperature, the stronger the momentum of the particle corresponds to the fireball expansion velocity and the more pronounced the effects of the expansion in the observables are. In terms of HBT radii, the expansion is encoded in their $`M_{}`$ dependence. A lower value of the temperature parameter thus leads to a stronger $`M_{}`$ dependence.

Single-particle spectra were calculated via $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$E_p\frac{dN}{d^3p}=d^4xS(x,p).$$
(7)
The HBT correlation radii were obtained from a numerical evaluation of the model-independent expressions $`^\mathrm{?}`$, in which the second spatial moments of the emission function are used.

## 3 Fits to (low-momentum) single-particle $`p_{}`$ spectra

With the blast-wave model, I fitted single-particle spectra of identified positive and negative pions, kaons and protons as measured by the PHENIX Collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Bose–Einstein statistics and resonance decays were assumed for pions. I assumed baryon chemical potential for the resonances as in an earlier paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$, but no pion chemical potential was included.

An important issue in the analysis is that every spectrum was fitted individually. This allows for a check of the assumption that all particles freeze-out simultaneously. If so, fits to different spectra would lead to compatible results aaaThe slope of the spectrum is determined by the temperature, the strength of the transverse expansion, and the mass of the particles. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. On the other hand, if the results do not agree, the assumption is wrong.

There is no overlap between the fit results to different spectra at the 1$`\sigma `$ level. Can the model be ruled out? In order to find out, I plot the contours corresponding to 95% confidence levels from the fits in Fig. 1. An overlap is found at this level, hence the model is not ruled out by the fits to spectra.

It remains to be checked whether the quality of the fits can be improved by fine-tuning the details of the model: changing the radial dependence of the transverse rapidity, introducing pion chemical potential, etc.

## 4 Fits to HBT correlation radii

The measurements of HBT radii by STAR and PHENIX cover different $`M_{}`$ regions, with only one data point overlapping (Fig. 2). The PHENIX data show a steeper $`M_{}`$ dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$ than those of STAR. Such a steep $`R_{\mathrm{side}}(M_{})`$ would ask for a strong transverse flow and a low temperature.

Indeed, this is confirmed by the fits. At the 1$`\sigma `$ level, some results from fitting data sets from the two collaborations do not agree. In order to have a robust statement about whether the model fails to reproduce the data, systematical errors quoted by the experiments were added linearly to the statistical ones. Under these circumstances one finds a large overlap at 95% confidence level from fitting all four data sets.

In order to improve statistics, data of the same charge from both collaborations were added together and fitted. Resulting $`\chi ^2`$ contour plots are displayed in Fig. 1. Note that there is only a tiny overlap between the 95% CL contour of $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ correlations with the result of fitting single-particle spectra. It is located at $`T106\text{MeV}`$. Furthermore, the best fit to $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ correlations is obtained at $`T=33\text{MeV}`$ and $`v_t=0.73`$! This is not to be interpreted at the real physical freeze-out temperature! As seen from Fig. 2, these values of the model parameters are required in order to produce the observed steep $`M_{}`$ dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{side}}`$. Thus $`T`$ is merely to be interpreted as a parameter that controls the coupling of momentum to expansion velocity in the framework of the blast-wave model.

It is interesting to note that similar results appear from fitting the HBT data from the SPS program and the preliminary data from the RHIC run at full energy. This study is in progress.

## 5 Conclusions

Summarizing the main observations: first, the blast-wave model can fit the spectra and the correlation radii only marginally. The resulting parameters are close to the 95% CL contour of both fits. Second, the best fit to HBT radii is achieved with model parameters that are hard to interpret phenomenologically. My conclusion is that the blast-wave model is probably not a suitable description of the freeze-out.

Note that we do have indications from cascade generators $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and studies of pion scattering rate $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which show that the freeze-out takes place continuously and there may even be ordering in the production of different species and transverse momenta. This feature is in contrast to the simple assumption of the blast-wave model, which says that all particles freeze out suddenly at the same time.

It will be crucial to formulate a good description of the freeze-out. This is because the momentum spectra are produced at freeze-out. If these spectra are to be searched for signatures of collective behaviour, it is important to understand the process in which they are produced.

## References


text:
# Distilling common randomness from bipartite quantum states

## 1 Introduction

Quantum, and hence also classical, information theory can be viewed as a theory of inter-conversion between various resources. These resources can be classical or quantum, static or dynamic, noisy or noiseless. Based on the number of spatially separated parties sharing a resource, it can be bipartite or multipartite; local (monopartite) resources are typically taken for granted. In what follows, we shall mainly be concerned with bipartite resources. Let us introduce a notation in which $`c`$ and $`q`$ stand for classical and quantum, respectively, curly and square brackets stand for noisy and noiseless, respectively, and arrows ($``$) will distinguish dynamic resources from static ones. The possible combinations are tabulated below. Noisy dynamic resources are the four types of noisy channels, classified by the classical/quantum nature of the input/output. Beside the familiar classical $`\{cc\}`$ and quantum $`\{qq\}`$ channels, this category also includes preparation of quantum states from a given set (labeled by classical indices) $`\{cq\}`$ and measurement of quantum states yielding classical outcomes $`\{qc\}`$. Dynamic “unit” resources by definition require the input and output to be of the same nature, and they comprise of the noiseless bit $`[cc]`$ and qubit $`[qq]`$ channel, but we additionally introduce symbols for general (higher dimensional) perfect quantum and classical channels: $`(qq)`$ and $`(cc)`$, respectively.

Noisy static resources, not having a directionality, can be one of three types: classical $`\{cc\}`$ , quantum $`\{qq\}`$ and mixed classical-quantum $`\{cq\}`$. The first of these is embodied in a pair of correlated random variables $`XY`$, associated with the product set $`𝒳\times 𝒴`$ and a probability distribution $`p(x,y)=\mathrm{Pr}\{X=x,Y=y\}`$ defined on $`𝒳\times 𝒴`$. The $`\{qq\}`$ analogue is a bipartite quantum system $`𝒜`$, associated with a product Hilbert space $`_𝒜_{}`$ and a density operator $`\rho ^𝒜`$, the “quantum state” of the system $`𝒜`$, defined on $`_𝒜_{}`$. A $`\{cq\}`$ resource is a hybrid classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$, the state of which is now described by an *ensemble* $`\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$, with $`p(x)`$ defined on $`𝒳`$ and the $`\rho _x`$ being density operators on the Hilbert space $`_𝒬`$ of $`𝒬`$. The state of the quantum system $`𝒬`$ is thus correlated with the classical index $`X`$. A useful representation of $`\{cq\}`$ resources, which we refer to as the “enlarged Hilbert space” (EHS) representation, is obtained by embedding the random variable $`X`$ in some quantum system $`𝒜`$. Then our ensemble $`\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$ corresponds to the density operator

$$\rho ^{𝒜𝒬}=\underset{x}{}p(x)|xx|^𝒜\rho _x^𝒬,$$
(1)
where $`\{|x:x𝒳\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space $`_𝒜`$ of $`𝒜`$. Thus $`\{cq\}`$ resources may be viewed as a special case of $`\{qq\}`$ ones. Finally, we have noiseless static resources, which can be classical $`(cc)`$ or quantum $`(qq)`$. The classical resource is a pair of *perfectly* correlated random variables, which is to say that $`𝒳=𝒴`$ and $`p(x,y)=p(x)\delta (x,y)`$ (without loss of generality). We reserve the $`[cc]`$ notation for a *unit* of common randomness (1 rbit), a perfectly correlated pair of binary random variables with a full bit of entropy. The quantum resource is a quantum system $`𝒜`$ in a pure entangled state $`|\psi _𝒜`$. Again, the $`[qq]`$ notation denotes a unit of entanglement (1 ebit), a maximally entangled qubit pair $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_𝒜|0_{}+|1_𝒜|1_{})`$. Since $`(cc)`$ and $`[cc]`$, and $`(qq)`$ and $`[qq]`$ may be inter-converted in an asymptotically lossless way and with an asymptotically vanishing rate of extra resources, for most purposes it suffices to consider the unit resources only. Note the clear hierarchy amongst unit resources:

$$[qq]([cc]\mathrm{or}[qq])[cc].$$

Any of the conversions ($``$) can be performed at a unit rate and no additional cost. On the other hand, $`[cc]`$ and $`[qq]`$ are strictly “orthogonal”: neither can be produced from the other.

| Dynamic unit resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`[cc]`$ | noiseless bit channel |
| $`[qq]`$ | noiseless qubit channel |

| Noiseless dynamic resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`(cc)`$ | general noiseless channel — w.l.o.g. identity on some set |
| $`(qq)`$ | noiseless qubit channel — w.l.o.g. identity on some space |

| Noisy dynamic resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`\{cc\}`$ | noisy classical channel, given by a stochastic matrix $`W`$ |
| $`\{cq\}`$ | quantum state preparation, given by quantum alphabet $`\{\rho _x\}`$ |
| $`\{qc\}`$ | generalized measurement, given by a POVM $`(E_x)`$ |
| $`\{qq\}`$ | noisy quantum channel, given by CPTP map $`𝒩`$ |

| Unit static resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`[cc]`$ | maximally correlated bits (1 rbit) |
| $`[qq]`$ | maximally entangled qubits (1 ebit) |

| Noiseless static resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`(cc)`$ | perfectly correlated random variables $`XY`$ with distribution $`p(x,y)=p(x)\delta (x,y)`$ |
| $`(qq)`$ | bipartite quantum system $`𝒜`$ in a pure state $`|\psi _𝒜`$ |

| Noisy static resources | |
| --- | --- |
| $`\{cc\}`$ | correlated random variables $`XY`$ with joint distribution $`p(x,y)`$ |
| $`\{cq\}`$ | classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$ corresponding to an ensemble $`\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$ |
| $`\{qq\}`$ | bipartite quantum system $`𝒜`$ in a general quantum state $`\rho ^𝒜`$ |

