Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2009.05895 · Physical Review A

Examining the validity of Schatten- p -norm-based functionals as coherence measures

Xiao-Dan Cui, C. L. Liu, D. M. Tong

Published Aug 24, 2020• 12 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It has been asked by different authors whether the two classes of Schatten-$p$-norm-based functionals ${C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})={min}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}\ensuremath{\in}\mathcal{I}}{\ensuremath{\parallel}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\sigma}\ensuremath{\parallel}}_{p}$ and ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})={\ensuremath{\parallel}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{-}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}}_{p}$ with $p\ensuremath{\ge}1$ are valid coherence measures under incoherent operations, strictly incoherent operations, and genuinely incoherent operations, respectively, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the set of incoherent states and $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}$ is the diagonal part of density operator $\ensuremath{\rho}$. Of these questions, all we know is that ${C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ is not a valid coherence measure under incoherent operations and strictly incoherent operations, but all other aspects remain open. In this paper, we prove that (1) ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{1}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ is a valid coherence measure under both strictly incoherent operations and genuinely incoherent operations but not a valid coherence measure under incoherent operations, (2) ${C}_{1}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ is not a valid coherence measure even under genuinely incoherent operations, and (3) neither ${C}_{p>1}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ nor ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p>1}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ is a valid coherence measure under any of the three sets of operations. This paper not only provides a thorough examination on the validity of taking ${C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ and ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})$ as coherence measures, but also finds an example that fulfills the monotonicity under strictly incoherent operations but violates it under incoherent operations.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.102.022420

Related papers

Fidelity and trace-norm distances for quantifying coherence

Lian-He Shao, Zhengjun Xi, Heng Fan +1 more

We investigate the coherence measures induced by fidelity and trace norm, based on the coherence quantification recently proposed by Baumgratz et al. [T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)]. We show that the fidelity of coherence does not in general satisfy the monotonicity requirement as a measure of coherence under the subselection of the measurement condition. We find that the trace norm of coherence can act as a measure of coherence for qubits and some special class of qutrits with some restrictions on the incoherent operators, while the general case needs to be explored further.

arXiv:1410.8327•Physical Review A•Apr 15, 2015•272 citations

Coherence filtration under strictly incoherent operations

C. L. Liu, Chuan Sun

We study the task of coherence filtration under strictly incoherent operations. The aim of this task is to transform a given state $\ensuremath{\rho}$ into another one ${\ensuremath{\rho}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ whose fidelity with the maximally coherent state is maximal by using stochastic strictly incoherent operations. We find that the maximal fidelity between ${\ensuremath{\rho}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ and the maximally coherent state is given by a multiple of the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}$ robustness of coherence, $R(\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}):=min{\ensuremath{\lambda}|\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\le}\ensuremath{\lambda}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}}$, which provides $R(\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho})$ an operational interpretation. Finally, we provide a coherence measure based on the task of coherence filtration.

arXiv:2305.15741•Physical Review A•May 31, 2023•4 citations

Quantifying coherence with principal diagonal elements of density matrix

Manis Hazra, Debabrata Goswami

Being the key resource in quantum physics, the proper quantification of coherence is of utmost importance. Amid complex-looking functionals in quantifying coherence, we set forth a simple and easy-to-evaluate approach: principal diagonal difference of coherence (CPDD), which we prove to be non-negative, self-normalized, and monotonic (under any incoherent operation). In an attempt to extend CPDD in the domain of mixed states, we propose a simple, generic expression (applicable to other pure state coherence measures as well). To validate this theory, we consider a fictitious two-qubit system (both interacting and non-interacting) and, through the laser pulse–system interaction (semi-classical approach), compare the coherence evolution of CPDD with the relative entropy of coherence (Cr⋅e) and the l1-norm of coherence (Cl1), in both pure- and mixed-state regimes. The results from both the numerical and analytical (for a two-level system) studies clearly demonstrate a better sensitivity of CPDD in the close proximity of the maximally coherent states (MCS) than Cr⋅e or Cl1. To the best of our knowledge, CPDD is the only quantifier (among all existing coherence quantifiers) that is a linear function of density-matrix elements.

arXiv:2301.12295•APL Quantum•Sep 1, 2024•2 citations

Measure of set coherence

Jiabo Panel, Yu Guo, Yuqin Wang

Set coherence is a quantum resource for a set of states that characterizes whether a collection of quantum states contains coherence, namely whether these states fail to be simultaneously incoherent in a common basis. In this work, we show that the free operations of set coherence are common commutativity-preserving quantum channels, from which we then establish an axiomatic framework for set-coherence measure (SCM). Within this framework, we investigate the robustness based measures deduced by taking, respectively, the average, maximum, and sum of the single-state robustnesses over a common reference basis, where the first two were previously introduced in the literature and we check here whether they satisfy our SCM axioms. Consequently, we show that the averaged robustness is an SCM but it is neither unified nor complete, the maximal robustness is a unified SCM but is neither complete nor strongly superadditive, whereas the sum robustness is a complete SCM. Furthermore, we propose several classes of SCMs based on pairwise commutators. We show that the Schatten $p$-norm based SCMs are complete and strongly superadditive. We also find that the universal fourth-order Bargmann gap measure proposed in the literature is a complete and strongly superadditive quantifier of set coherence. Finally, we discuss the operational meaning of the SCM in the context of optimal approximate quantum broadcasting, and show that the amount of set coherence can closely reflect the performance of this task.

quant-pharXiv:2610.34784•Oct 27, 2026•0 citations

Conditions for coherence transformations under incoherent operations

Shuanping Du, Zhaofang Bai, Yu Jing Guo

We build in this paper the counterpart of the celebrated Nielsen theorem for coherence manipulation. This offers an affirmative answer to the open question: whether, given two states $\ensuremath{\rho}$ and $\ensuremath{\sigma}$, either $\ensuremath{\rho}$ can be transformed into $\ensuremath{\sigma}$ or vice versa under incoherent operations [Baumgratz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)]. As a consequence, we find that there exist essentially different types of coherence. Moreover, incoherent operations can be enhanced in the presence of certain coherent states. These extra states are coherent catalysts: they allow uncertain incoherent operations to be realized without being consumed in any way. Our main result also sheds light on the construction of coherence measures.

arXiv:1503.09176•Physical Review A•May 27, 2015•206 citations

Trace-distance measure of coherence

Swapan Rana, Preeti Parashar, Maciej Lewenstein

We show that trace distance measure of coherence is a strong monotone for all qubit and, so called, $X$ states. An expression for the trace distance coherence for all pure states and a semidefinite program for arbitrary states is provided. We also explore the relation between ${l}_{1}$-norm and relative entropy based measures of coherence, and give a sharp inequality connecting the two. In addition, it is shown that both ${l}_{p}$-norm- and Schatten-$p$-norm--based measures violate the (strong) monotonicity for all $p\ensuremath{\in}(1,\ensuremath{\infty})$.