The generality of this classification is illustrated in the table below, where the resource inter-conversion task is identified for a number of examples from the literature. To interpret these “chemical reaction formulas”, there is but rule to obey: if non-unit resources appear on the right, then all non-unit (dynamical) resources are meant to be fed from some fixed source. For example, $`(cc)`$ in the output of a transformation symbolizes the noiseless transmission of an implicit classical information source, and likewise $`(qq)`$ the noiseless transmission of an implicit quantum information source

| Some known problems in classical and quantum information theory | |
| --- | --- |
| $`[cc](cc)`$ | Shannon compression  |
| $`[qq](qq)`$ | Schumacher compression  |
| $`(qq)[qq]`$ | Entanglement concentration  |
| $`[qq]+[cc](qq)`$ | Entanglement dilution  |
| $`[qq]+[cc]\{qq\}`$ | Entanglement cost, entanglement of |
|  | purification  |
| $`\{qq\}+[cc][qq]`$ | Entanglement distillation  |
| $`\{cc\}+[cc][cc]`$ | Classical common randomness capacity  |
| $`\{cq\}+[cc][cc]`$ | present paper |
| $`\{qq\}+[cc][cc]`$ | present paper |
| $`\{cc\}[cc]`$ | Shannon’s channel coding theorem  |
| $`\{cq\}[cc]`$ | HSW theorem (fixed alphabet)  |
| $`\{qq\}[cc]`$ | HSW theorem (fixed channel)  |
| $`\{qq\}[qq]`$ | Quantum channel coding theorem  |
| $`[cc]+[qq][qq]`$ | Quantum teleportation  |
| $`[qq]+[qq][cc]`$ | Quantum super-dense coding  |
| $`\{qq\}+[qq][cc]`$ | Entanglement assisted classical capacity  |
| $`\{qq\}+[qq][qq]`$ | Entanglement assisted quantum capacity  |
| $`[cc]+[cc]\{cc\}`$ | Classical reverse Shannon theorem  |
| $`[cc]+[qq]\{qq\}`$ | Quantum reverse Shannon theorem  |
| $`\{qc\}+[cc]\{qc\}`$ | Winter’s POVM compression theorem  |
| $`[cc]+[qq]\{cq\}`$ | Remote state preparation  |
| $`[cc]+[qq]\{cq\}`$ | Quantum-classical trade-off in quantum |
|  | data compression  |
| $`\{cq\}+[cc](cc)`$ | Classical compression with quantum |
|  | side information  |

The present paper addresses the static “distillation” (noisy $``$ noiseless) task of converting noisy quantum correlations $`\{qq\}`$, i.e. bipartite quantum states, into noiseless classical ones $`[cc]`$, i.e. common randomness (CR). Many information theoretical problems are motivated by simple intuitive questions. For instance, Shannon’s channel coding theorem  quantifies the ability of a channel to send information. Similarly, our problem stems from the desire to quantify the classical correlations present in a bipartite quantum state. A recent paper by Henderson and Vedral  poses this very question, and introduces several plausible measures. However, the ultimate criterion for accepting something as an information measure is whether it appears in the solution to an appropriate asymptotic information processing task; in other words, whether is has an *operational* meaning. It is this operational approach that is pursued here.

The structure of our conversion problem is akin to two other static distillation problems: $`\{qq\}[qq]`$ and $`\{cc\}[cc]`$. The former goes under the name of “entanglement distillation”: producing maximally entangled qubit states from a large number of copies of $`\rho ^𝒜`$ with the help of unlimited one-way or two-way classical communication . Allowing free classical communication in these problems is legitimate since, as already noted, entanglement and classical communication are orthogonal resources. The $`\{cc\}[cc]`$ problem is one of creating CR from general correlated random variables, which is known to be impossible without additional classical communication. Now allowing free communication is inappropriate, since it could be used to create unlimited CR. There are at least two scenarios that do make sense, however, and have been studied by Ahlswede and Csiszár in  and , respectively. In the first, one makes a distinction between the distilled key, which is required to be secret, and the classical communication which is public. The second scenario involves limiting the amount of classical communication to a one-way rate of $`R`$ bits per input state and asking about the maximal CR generated in this way (see  for further generalizations). One can thus think of the classical communication as a quasi-catalyst that enables distillation of a part of the noisy correlations, while itself becoming CR; it is not a genuine catalyst because the original dynamic resource is more valuable than the static one. We find that these classical results generalize rather well to our information processing task. The analogue of the first scenario  has been treated in an unpublished paper by Winter and Wilmink . In this paper we generalize . As a corollary we give one (of possibly many) operationally motivated answers to the question “How much classical correlation is there in a bipartite quantum state?”.

Alice and Bob share $`n`$ copies (in classical jargon: an $`n`$ letter word) of a bipartite quantum state $`\rho ^𝒜`$ . Alice is allowed $`nR`$ bits of classical communication to Bob. The question is: how much CR can they generate under these conditions? More precisely, Alice is allowed to perform some measurement on her part of $`(\rho ^𝒜)^n`$, producing the outcome random variable $`X^{(n)}`$ defined on some set $`𝒳^{(n)}`$. Next, she sends Bob $`f(X^{(n)})`$, where $`f:𝒳^{(n)}\{1,2,\mathrm{},2^{nR}\}`$. The *rate* $`R`$ signifies the number of bits per letter needed to convey this information. Conditioned on the value of $`f(X^{(n)})`$, Bob performs an appropriate measurement with outcome random variable $`Y^{(n)}`$. We say that a pair of random variables $`(K,L)`$, both taking values in some set $`𝒦`$, is *permissible* if

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`K(X^{(n)})`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`L(Y^{(n)},f(X^{(n)})).`$
A permissible pair $`(K,L)`$ represents *$`ϵ`$-common randomness* if

$$\mathrm{Pr}(KL)ϵ.$$
(2)
In addition we require the technical condition that $`K`$ and $`L`$ are in the same set satisfying

$$|𝒦|2^{c^{}n}$$
(3)
for some constant $`c^{}`$. Thus, strictly speaking, our CR is of the $`(cc)`$ type, but it can easily be converted to $`[cc]`$ CR via local processing (intuitively, we would like to say “Shannon data compression”, only that the randomness thus obtained is not uniformly distributed but “almost uniformly” in the sense of the AEP ). A CR-rate pair $`(C,R)`$ of common randomness $`C`$ and classical side communication $`R`$ is called *achievable* if for all $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and all sufficiently large $`n`$ there exists a permissible pair $`(K,L)`$ satisfying (2) and (3), such that

$$\frac{1}{n}H(K)C\delta .$$

We define the CR-rate function $`C(R)`$ to be

$$C(R)=sup\{C:(C,R)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{achievable}\}.$$

One may also formulate the $`C(R)`$ problem for Alice and Bob sharing some classical-quantum resource $`X𝒬`$ rather than the fully quantum $`𝒜`$. In this case Alice’s measurement is omitted since she already has the classical random variable $`X^{(n)}=X^n`$. In the original classical problem  Alice and Bob share the classical resource $`XY`$. There Bob’s measurement is also omitted, since he already has the random variable $`Y^{(n)}=Y^n`$. Finally, we introduce the *distillable* CR as

$$D(R)=C(R)R,$$
(4)
the amount of CR generated in excess of the invested classical communication rate. This suggests $`D(\mathrm{})`$ as a natural asymmetric measure of the total classical correlation in the state. As we shall see, the above turns out to be equivalent to the asymptotic (“regularized”) version of $`C_𝒜(\rho ^𝒜)`$, as defined in .

The paper is organized as follows. First we consider the special case of $`\{cq\}`$ resources for which evaluating $`C(R)`$ reduces to a single-letter optimization problem. Then we consider the $`\{qq\}`$ case which builds on it rather like the fixed channel Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) theorem builds on the fixed alphabet version.

## 2 Classical-quantum correlations

In this section we shall assume that Alice and Bob share $`n`$ copies of some $`\{c,q\}`$ resource $`X𝒬`$, defined by the ensemble $`=\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$ or, equivalently, equation (1). Alice knows the random variable $`X`$ and Bob possesses the $`d`$-dimensional quantum system $`𝒬`$. In what follows we shall make use of the EHS representation to define various information theoretical quantities for classical-quantum systems. The von Neumann entropy of a quantum system $`𝒜`$ with density operator $`\rho ^𝒜`$ is defined as $`H(𝒜)=\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^𝒜\mathrm{log}\rho ^𝒜`$. For a bipartite quantum system $`𝒜`$ define formally the quantities *conditional von Neumann entropy*

$$H(|𝒜)=H(𝒜)H(𝒜),$$

and *quantum mutual information* (introduced earlier as “correlation entropy” by Stratonovich )

$$I(𝒜;)=H(𝒜)+H()H(𝒜)=H()H(|𝒜).$$

For general states of $`𝒜`$ we introduce these quantities without implying an operational meaning for them. (Though the quantum mutual information appears in the entanglement assisted capacity of a quantum channel , and the negative of the conditional entropy, known as the coherent information appears in the quantum channel capacity .)

Introducing these quantities in formal analogy has the virtue of allowing us to use the familiar identities and many of the inequalities known for classical entropy. This to us seems better than claim any particular operational connection (which, by all we known about quantum information today, cannot be unique anyway).