arXiv:1511.01854•Physical Review A•Jan 12, 2016•303 citations
It has been asked by different authors whether the two classes of Schatten-ppp-norm-based functionals Cp(\ensuremathρ)=min\ensuremathσ\ensuremath∈I\ensuremath∥\ensuremathρ\ensuremath−\ensuremathσ\ensuremath∥p{C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})={min}_{\ensuremath{\sigma}\ensuremath{\in}\mathcal{I}}{\ensuremath{\parallel}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\sigma}\ensuremath{\parallel}}_{p}Cp​(\ensuremathρ)=min\ensuremathσ\ensuremath∈I​\ensuremath∥\ensuremathρ\ensuremath−\ensuremathσ\ensuremath∥p​ and C\ifmmode~\else˜\fip(\ensuremathρ)=\ensuremath∥\ensuremathρ\ensuremath−\ensuremathΔ\ensuremathρ\ensuremath∥p{\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})={\ensuremath{\parallel}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{-}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}}_{p}C\ifmmode~\else˜\fi​p​(\ensuremathρ)=\ensuremath∥\ensuremathρ\ensuremath−\ensuremathΔ\ensuremathρ\ensuremath∥p​ with p\ensuremath≥1p\ensuremath{\ge}1p\ensuremath≥1 are valid coherence measures under incoherent operations, strictly incoherent operations, and genuinely incoherent operations, respectively, where I\mathcal{I}I is the set of incoherent states and \ensuremathΔ\ensuremathρ\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremathΔ\ensuremathρ is the diagonal part of density operator \ensuremathρ\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremathρ. Of these questions, all we know is that Cp(\ensuremathρ){C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})Cp​(\ensuremathρ) is not a valid coherence measure under incoherent operations and strictly incoherent operations, but all other aspects remain open. In this paper, we prove that (1) C\ifmmode~\else˜\fi1(\ensuremathρ){\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{1}(\ensuremath{\rho})C\ifmmode~\else˜\fi​1​(\ensuremathρ) is a valid coherence measure under both strictly incoherent operations and genuinely incoherent operations but not a valid coherence measure under incoherent operations, (2) C1(\ensuremathρ){C}_{1}(\ensuremath{\rho})C1​(\ensuremathρ) is not a valid coherence measure even under genuinely incoherent operations, and (3) neither Cp>1(\ensuremathρ){C}_{p>1}(\ensuremath{\rho})Cp>1​(\ensuremathρ) nor C\ifmmode~\else˜\fip>1(\ensuremathρ){\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p>1}(\ensuremath{\rho})C\ifmmode~\else˜\fi​p>1​(\ensuremathρ) is a valid coherence measure under any of the three sets of operations. This paper not only provides a thorough examination on the validity of taking Cp(\ensuremathρ){C}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})Cp​(\ensuremathρ) and C\ifmmode~\else˜\fip(\ensuremathρ){\stackrel{\ifmmode \tilde{}\else \~{}\fi{}}{C}}_{p}(\ensuremath{\rho})C\ifmmode~\else˜\fi​p​(\ensuremathρ) as coherence measures, but also finds an example that fulfills the monotonicity under strictly incoherent operations but violates it under incoherent operations.
We investigate the coherence measures induced by fidelity and trace norm, based on the coherence quantification recently proposed by Baumgratz et al. [T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)]. We show that the fidelity of coherence does not in general satisfy the monotonicity requirement as a measure of coherence under the subselection of the measurement condition. We find that the trace norm of coherence can act as a measure of coherence for qubits and some special class of qutrits with some restrictions on the incoherent operators, while the general case needs to be explored further.
We study the task of coherence filtration under strictly incoherent operations. The aim of this task is to transform a given state $\ensuremath{\rho}$ into another one ${\ensuremath{\rho}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ whose fidelity with the maximally coherent state is maximal by using stochastic strictly incoherent operations. We find that the maximal fidelity between ${\ensuremath{\rho}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ and the maximally coherent state is given by a multiple of the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}$ robustness of coherence, $R(\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}):=min{\ensuremath{\lambda}|\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\le}\ensuremath{\lambda}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho}}$, which provides $R(\ensuremath{\rho}\ensuremath{\parallel}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}\ensuremath{\rho})$ an operational interpretation. Finally, we provide a coherence measure based on the task of coherence filtration.
Being the key resource in quantum physics, the proper quantification of coherence is of utmost importance. Amid complex-looking functionals in quantifying coherence, we set forth a simple and easy-to-evaluate approach: principal diagonal difference of coherence (CPDD), which we prove to be non-negative, self-normalized, and monotonic (under any incoherent operation). In an attempt to extend CPDD in the domain of mixed states, we propose a simple, generic expression (applicable to other pure state coherence measures as well). To validate this theory, we consider a fictitious two-qubit system (both interacting and non-interacting) and, through the laser pulse–system interaction (semi-classical approach), compare the coherence evolution of CPDD with the relative entropy of coherence (Cr⋅e) and the l1-norm of coherence (Cl1), in both pure- and mixed-state regimes. The results from both the numerical and analytical (for a two-level system) studies clearly demonstrate a better sensitivity of CPDD in the close proximity of the maximally coherent states (MCS) than Cr⋅e or Cl1. To the best of our knowledge, CPDD is the only quantifier (among all existing coherence quantifiers) that is a linear function of density-matrix elements.
Set coherence is a quantum resource for a set of states that characterizes whether a collection of quantum states contains coherence, namely whether these states fail to be simultaneously incoherent in a common basis. In this work, we show that the free operations of set coherence are common commutativity-preserving quantum channels, from which we then establish an axiomatic framework for set-coherence measure (SCM). Within this framework, we investigate the robustness based measures deduced by taking, respectively, the average, maximum, and sum of the single-state robustnesses over a common reference basis, where the first two were previously introduced in the literature and we check here whether they satisfy our SCM axioms. Consequently, we show that the averaged robustness is an SCM but it is neither unified nor complete, the maximal robustness is a unified SCM but is neither complete nor strongly superadditive, whereas the sum robustness is a complete SCM. Furthermore, we propose several classes of SCMs based on pairwise commutators. We show that the Schatten ppp-norm based SCMs are complete and strongly superadditive. We also find that the universal fourth-order Bargmann gap measure proposed in the literature is a complete and strongly superadditive quantifier of set coherence. Finally, we discuss the operational meaning of the SCM in the context of optimal approximate quantum broadcasting, and show that the amount of set coherence can closely reflect the performance of this task.
We build in this paper the counterpart of the celebrated Nielsen theorem for coherence manipulation. This offers an affirmative answer to the open question: whether, given two states $\ensuremath{\rho}$ and $\ensuremath{\sigma}$, either $\ensuremath{\rho}$ can be transformed into $\ensuremath{\sigma}$ or vice versa under incoherent operations [Baumgratz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)]. As a consequence, we find that there exist essentially different types of coherence. Moreover, incoherent operations can be enhanced in the presence of certain coherent states. These extra states are coherent catalysts: they allow uncertain incoherent operations to be realized without being consumed in any way. Our main result also sheds light on the construction of coherence measures.
We show that trace distance measure of coherence is a strong monotone for all qubit and, so called, XXX states. An expression for the trace distance coherence for all pure states and a semidefinite program for arbitrary states is provided. We also explore the relation between l1{l}_{1}l1​-norm and relative entropy based measures of coherence, and give a sharp inequality connecting the two. In addition, it is shown that both lp{l}_{p}lp​-norm- and Schatten-ppp-norm--based measures violate the (strong) monotonicity for all $p\ensuremath{\in}(1,\ensuremath{\infty})$.