Subadditivity of von Neumann entropy implies $`I(𝒜;)0`$. For a tripartite quantum system $`𝒜𝒞`$ define the quantum conditional mutual information

$$I(𝒜;|𝒞)=H(𝒜|𝒞)+H(|𝒞)H(𝒜|𝒞)=H(𝒜𝒞)+H(𝒞)H(𝒜𝒞)H(𝒞).$$

Strong subadditivity of von Neumann entropy implies $`I(𝒜;|𝒞)0`$. A commonly used identity is the chain rule

$$I(𝒜;𝒞)=I(𝒜;)+I(𝒜;𝒞|).$$

Notice that for classical-quantum correlations (1) the von Neumann entropy $`H(𝒜)`$ is just the Shannon entropy $`H(X)`$ of $`X`$. We define the mutual information of a classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$ as $`I(X;𝒬)=I(𝒜;𝒬)`$. Notice that this is no other than the Holevo information of the ensemble $``$

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

(Even though Gordon and Levitin have written down this expression much earlier — see  for historical references —, we feel that the honour should be with Holevo for his proof of the information bound named duly after him .)

Using the EHS representation for some tripartite classical-quantum system $`UX𝒬`$, strong subadditivity  gives inequalities such as $`I(U;X|𝒬)0`$ or $`I(U;𝒬|X)0`$ and the chain rule implies, e.g.,

$$I(U;X𝒬)=I(U;𝒬)+I(U;X|𝒬).$$

We shall take such formulae for granted throughout the paper.

An important classical concept is that of a Markov chain of random variables $`UXY`$ whose probabilities obey $`\mathrm{Pr}\{Y=y|X=x,U=u\}=\mathrm{Pr}\{Y=y|X=x\}`$, which is to say that $`Y`$ depends on $`U`$ only through $`X`$. Analogously we may define a classical-quantum Markov chain $`UX𝒬`$ associated with an ensemble $`\{\rho _{ux},p(u,x)\}`$ for which $`\rho _{ux}=\rho _x`$. Such an object typically comes about by augmenting the system $`X𝒬`$ by the random variable $`U`$ (classically) correlated with $`X`$ via a conditional distribution $`Q(u|x)=\mathrm{Pr}\{U=u|X=x\}`$. In the EHS representation this corresponds to the state

$$\rho ^{𝒵𝒜𝒬}=\underset{x}{}p(x)\underset{u}{}Q(u|x)|uu|^𝒵|xx|^𝒜\rho _x^𝒬.$$
(5)
We are now ready to state our main result.

###### Theorem 1 (CR-rate theorem for classical-quantum correlations)

$$C(R)=C^{}(R)=R+D^{}(R),$$
(6)
where

$$D^{}(R)=\underset{U|X}{sup}\{I(U;𝒬)|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)R\}.$$
(7)
The supremum is to be understood as one over all conditional probability distributions $`p(u|x)`$ for the random variable $`U`$ conditioned on $`X`$, with finite range $`𝒰`$. We may in fact restrict to the case $`|𝒰||𝒳|+1`$, which in particular implies that the $`sup`$ is actually a $`\mathrm{max}`$.

The proof of the theorem is divided into two parts: show that $`C^{}(R)`$ is an upper bound (commonly called the “converse” theorem) for $`C(R)`$, and then providing a direct coding scheme demonstrating its achievability. We start with a couple of lemmas.

###### Lemma 2

$`D^{}(R)`$, and hence $`C^{}(R)`$, is monotonically increasing and concave; the latter meaning that for $`R_1,R_20`$ and $`0\lambda 1`$,

$$\lambda D^{}(R_1)+(1\lambda )D^{}(R_2)D^{}\left(\lambda R_1+(1\lambda )R_2\right).$$

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ The monotonicity of $`D^{}(R)`$ is obvious from its definition. To prove concavity, choose $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ feasible for $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, respectively: in particular,

$`I(U_1;X)I(U_1;𝒬)`$ $``$ $`R_1,`$
$`I(U_2;X)I(U_2;𝒬)`$ $``$ $`R_2.`$
Then, introducing the new random variable

$$U=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1,U_1)\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{probability}\lambda ,\hfill \\ (2,U_2)\hfill & \mathrm{with}\mathrm{probability}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\lambda ,\hfill \end{array}$$

we have

$`\lambda I(U_1;X)+(1\lambda )I(U_2;X)`$ $`=`$ $`I(U;X),`$
$`\lambda I(U_1;𝒬)+(1\lambda )I(U_2;𝒬)`$ $`=`$ $`I(U;𝒬).`$
Thus

$$\lambda I(U_1;𝒬)+(1\lambda )I(U_2;𝒬)=I(U;𝒬)D^{}(R),$$

the last step from

$$I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)\lambda R_1+(1\lambda )R_2R.$$

Consider the $`n`$ copy classical-quantum system $`X^n𝒬^n=X_1𝒬_1X_2𝒬_2\mathrm{}X_n𝒬_n`$, in the state given by the $`n`$th tensor power of the ensemble $`\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$. Define now

$$D_n^{}(R)=\underset{U|X^n}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{1}{n}I(U;𝒬^n)|\frac{1}{n}\left(I(U;X^n)I(U;𝒬^n)\right)R\right\}.$$
(8)
It turns out that this expression may be “single-letterized”:

$$D_n^{}(R)=D^{}(R).$$

We prove slightly more by showing the following lemma, which implies the above equality by iterative application and then using concavity of $`D^{}`$ in $`R`$ (lemma 2):

###### Lemma 3

For two ensembles $`_1=\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$ ($`x𝒳_1`$) and $`_2=\{\sigma _x^{},p^{}(x^{})\}`$ ($`x^{}𝒳_2`$), denote their respective $`D^{}`$ functions $`D^{}(_1,R)`$ and $`D^{}(_2,R)`$. Then

$$D^{}(_1_2,R)=\mathrm{max}\left\{D^{}(_1,R_1)+D^{}(_2,R_2)|R_1+R_2=R\right\}.$$

Proof Let $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ correspond to the classical-quantum systems $`X_1𝒬_1`$ and $`X_2𝒬_2`$, respectively. As before, we augment the joint system by the random variable $`U`$ via the conditional distribution $`Q(u|xx^{})`$, so that $`UX_1X_2𝒬_1𝒬_2`$ obeys the Markov property $`UX_1X_2𝒬_1𝒬_2`$. In the EHS representation we have

$$\rho ^{𝒵𝒜_1𝒜_2𝒬_1𝒬_2}=\underset{u,x,x^{}}{}p(x)p^{}(x^{})Q(u|xx^{})|uu|^𝒵|xx|^{𝒜_1}|x^{}x^{}|^{𝒜_2}\rho _x^{𝒬_1}\sigma _x^{}^{𝒬_2}.$$

By definition, $`D^{}(_1_2,R)`$ equals $`I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)`$ maximized over all variables $`U`$ such that $`I(U;X_1X_2)I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)R`$.

Now the inequality “$``$” in the lemma is clear: for we could choose $`U_1`$ optimal for $`_1`$ and $`R_1`$ and $`U_2`$ optimal for $`_2`$ and $`R_2`$, and form $`U=U_1U_2`$. By elementary operations with the definition of $`D^{}`$ we see that $`D^{}(_1,R_1)+D^{}(_2,R_2)`$ is achieved.

For the reverse inequality, let $`U`$ be any variable such that $`I(U;X_1X_2)I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)R`$. First note that the Markov property $`UX_1X_2𝒬_1𝒬_2`$ implies $`I(U;X_1X_2)=I(U;X_1𝒬_1X_2𝒬_2)`$, which can easily be verified in the EHS representation. Intuitively, possessing $`𝒬_1𝒬_2`$ in addition to knowing $`X_1X_2`$ conveys no extra information about $`U`$. Hence, by the chain rule,

$$I(U;X_1X_2)I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)=I(U;X_1X_2|𝒬_1𝒬_2).$$

Now, using the chain rule and once more the fact that the content of $`𝒬_1`$ is a function of $`X_1`$, we estimate

$`R`$ $``$ $`I(U;X_1X_2|𝒬_1𝒬_2)`$
$`=`$ $`I(U;X_1|𝒬_1𝒬_2)+I(U;X_2|𝒬_1𝒬_2X_1)`$
$`=`$ $`I(U;X_1|𝒬_1𝒬_2)+I(U;X_2|𝒬_2X_1).`$
$``$ $`I(U;X_1|𝒬_1)+I(U;X_2|𝒬_2X_1).`$
Here the inequality of the last line is obtained by the following reasoning:

$`I(U;X_1|𝒬_1𝒬_2)`$ $`=`$ $`I(U𝒬_2;X_1|𝒬_1)I(X_1;𝒬_2|𝒬_1)`$
$``$ $`I(U;X_1|𝒬_1)0,`$
using strong subadditivity and the fact that $`X_1𝒬_1X_2𝒬_2`$ is in a product state.

Hence there are $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ summing to $`R`$ for which

$`I(U;X_1)I(U;𝒬_1)=I(U;X_1|𝒬_1)`$ $``$ $`R_1,`$ (9)
$`I(U;X_2|X_1)I(U;𝒬_2|X_1)=I(U;X_2|𝒬_2X_1)`$ $``$ $`R_2.`$ (10)
On the other hand,

$`I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)`$ $`=`$ $`I(U;𝒬_1)+I(U;𝒬_2|𝒬_1)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`I(U;𝒬_1)+I(U𝒬_1;𝒬_2)I(𝒬_1;𝒬_2)`$
$``$ $`I(U;𝒬_1)+I(UX_1;𝒬_2)`$
$`=`$ $`I(U;𝒬_1)+I(X_1;𝒬_2)+I(U;𝒬_2|X_1)`$
$`=`$ $`I(U;𝒬_1)+I(U;𝒬_2|X_1),`$
using the chain rule repeatedly; the inequality comes from the quantum analogue of the familiar *data processing inequality* , another consequence of the content of $`𝒬_1`$ being a function of $`X_1`$. With (9) and by definition of $`D^{}`$, $`I(U;𝒬_1)D^{}(_1,R_1)`$. But also, with (10), $`I(U;𝒬_2|X_1)D^{}(_2,R_2)`$, observing that the conditional mutual information in (11) as well as in (10) are probability averages over unconditional mutual informations, and invoking the concavity of $`D^{}`$ (lemma 2).

Hence,

$$I(U;𝒬_1𝒬_2)D^{}(_1,R_1)+D^{}(_2,R_2),$$

and since $`U`$ was arbitrary, we are done.

Proof of Theorem 1 (converse)  For a given blocklength $`n`$, measurement on Bob’s side will turn the classical-quantum correlations into classical ones, and $`𝒬^n`$ gets replaced by the measurement outcome random variable $`Y^{(n)}`$. Now we can apply the classical converse  to the classical random variable pair $`(X^n,Y^{(n)})`$

$$C(R)R+\underset{U|X^n}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{1}{n}I(U;Y^{(n)})|I(U;X^n)I(U;Y^{(n)})nR\right\}.$$

By the the Holevo inequality

$$I(U;Y^{(n)})I(U;𝒬^n),$$

this can be further bounded by $`C_n^{}(R)`$ which is, by lemma 3, equal to $`C^{}(R)`$. To complete the proof, we need to show that the supremum in (7) can be restricted to a set $`𝒰`$ of cardinality $`|𝒰||𝒳|+1`$. This is a standard consequence of Caratheodory’s theorem, and the proof runs in exactly the same way as that in, e.g., .

We shall need some auxiliary results before we embark on proving the achievability of $`C^{}(R)`$.

###### Lemma 4

The $`(C,R)`$ pair $`(H(X),H(X|𝒬))`$ is achievable when Alice and Bob share the classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ This follows from the classical-quantum Slepian-Wolf result  which states that, for any $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$, the classical communication rate from Alice to Bob sufficient for Bob to reproduce $`X^n`$ with error probability $`ϵ`$ is $`H(X|𝒬)+\delta `$.

$`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤}`$ Lemma 4 already yields the value of

$$D(\mathrm{})=D(H(X|𝒬))=H(X)H(X|𝒬)=I(X;𝒬)$$

for the classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$. This justifies our interpretation of $`D(\mathrm{})`$ as the amount of classical correlation in $`X𝒬`$.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`\sigma `$ be a state in a $`D`$-dimensional Hilbert space. Then $`\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma B)=1ϵ`$ for some operator $`0B\mathrm{𝟏}`$ implies

$$H(\sigma )1+ϵ\mathrm{log}D+(1ϵ)\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{Tr}B+1)$$
(12)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ Diagonalize $`\sigma `$ as $`\sigma =_{j=1}^Dp_j|jj|`$ with $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_D`$ and define $`b_j=j|B|j`$, so that

$$\underset{j}{}p_jb_j=1ϵ$$
(13)
and $`\mathrm{Tr}B=_jb_j`$. Further define the random variable $`J`$ with $`\mathrm{Pr}\{J=j\}=p_j`$, for which $`H(\sigma )=H(J)`$. Consider the vector $`\stackrel{~}{b}^D`$ which minimizes $`_jb_j`$ subject to constraints (13) and $`0b_j1`$. This is a trivial linear programming problem, solved at the boundary of the allowed region for the $`b_j`$. It is easily verified that the solution is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{b}_1=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{b}_{k1}=0,`$
$`0\stackrel{~}{b}_k1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_{k+1}=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{b}_D=1,`$
for some $`1kD`$ for which (13) is satisfied. Note that

$$Dk\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_j\mathrm{Tr}B$$

and $`_{j=1}^{k1}p_jϵ`$. Define the indicator random variable $`I(J)`$

$$I(J)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & Jk,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We then have

$`H(J)`$ $`=`$ $`H(I)+H(J|I)`$
$``$ $`1+\mathrm{Pr}\{J=0\}\mathrm{log}D+\mathrm{Pr}\{J=1\}\mathrm{log}(D+1k)`$
$``$ $`1+ϵ\mathrm{log}D+(1ϵ)\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{Tr}B+1),`$
which proves the lemma.

In order to understand the next two results, some background on typical sets $`𝒯_{U,\delta }^n`$, conditionally typical sets $`𝒯_{X|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$, typical subspaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta }^n`$ and conditionally typical subspaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$ is needed . This is provided in the Appendix.

###### Lemma 6

For every $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and set $`𝒳^n`$ with $`\mathrm{Pr}\{X^n\}ϵ`$, there exists a subset $``$ and a sequence $`u^n𝒯_{U,\delta }^n`$ such that

$$𝒯_{X|U,\delta }^n(u^n),|\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}||H(X|U)|\delta ,$$
(14)
whenever $`nn_1(|𝒰|,|𝒳|,ϵ,\delta )`$. In addition, whenever $`nn_2(|𝒰|,|𝒳|,d,ϵ,\delta )`$,

$$\frac{1}{n}H(𝒬^n|X^n)H(𝒬|U)+\delta .$$
(15)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ Clearly, it suffices to prove the claim for some sufficiently small $`ϵ`$. The first claim (14) is a purely classical result and corresponds to lemma 3.3.3 of Csiszár and Körner . Thus it remains to demonstrate (15). We shall need the following facts from the Appendix. For sufficiently large $`nn_0(|𝒰|,|𝒳|,d,\delta ^{},ϵ)`$, for $`x^n𝒯_{X|U,\delta ^{}}^n(u^n)`$ and $`u^n𝒯_{U,\delta ^{}}^n`$:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _{u^nx^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,(|𝒳|+1)\delta ^{}}^n(u^n))1ϵ,$$
(16)
and

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,(|𝒳|+1)\delta ^{}}^n(u^n)2^{nH(𝒬|U)+(2+|𝒳|)c\delta ^{}}.$$
(17)
Since $`\rho _{u^nx^n}=\rho _{x^n}`$, it follows from the linearity of trace and (16) that

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,(|𝒳|+1)\delta ^{}}^n(u^n))1ϵ,$$

where

$$\rho _{}=\underset{x^n}{}\mathrm{Pr}\{X^n=x^n|X^n\}\rho _{x^n}.$$

Finally, combining with (17) and lemma 5:

$$\frac{1}{n}H(𝒬^n|X^n)=H(\rho _{})H(𝒬|U)+\frac{1}{n}+ϵ\mathrm{log}d+c\delta ^{}.$$

For sufficiently small $`ϵ\delta ^{}`$, and setting $`n_2=\mathrm{max}\{n_0,n_1,\delta ^1\}`$, (15) follows with

$$\delta ^{}=\frac{\delta }{(2+|𝒳|)c+1+\mathrm{log}d}.$$

###### Corollary 7

For every $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and $`nn_2(|𝒰|,|𝒳|,d,\delta ,ϵ)`$ there exists a function $`g:𝒳^n𝒰^n`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{n}H(𝒬^n|g(X^n))H(𝒬|U)+\delta ,$$
(18)
$$|\frac{1}{n}H(X^n|g(X^n))H(X|U)|\delta .$$
(19)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ Again it suffices to prove the claim for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$. By an iterative application of lemma 6 we can find disjoint subsets $`_1,\mathrm{},_M`$ of $`𝒳^n`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{X^n\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}_\alpha \}ϵ$$

and for some sequences $`u_\alpha ^n𝒯_{U,\delta }^n`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},M`$

$$|\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|_\alpha |H(X|U)|\frac{\delta }{2}$$

and

$$\frac{1}{n}H(𝒬^n|X^n_\alpha )H(𝒬|U)+\frac{\delta }{2}.$$

Define, choosing some $`u_0^n`$ different from the $`u_\alpha ^n`$,

$$g(x^n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}u_\alpha ^n\hfill & x^n_\alpha \hfill \\ u_0^n\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$\frac{1}{n}H(𝒬^n|g(X^n))H(𝒬|U)+\frac{\delta }{2}+ϵH(𝒬)$$

and

$$|\frac{1}{n}H(X^n|g(X^n))H(X|U)|\frac{\delta }{2}+ϵH(X).$$

Finally, choose $`ϵ\mathrm{max}\{\frac{\delta }{2H(𝒬)},\frac{\delta }{2H(X)}\}`$.

We are now in a position to prove the direct coding part of theorem 1.

Proof of Theorem 1 (coding)  We first show that $`(C,R)=(I(U;X),I(U;X)I(U;𝒬))`$ is achievable. We follow the classical proof  closely. Define $`K(X)=g(X)`$. Then

$$\frac{1}{n}H(X^n|K)=H(X)\frac{1}{n}H(K)$$

and (19) imply

$$\left|\frac{1}{n}H(K)I(U;X)\right|\delta .$$
(20)
Also by (18) and (20) we have

$$\frac{1}{n}(H(K)I(K;𝒬^n))I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)+2\delta .$$

Note that lemma 4 applied to the *supersystem* $`K𝒬^n`$ guarantees the achievability of $`(H(K),H(K)I(K;𝒬^n)`$. Hence, for sufficiently large (super)blocklength $`k`$ there exists a mapping $`f(K^k)`$ of rate $`\frac{1}{nk}\mathrm{log}|f|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)+2\delta `$ (here $`|f|`$ is the image size of $`f`$), which allows $`K^k`$ to be reproduced with $`ϵ`$ error. This yields an amount of $`ϵ`$-randomness bounded from below by $`nk(I(U;X)\delta )`$. However, to prove the claim, we need to show that the rate is bounded from above by exactly $`I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)`$. This is accomplished by setting the blocklength to $`N=nk(1+2\delta \kappa )`$, where $`\kappa =\frac{1}{I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)}`$, and ignoring the last $`2\delta \kappa nk`$ source outputs. Then indeed

$$R=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}|f|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)$$

while

$$C=\frac{1}{N}H(K^k)I(U;X)\delta (\kappa ^{}+2\kappa ),$$

with $`\kappa ^{}=\frac{1}{I(U;X)}`$.

If now the classical communication rate $`R^{}`$ is available, we may use the procedure outlined above to achieve a CR rate of $`I(U;X)`$ while communicating at rate $`R=I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)`$, at least if $`RR^{}`$. But of course the “surplus” $`R^{}R`$ is then still free to generate common randomness trivially by Alice transmitting locally generated fair coin flips. This shows that at communication rate $`R^{}`$, CR at rate

$$C^{}=R^{}R+I(U;X)=R^{}+I(U;𝒬)$$

can be generated.

$`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤}`$ For $`RH(X)I(X;𝒬)=H(X|𝒬)`$, the maximization constraint in (7) may be replaced by an equality, i.e.,

$$D^{}(R)=\stackrel{~}{D}(R)$$
(21)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(R)=\underset{U|X}{\mathrm{max}}\{I(U;𝒬)|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)=R\}.$$

To see this, note that

$$D^{}(R)=\underset{0R^{}R}{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{~}{D}(R),$$

so it suffices to show that $`\stackrel{~}{D}(R)`$ is monotonically increasing. This, in turn, holds if $`\stackrel{~}{D}(R)`$ is concave and achieves its maximum for $`R=H(X|𝒬)`$. The concavity proof is virtually identical to the proof of lemma 2. The second property follows from

$$I(U;𝒬)I(UX;𝒬)=I(X;𝒬)$$

and $`I(U;X|𝒬)H(X|𝒬)`$.

Note that for $`RH(X|𝒬)`$, the function $`D^{}(R)`$ is simply constant (and equal to $`D(\mathrm{})=I(X;𝒬)`$).

Having established (21), we shall now relate $`D^{}(R)`$ to the quantum compression with classical side information trade-off curve $`Q^{}(R)`$ of Hayden, Jozsa and Winter . For a classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$, given by the pure state ensemble $`\{|\phi _x,p(x)\}`$, and $`RH(X)`$,

$$Q^{}(R)=\underset{U|X}{\mathrm{min}}\{H(𝒬|U)|I(U;X)=R\}=H(𝒬)\underset{U|X}{\mathrm{max}}\{I(U;𝒬)|I(U;X)=R\}.$$

(For rates $`R>H(X)`$, $`Q^{}(R)=0`$.)

The following relation to our $`C^{}(R)`$ is now easily verified:

$$D^{}(x)+Q^{}(D^{}(x)+x)=H(𝒬).$$
(22)
Indeed, for $`xH(X|𝒬)`$, and a maximizing variable $`U`$, $`x=I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)`$ and $`D^{}(x)=I(U;𝒬)`$. Then, $`x+D^{}(x)=I(U;X)`$, so $`U`$ is feasible for $`Q^{}(x+D^{}(x))`$ and indeed optimal, using once more the monotonicity of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

We should remark, however, that to the best of our knowledge, eq. (22) has no simple operational meaning. Still, it allows us to “import” the numerically calculated trade-off curves from  for various ensembles of interest: the curves are then parametrized via $`s=x+D^{}(x)`$ and $`x`$.

Figure 1 (cf. , figure 2) shows the distillable CR-rate trade-off curve $`D(R)=D^{}(R)`$ for the simple two-state ensemble $``$ given by the non-orthogonal pair $`\{|0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)\}`$, each occurring with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This curve is not much better than the linear lower bound obtained by time-sharing between $`(0,0)`$ and the Slepian-Wolf point $`(1H(),H())`$, where $`H()`$ denotes the entropy of the average density matrix of the ensemble $``$.

Figure 2 (cf. , figure 4) corresponds to the three state ensemble $`_3`$ consisting of the states $`|\phi _1=|0,|\phi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)`$ and $`|\phi _3=|2`$ with equal probabilities. Without any communication it is already possible to extract $`h_2(\frac{1}{3})`$ bits of CR, due to Bob’s ability to perfectly distinguish whether his state is in $`\{|\phi _1,|\phi _2\}`$ or $`\{|\phi _3\}`$. The curve then follows a rescaled version of figure 1 to meet the Slepian-Wolf point $`(H(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3})H(_3),H(_3))`$.

Our third example is the parametrized BB84 ensemble $`_{\mathrm{BB}}(\theta )`$, defined by the states

$`|\phi _1`$ $`=`$ $`|0`$
$`|\phi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |0+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1`$
$`|\phi _3`$ $`=`$ $`|1`$
$`|\phi _4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |0+\mathrm{cos}\theta |1,`$
each chosen with probability $`\frac{1}{4}`$. The $`D(R)`$ curve for $`\theta =\pi /8`$, shown in figure 3 (cf. , figure 5), has a special point at which the slope is discontinuous. For $`0<\theta \pi /4`$, $`_{\mathrm{BB}}(\theta )`$ has a natural coarse graining to the ensemble consisting of two equiprobable mixed states, $`\frac{1}{2}(|\phi _1\phi _1|)+|\phi _2\phi _2|)`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(|\phi _3\phi _3|)+|\phi _4\phi _4|)`$. The special point is precisely the Slepian-Wolf point for this coarse-grained ensemble, treating $`|\phi _1`$ and $`|\phi _2`$, and $`|\phi _3`$ and $`|\phi _4`$ as indistinguishable.

Finally, figure 4. (cf. , figure 5 and ) shows $`D(R)`$ for the uniform qubit ensemble, a uniform distribution of pure states over the Bloch sphere. Strictly speaking, theorem 1 should be extended to include continuous ensembles; we shall not do this here, but merely conjecture it and refer the reader to  for an example of such an extension. The curve approaches $`D=1`$ only in the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit. It has an explicit parametrization computed from (22) and :

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`h_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^\lambda 1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{e^\lambda 1}}2+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda e^\lambda }{e^\lambda 1}}\right)`$
$`D(R)`$ $`=`$ $`1h_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^\lambda 1}}\right)`$
for $`\lambda (0,\mathrm{})`$, where $`h_2(p)=p\mathrm{log}p(1p)\mathrm{log}(1p)`$ is the binary Shannon entropy.

## 3 General quantum correlations

Consider the following double-blocking protocol for the case of $`\{qq\}`$ resources: given a word of length $`nL`$, Alice performs the same measurement on each of the $`n`$ blocks of length $`L`$. This leaves her with $`n`$ copies of the resulting $`\{cq\}`$ resource, to which we apply the $`\{cq\}`$ protocol described in the previous section. Letting $`n\mathrm{}`$ and then $`L\mathrm{}`$ yields the same results as the most general protocol described in Section 1. Let us assume $`L=1`$ for the moment. The measurement $``$ on Alice’s subsystem $`𝒜`$, defined by the positive operators $`(E_x)_{x𝒳}`$ with $`_xE_x=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, may be thought of as a map sending a quantum system $`𝒜`$ in the state $`\rho ^𝒜`$ to a classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$ in the state given by the ensemble $`\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$, where

$`p(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜\left(\rho ^𝒜E_x\right),`$
$`\rho _x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(x)}}\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜\left((\sqrt{E_x}\mathrm{𝟏})\rho ^𝒜(\sqrt{E_x}\mathrm{𝟏})\right).`$
All the relevant information is now encoded in the shared ensemble. Theorem 1 now applies, yielding an expression for the $`L=1`$ CR-rate curve:

$$C^{(1)}(R)=R+\underset{:𝒜X𝒬}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{U|X}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{I(U;𝒬)|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)R\right\}.$$
(23)
Similarly we have

$$D^{(1)}(\mathrm{})=\underset{:𝒜X𝒬}{\mathrm{max}}I(X;𝒬),$$
(24)
which is precisely the classical correlation measure $`C_𝒜(\rho ^𝒜)`$ proposed in . Note that w.l.o.g. we may assume the measurement to be rank-one, and $`|𝒳|d^2`$, $`d`$ the dimension of the $`𝒜`$-system, because a non-extremal POVM cannot be optimal.

However, in general one must allow for “entangling” measurements performed on an arbitrary number $`L`$ copies of $`\rho ^𝒜`$, yielding an expression for $`C^{(L)}(R)`$ analogous to (23):

$$C^{(L)}(R)=R+\underset{:𝒜^L^LX𝒬}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{L}\underset{U|X}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{I(U;𝒬)|I(U;X)I(U;𝒬)R\right\}.$$

Finally, taking the large $`L`$ limit gives

$$C(R)=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}C^{(L)}(R).$$

Similarly

$$D(\mathrm{})=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}D^{(L)}(\mathrm{}),$$

which is the “regularized” version of $`D^{(1)}(\mathrm{})`$ and the more appropriate asymmetric measure of classical correlations present in the bipartite state $`\rho ^𝒜`$. It is an interesting question whether $`L=1`$ suffices to attain $`C(R)`$, or at least $`D(\mathrm{})`$. In the remainder of this section we present some partial results concerning this issue.

###### Example 8

Let Alice and Bob switch roles: consider a state

$$\rho ^𝒜=\underset{x}{}p(x)\rho _x^𝒜|xx|^{},$$

i.e. now Alice holds the ensemble states $`\rho _x`$ while Bob has the classical information $`x`$, with probability $`p(x)`$.

According to (24), $`D^{(1)}(\mathrm{})`$ is equal to the *accessible information* of the state ensemble $`=\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$, denoted $`I_{\mathrm{acc}}()`$ . On the other hand, we know from  that $`I_{\mathrm{acc}}(^{})=I_{\mathrm{acc}}()+I_{\mathrm{acc}}(^{})`$, for a second ensemble $`^{}`$, hence

$$D(\mathrm{})=D^{(L)}(\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\mathrm{})=I_{\mathrm{acc}}().$$

This single-letterization of the accessible correlation can, in fact, be generalized to arbitrary separable states. Indeed, the following holds, in some analogy to the additivity of capacity for entanglement breaking channels  (we include the state dependence in our notation of $`D^{(1)}`$ etc.):

###### Theorem 9

Let $`\rho ^{AB}`$ be separable and $`\sigma ^{A^{}B^{}}`$ be arbitrary. Then,

$$D^{(1)}(\rho \sigma ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})+D^{(1)}(\sigma ,\mathrm{}).$$

From this, by iteration, we get of course

$$D(\rho ,\mathrm{})=D^{(L)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{}).$$

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ $`D^{(1)}(\rho \sigma ,\mathrm{})D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})+D^{(1)}(\sigma ,\mathrm{})`$ is trivial for arbitrary states, for we can always use product measurements. For the opposite inequality, we write $`\rho `$ as a mixture of product states:

$$\rho ^𝒜=\underset{j}{}q_j\widehat{\tau }_j^𝒜\tau _j^{},$$

which can be regarded as part of a classical-quantum system $`J𝒜`$ with EHS representation

$$\rho ^{𝒥𝒜}=\underset{j}{}q_j|jj|^𝒥\widehat{\tau }_j^𝒜\tau _j^{},$$

whose partial trace over $`𝒥`$ it obviously is.

Now we consider a measurement $`=(E_x)_{x𝒳}`$ on the combined system $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$. Then, by definition, the post–measurement states on $`^{}`$ and the probabilities are given by

$`p(x)\rho _x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{𝒜𝒜^{}}\left[\left(\rho ^𝒜\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\right)\left(E_x^{𝒜𝒜^{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}q_j\tau _j^{}\mathrm{Tr}_{𝒜𝒜^{}}\left[\left(\widehat{\tau }_j^𝒜\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\right)\left(E_x^{𝒜𝒜^{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}q_j\tau _j^{}\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜^{}\left[\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\left(F_{x|j}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right],`$
with the POVMs $`𝒩_j=(F_{x|j})_{x𝒳}`$ on $`𝒜^{}`$, labeled by the different $`j`$:

$$F_{x|j}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜\left(E_x(\widehat{\tau }_j\mathrm{𝟏})\right).$$

Thus, applying the measurement $``$ on $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$ on $`\rho ^{𝒥𝒜}\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}`$, and storing the result in $`X`$ leads to the classical-quantum system $`XJ^{}`$ defined by the EHS state

$$\omega =\underset{x,j}{}|xx|^𝒞q_j|jj|^𝒥\tau _j^{}\mathrm{Tr}_𝒜^{}\left[\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\left(F_{x|j}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right].$$

With respect to it,

$`I(X;^{})`$ $`=`$ $`I(X;)+I(X;^{}|)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`I(X;)+I(X;^{})I(;^{})`$
$`=`$ $`I(X;)+I(X;^{})`$
$``$ $`I(X;)+I(XJ;^{})`$
$`=`$ $`I(X;)+I(XJ;^{})I(J;^{})`$
$`=`$ $`I(X;)+I(X;^{}|J),`$
using the chain rule, the fact that $`^{}`$ is in a product state, the data processing inequality , the fact that $`J^{}`$ is in a product state and the chain rule once more.

In (25) notice that the first mutual information, $`I(X;)`$, relates to applying the POVM $``$ to $`𝒜`$, with an ancilla $`𝒜^{}`$ in the state $`\sigma ^𝒜^{}`$ – but this can be described by a POVM $`𝒩`$ on $`𝒜`$ alone. The second, $`I(X;^{}|J)`$, is a probability average over mutual informations relating to different POVMs on $`𝒜^{}`$. Thus

$$I(X;^{})D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})+D^{(1)}(\sigma ,\mathrm{}),$$

which yields the claim, as $``$ was arbitrary.

###### Example 10

For a pure entangled state $`\psi =|\psi \psi |`$, we can easily see that

$$D^{(1)}(\psi ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\psi ,0)=E(|\psi )=H(\mathrm{Tr}_{}\psi ).$$

Indeed, the right hand side is attained for Alice and Bob both measuring in bases corresponding to a Schmidt decomposition of $`|\psi `$. On the other hand, in the definition of $`D^{(1)}`$, eq. (24), the mutual information $`I(X;𝒬)`$ is upper bounded by $`H(𝒬)`$, which is the right hand side in the above equation.

Thus, if both $`\psi `$ and $`\phi `$ are pure entangled states,

$$D^{(1)}(\psi \phi ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\psi ,\mathrm{})+D^{(1)}(\phi ,\mathrm{}).$$

In particular,

$$D(\psi ,\mathrm{})=D^{(L)}(\psi ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\psi ,\mathrm{}).$$

More generally, we have (compare to the additivity of channel capacity if one of the channels is noiseless ):

###### Theorem 11

Let $`\rho ^𝒜=|\psi \psi |`$ be pure and $`\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}`$ arbitrary. Then

$$D^{(1)}(\rho \sigma ,\mathrm{})=D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})+D^{(1)}(\sigma ,\mathrm{}).$$

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$ As usual, only “$``$” has to be proved. Given any POVM $`=(E_x)_{x𝒳}`$ on $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$, the classical-quantum correlations $`X^{}`$ remaining after this measurement is performed are described by

$$\omega =\underset{x}{}|xx|^𝒞\mathrm{Tr}_{𝒜𝒜^{}}\left[\left(\rho ^𝒜\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\right)\left(E_x^{𝒜𝒜^{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right].$$

We shall assume that $`|\psi `$ is in Schmidt form:

$$|\psi =\underset{j}{}\sqrt{\lambda _j}|j^𝒜|j^{}.$$

Measuring in the basis $`|j`$ on $``$ and recording the result in orthogonal states $`|jj|`$ in a register $`𝒥`$ transforms $`\omega `$ into the state

$$\omega ^{}=\underset{x,j}{}\lambda _j|jj|^𝒥|xx|^𝒞\mathrm{Tr}_{𝒜𝒜^{}}\left[\left(|jj|^𝒜\sigma ^𝒜^{}^{}\right)\left(E_x^{𝒜𝒜^{}}\mathrm{𝟏}^{^{}}\right)\right].$$

We claim that

$$I_\omega (X;^{})I_\omega ^{}(X;^{}|J)+H_\omega (),$$
(26)
where the subscript indicates the state relative to which the respective information quantity is understood. Clearly, from this the theorem follows: on the right hand side, the entropy is the entropy of entanglement of $`\rho `$, and the mutual information is an average of mutual informations for measurements $`_j`$ on $`𝒜^{}`$, defined as performing $``$ with ancillary state $`|jj|`$ on $`𝒜`$.

To prove (26), we first reformulate it such that all entropies refer to the same state. For this, observe that the measurement of $`j`$ can be done by adjoining the register $`𝒥`$ in a null state $`|0`$, applying a unitary which maps $`|j^{}|0^𝒥`$ to $`|j^{}|j^𝒥`$, and tracing out $``$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the state obtained from $`\omega `$ by this procedure. Obviously then, (26) is equivalent to

$$I(X;𝒥^{})I(X;^{}|𝒥)+H(𝒥),$$
(27)
with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, because isometries do not alter entropies.

Now, writing out the above quantities as sums and differences of entropies, and using the fact that $`𝒥^{}`$ is in a product state, a number of terms cancel out, and (27) becomes equivalent to

$$H(𝒥^{}|X)H(^{}|X𝒥).$$

But now rewriting the left hand side, using $`H(𝒥|X)0`$ (because it is an average of von Neumann entropies), we estimate:

$`H(𝒥^{}|X)`$ $`=`$ $`H(^{}|𝒥X)+H(𝒥|X)`$
$``$ $`H(^{}|𝒥X)`$
$``$ $`H(^{}|𝒥X),`$
where in the last line we have used strong subadditivity, and we are done.

We do not know if additivity as in the above cases holds universally, but we regard our results as evidence in favor of this conjecture.

Returning to finite side-communication, it is a most interesting question whether a similar single-letterization can be performed. We do not know if an additivity-formula, similar to the one in lemma 3 for classical-quantum correlation, holds for the rate function $`D^{(1)}(\rho \sigma ,R)`$. In fact, this seems unlikely because its definition does not even allow one to see that it is concave in $`R`$ (which it better had to if it be equal to the regularized quantity.). Of course this can easily be remedied by going to the concave hull $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(1)}`$ of $`D^{(1)}`$: note that both regularize to the same function for $`L\mathrm{}`$. However, we were still unable to prove additivity for $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(1)}`$. This would be a most desirable property, as it would allow single-letterization of the rate function just as in the case of classical-quantum correlations. As it stands, $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(1)}(\rho ,R)`$ is the CR obtainable from $`\rho `$ in excess over $`R`$, if (one-way) side communication is limited to $`R`$ and *if the initial measurement is a tensor product*.

## 4 Discussion

We have introduced the task of distilling common randomness from a quantum state by limited classical one-way communication, placing it in the context of general resource conversion problems from classical and quantum information theory. Our exposition can be read as a systematic objective for the field of quantum information theory: to study all the conceivable inter-conversion problems between the resources enumerated in the Introduction.

Our main result is the characterization of the optimal asymptotically distillable common randomness $`C`$ (as a function of the communication bound $`R`$); in the case of initial classical-quantum correlations this characterization is a single-letter optimization.

A particularly interesting figure is the total “distillable common randomness”, which is the supremum of $`C(R)R`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$: for the classical-quantum correlations it turns out to be simply the quantum mutual information, and in general it is identical to the regularized version of the measure for classical correlation put forward by Henderson and Vedral .

It should be noted that this quantity is generally smaller than the quantum mutual information $`I(𝒜;)`$ of the state $`\rho ^𝒜`$ (which was discussed in ), but larger than the quantity proposed by Levitin . Interestingly, while the former work simply examines a quantity defined in formal analogy to classical mutual information for its usefulness to (at least, qualitatively) describe quantum phenomena, the latter motivates the definition by recurring to operational arguments. Of course, all this shows is that there can be several operational approaches to the same intuitive concept: quantities thus defined might coincide for classical systems but differ in the quantum version.

This is what we see even within the realm of our definitions. In the classical theory  the total distillable CR equals the mutual information of the initial distribution, regardless of the particulars of the noiseless side communication: whether it is one-way from Alice to Bob or vice versa, or actually bidirectional, the answer is the mutual information. There are simple examples of quantum states where the total distillable common randomness depends on the communication model: the classical-quantum correlation associated with an ensemble $`=\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$ of states at Bob’s side (compare eq. (1)) leads to $`I(𝒜;𝒬)=\chi ()`$ if one-way communication from Alice to Bob is available. If only one-way communication from Bob to Alice is available, it is only $`I_{\mathrm{acc}}()`$, the accessible information of the ensemble $``$, which usually is strictly smaller than the Holevo information $`\chi ()`$ .

An open problem left in this work is to decide the additivity questions in section 3: is the distillable common randomness $`D^{(1)}(\rho ,\mathrm{})`$ additive in general? Does the rate function $`D^{(1)}(\rho ,R)`$ obey an additivity-formula like the one in lemma 3? Finally, there is the issue of finding the “ultimate” distillable common randomness involving two-way communication.

Acknowledgments We thank C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, B. M. Terhal, J. A. Smolin and R. Abbot for useful discussions. ID’s work was supported in part by the NSA under the US Army Research Office (ARO), grant numbers DAAG55-98-C-0041 and DAAD19-01-1-06. AW is supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

## Appendix A Appendix

We shall list definitions and properties of typical sequences and subspaces . Consider the classical-quantum system $`UX𝒬`$ in the state defined by the ensemble $`\{p(u,x),\rho _{ux}\}`$. $`X`$ is defined on the set $`𝒳`$ of cardinality $`s_1`$ and $`U`$ on the set $`𝒰`$ of cardinality $`s_2`$. Denote by $`p(x)`$ and $`P(x|u)`$ the distribution of $`X`$ and conditional distribution of $`X|U`$ respectively.

For the probability distribution $`p`$ on the set $`𝒳`$ define the set of *typical sequences* (with $`\delta >0`$)

$$𝒯_{p,\delta }^n=\{x^n:x|N(x|x^n)np(x)|n\delta \},$$

where $`N(x|x^n)`$ counts the number of occurrences of $`x`$ in the word $`x^n=x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$ of length $`n`$. When the distribution $`p`$ is associated with some random variable $`X`$ we may use the notation $`𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$.

For the stochastic matrix $`P:𝒰𝒳`$ and $`u^n𝒰^n`$ define the set of *conditionally typical sequences* (with $`\delta >0`$) by

$$𝒯_{P,\delta }^n(u^n)=\{x^n:u,x|N((u,x)|(u^n,x^n))P(x|u)N(u|u^n)|n\delta \}.$$

When the stochastic matrix $`P`$ is associated with some conditional random variable $`X|U`$ we may use the notation $`𝒯_{X|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$.

For a density operator $`\rho `$ on a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space $``$, with eigen-decomposition $`\rho =_{k=1}^d\lambda _k|kk|`$ define (for $`\delta >0`$) the *typical projector* as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho ,\delta }^n=\underset{k^n𝒯_{R,\delta }^n}{}|k^nk^n|.$$

When the density operator $`\rho `$ is associated with some quantum system $`𝒬`$ we may use the notation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta }^n`$.

For a collection of states $`\rho _u`$, $`u𝒰`$, and $`u^n𝒰^n`$ define the *conditionally typical projector* as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\{\rho _u\},\delta }^n(u^n)=\underset{u}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho _u,\delta }^{I_u},$$

where $`I_u=\{i:u_i=u\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho _u,\delta }^{I_u}`$ denotes the typical projector of the density operator $`\rho _u`$ in the positions given by the set $`I_u`$ in the tensor product of $`n`$ factors. When the $`\{\rho _u\}`$ are associated with some conditional classical-quantum system system $`𝒬|U`$ we may use the notation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$. We shall give several known properties of these projectors, some of which are used in the main part of the paper. For any positive $`ϵ,\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$, some constant $`c`$ depending on the particular ensemble of $`UX𝒬`$, and for sufficiently large $`nn_0(ϵ,\delta ,\delta ^{})`$, the following hold. Concerning the quantum system $`𝒬`$ alone:

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta }^n`$ $``$ $`2^{n(H(𝒬)+c\delta )}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^n\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta }^n`$ $``$ $`1ϵ.`$
Concerning the classical-quantum system $`X𝒬`$, and for $`x^n𝒯_{X,\delta ^{}}^n`$:

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`2^{n(H(𝒬|X)+c(\delta +\delta ^{}))}`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta +|𝒳|\delta ^{}}^n`$ $``$ $`1ϵ.`$ (29)
These have been proven in . Finally, concerning the full classical-quantum system $`UX𝒬`$, for $`x^n𝒯_{X|U,\delta ^{}}^n(u^n)`$ (29) easily extends to

$$\mathrm{Tr}\rho _{u^nx^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,\delta +|𝒳|\delta ^{}}^n1ϵ.$$
(30)


text:
# The Energy-dependent Checkerboard Patterns in Cuprate Superconductors

## Abstract

Motivated by the recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments \[J. E. Hoffman et al., Science 297, 1148 (2002); K. McElroy et al., Nature (to be published)\], we investigate the real space local density of states (LDOS) induced by weak disorder in a d-wave superconductor. We first present the energy dependent LDOS images around a single weak defect at several energies, and then point out that the experimentally observed checkerboard pattern in the LDOS could be understood as a result of quasiparticle interferences by randomly distributed defects. It is also shown that the checkerboard pattern oriented along $`45^0`$ to the Cu-O bonds at low energies would transform to that oriented parallel to the Cu-O bonds at higher energies. This result is consistent with the experiments.

Recently the energy-dependent modulations of the local density of states (LDOS) in high temperature superconductors has attracted a lot of experimental and theoretical attentions\[1-6\]. By employing the high-resolution Fourier-transform scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), Hoffman et al. investigated the zero-field charge modulations in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ  deduced from the checkerboard patterns in the real space LDOS. The charge modulation vectors near the origin of the momentum space were determined. They found that the period of the modulations depends on the energy and doping for energy below the maximum superconducting gap. With increasing energy (doping fixed) or doping (energy fixed), the LDOS modulation wave vectors oriented parallel to the Cu-O bonds become shorter while those along $`45^0`$ to the Cu-O bonds become longer. They also observed that when energy increases, the charge modulation along $`45^0`$ to the Cu-O bonds changes to that along the Cu-O bonds. Subsequently, McElroy et al. extended the previous measurements  to the second Brillouin zone and discovered the characteristic octet of quasiparticle states .

A number of theoretical studies have devoted to the explanation of the STM experiments \[3-6\]. It has been proposed that the experimental phenomenon is due to the result of quasiparticle interference induced by disorder . Following this idea, Wang and Lee calculated the Fourier component of the LDOS produced by an single impurity with a moderate strength on-site potential . They obtained the LDOS images in momentum space and compared them with those in Ref. , but didn’t examine the relations among the modulation wave vectors, dopings and the bias voltages. The present authors, on the other hand, investigated the effect of quasiparticle scatterings from a weak and extended impurity or defect . The Fourier transform images of the LDOS and the relations among modulation wave vectors at different dopings and the bias voltages obtained by us  in the first Brillouin zone are consistent with the experimental observations . There exist also other works trying to understand the STM experiments . However, almost all the previous studies  were restricted to the discussion of the Fourier transform of the LDOS due to a single defect in the first Brillouin zone. So far there have existed no studies of the real space LDOS images at different energies, and the origin of the checkerboard patterns observed in the experiments. Thus it is necessary to do these calculations, and to compare the obtained results directly with the LDOS images in the STM experiments .

In this paper, we base on the approach of our previous study  and examine the effect due to quasiparticle scattering from weak defects or impurities with both hopping and pairing modifications on the LDOS. The reason we choose weak defects as scatters is simply to eliminate the contribution from the resonant states. Using the T-matrix approach, We first calculate the energy dependent LDOS images due to a single extended defect and show how the pattern of the image changes as the energy varies. Then we demonstrate that the experimentally observed checkerboard pattern for the LDOS could be understood as a result of interferences among randomly distributed defects. Our results clearly indicate the dominant LDOS modulation along $`45^0`$ to the Cu-O bonds at lower energy would transform to that oriented parallel to the Cu-O bonds at higher energy. This is also consistent with the STM experiments .

The Hamiltonian describing the scattering of quasiparticles from $`M`$ impurities with local modifications of both hopping and pairing parameters in a d-wave superconductor can be written as

$$H=H_{\mathrm{BCS}}+H_{\mathrm{imp}},$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$H_{\mathrm{BCS}}=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}(ϵ_𝐤\mu )c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }+\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤(c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤^{}+c_𝐤c_𝐤),$$

$$H_{\mathrm{imp}}=\underset{,\sigma }{}\delta t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\underset{}{}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(c_i^{}c_j^{}+c_jc_i)$$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}[(V_{si}+V_{mi})c_{𝐑_i}^{}c_{𝐑_i}+(V_{si}V_{mi})c_{𝐑_i}^{}c_{𝐑_i}].$$

Here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential to be determined by doping, $`ϵ_k=t_1(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)/2+t_2\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y+t_3(\mathrm{cos2}k_x+\mathrm{cos2}k_y)/2+t_4(\mathrm{cos2}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y+\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos2}k_y)/2+t_5\mathrm{cos2}k_x\mathrm{cos2}k_y`$, where $`t_{15}=0.5951,0.1636,0.0519,0.1117,0.0510`$ (eV). The band parameters are taken from those of Norman et al.  for Bi<sub>2</sub>Sr<sub>2</sub>CaCu<sub>2</sub>O<sub>8+δ</sub>, and the lattice constant $`a`$ is set as $`a=1`$. The order parameter away from the impurity is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)/2`$.

Without loss of generality, at the impurity or defect site $`R_i`$, we assume an on-site potential consisting of a nonmagnetic part, $`V_{si}`$, and a magnetic part, $`V_{mi}`$. The defect also induces a weak local modification in the hopping, $`\delta t_i`$, to the nearest neighbor sites, and a suppression of the superconductivity order parameter on the four bonds connected to the impurity site, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{1i}`$, and on the other twelve bonds connected to the nearest neighbor sites, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{2i}`$.

The Hamiltonian (1) with a single impurity has in fact been successfully applied by authors in Ref. 8 to explain the resonant STM spectra for Ni impurities in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ. However, in the present case, no resonances in LDOS have been observed in the recent STM experiments . So it is reasonable to assume that the on-site potentials ($`V_{si}`$ and $`V_{mi}`$) and the modifications in hopping and pairing parameters ($`\delta t_i`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{1i}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{2i}`$) are all weak and have approximately the same order of magnitude. This model has been applied in Ref. 4 to explain the experimental observed Fourier transform of the LDOS at different energies and dopings in the first Brillouin zone .

The Hamiltonian (1) can be solved by the standard Bogoliubov transformation plus Green’s function technique. When $`\delta t_i,\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{1i},\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{2i},V_{si}`$ and $`V_{mi}`$ are all small, keeping the leading term in the T-matrix approach should be good approximation. In such an approximation, the resonant states due to the impurity are eliminated and the LDOS change in real space due to these defects can be shown to have the following form

$$\delta \rho (𝐫,\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi N^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}\underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}=0,1}{}cos[(𝐤𝐤^{})(𝐫𝐑_i)]$$

$$\times \{[2\delta t_iA(𝐤,𝐤^{})+V_{si}]\alpha _{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})$$

$$+2[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{1i}B(𝐤,𝐤^{})+\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{2i}C(𝐤,𝐤^{})]\beta _{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})\}$$

$$\times \mathrm{Im}[G_{𝐤\nu }^0(i\omega _n)G_{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}}^0(i\omega _n)]|_{i\omega _n\omega +i0^+},$$
$`(2)`$
where $`N`$ is the number of sites in the lattice, $`A(𝐤,𝐤^{})=cosk_x+cosk_y+cosk_x^{}+cosk_y^{}`$, $`B(𝐤,𝐤^{})=cosk_xcosk_y+cosk_x^{}cosk_y^{}`$, $`C(𝐤,𝐤^{})=cos(k_x2k_x^{})cos(k_xk_x^{}k_y^{})cos(k_xk_x^{}+k_y^{})+cos(k_yk_x^{}k_y^{})+cos(k_yk_y^{}+k_x^{})cos(k_y2k_y^{})+cos(2k_xk_x^{})+cos(k_x+k_yk_y^{})cos(k_x+k_yk_x^{})cos(2k_yk_y^{})+cos(k_xk_y+k_y^{})cos(k_xk_yk_x^{})`$, $`\alpha _{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})=\xi _{𝐤\nu }^2\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}}^2(1)^{\nu +\nu ^{}}\xi _{𝐤\nu }\xi _{𝐤\nu +1}\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}}\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}+1}`$, $`\beta _{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})=(1)^\nu \xi _{𝐤\nu }\xi _{𝐤\nu +1}\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}}^2+(1)^\nu ^{}\xi _{𝐤\nu }^2\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}}\xi _{𝐤^{}\nu ^{}+1}`$, $`G_{𝐤\nu }^0(i\omega _n)=1/[i\omega _n(1)^\nu E_𝐤]`$ is the bare Green’s function, $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{(ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$, $`\xi _{𝐤\nu }^2=[1+(1)^\nu (ϵ_𝐤\mu )/E_𝐤]/2`$, and $`\xi _{𝐤0}\xi _{𝐤1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤/(2E_𝐤)`$.

We note that $`V_{mi}`$ is absent from Eq. (2) because there is no first order contribution from the magnetic potential. Obviously, the total LDOS change $`\delta \rho (𝐫,\omega )`$ is a summation of those due to individual impurity. In the present study, we base our numerical calculation on a finite lattice of $`800\times 800`$ sites. For simplicity, we choose $`2\delta t_i=V_{si}=2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{1i}=4\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{2i}`$, and assume that all these parameters are small such that the first order T-matrix approximation is valid. In our calculation, we also take the chemical potential $`\mu =0.1238`$ corresponding to the optical doping ($`15\%`$) and introduce a finite lifetime broadening $`\gamma =2`$ meV to the quasiparticle Green’s function to smooth our data points by replacing $`\omega +i0^+`$ with $`\omega +i\gamma `$ in Eq. (2).

According to Eq. (2), We plot the images of the LDOS change due to a single defect ($`M=1`$) located at the center of a $`20\times 20`$ square lattice for different energies in Fig. 1. It is easy to see from the images at $`\omega =0`$ and -12meV that the LDOS modulations orient parallel to $`(\pm 1,\pm 1)`$ directions ($`45^0`$ to Cu-O bonds). When the energy becomes more negative at $`\omega =16,20`$ and $`25`$meV, the LDOS modulation clearly changes to $`(\pm 1,0)`$ or $`(0,\pm 1)`$ (along the Cu-O bonds) directions. At $`\omega `$ =12 and 16meV, the LDOS modulations are strongly aligned along the directions of $`45^0`$ to Cu-O bonds. For higher energies at $`\omega =20`$ and 25meV, the modulations along the Cu-O bonds begin to show up, and they may become dominant at higher energies. It is apparent that the LDOS images are asymmetric with respect to $`\omega `$ =0. We also note that with increasing energy $`|\omega |`$, the region of the LDOS modulation along $`(\pm 1,\pm 1)`$ directions becomes smaller while that along $`(\pm 1,0)`$ or $`(0,\pm 1)`$ directions becomes larger.

In order to understand the LDOS modulations near a single impurity, we present the LDOS variations along (1, 0) and (1, 1) directions in Fig. 2. We can see that the LDOS on the impurity site has the maximum values at energy $`\omega <`$ 12meV. At and above 12meV, the LDOS near the nearest neighboring site to the impurity have the maximum values. Far away the impurity(about 20a), the LDOS modulations vanish. For $`\omega <12`$ meV, the LDOS along (1,0) direction show strong and long distance oscillations while those along (1,1) direction show rather week and short distance oscillations. This is the reason why the LDOS images shown in Fig.1 in this energy region have modulation vectors clearly along Cu-O bonds. At $`\omega `$= -12, 0 and 12meV, both modulations with approximately equal weight are present in the LDOS. As a result, the LDOS images with modulations along the directions of $`45^0`$ to Cu-O bonds can also be seen in this region. For $`\omega >`$12meV, the strength of the modulation along (1,0) direction begins to outgrow that along (1,1) direction. We expect that dominant modulation should be along (1,0) direction, as the energy gets even higher. In fact there are total six nonequivalent charge modulation vectors , not all of them can be clearly identified in our real space studies.

We have discussed the LDOS modulations due to a single impurity. In fact, there should be randomly distributed defects in the experimental sample. In order to understand the effect of the disorder, we choose the defect concentration to be $`1\%`$ and the defects are described by $`H_{\mathrm{imp}}`$ in Eq.(1). In our simulation, we first produce a random distribution for the defects and then calculate the LDOS changes in a $`20\times 20`$ square lattice similar to that of the experiments .

Graphs in Fig. 3 show the LDOS images at 9 different energies for such a distribution of defects. As a consequence of quasiparticle interference by these defects, checkerboard patterns in the LDOS show up in our numerical simulations. It is evident from Fig. 3 that the LDOS modulation or the orientation of the checkerboard pattern is parallel to the $`45^0`$ direction from the Cu-O bonds at small $`|\omega |`$, while at larger $`|\omega |`$, the pattern tends to orient along the direction of the Cu-O bonds. The changing of the orientation is particularly apparent when $`\omega `$ becomes more negative. This conclusion is consistent with the STM experiments .

In summary, we have studied the LDOS change induced by disordered and weak defects using Bogoliubov transformation and the the Green’s function technique. The obtained LDOS images due to randomly distributed defects exhibit checkerboard patterns which are similar to those observed in the STM experiments . With increasing energy $`|\omega |`$, the LDOS modulation along $`(\pm 1,\pm 1)`$ direction tends to orient itself in the $`(\pm 1,0)`$ or $`(0,\pm 1)`$ direction. This modulation transformation has also been seen in these experiments. Combining our previous work , we conclude that the STM images  can be qualitatively understood in the present theory. For the charge density wave order observed in Ref. , it is believed to be the dimerization hopping and transverse pairing modulations . However, the origin of such a static order needs to be further studied.

We wish to thank Professor S. H. Pan for useful discussion, and Professor J. C. Davis for sending us Ref.  before its publication. This work has been supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation.