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:2609.40266

Compatibility of quantum instruments

Chloe Kim, Yujie Zhang, Eric Chitambar, Marius Junge, Felix Leditzky

quant-phmath-phSubmitted Sep 30, 2026• Announced Oct 1, 2026• 0 citations
v1 · Sep 30, 2026v2 · Oct 2, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Measurement compatibility asks whether a family of quantum measurements can be simulated by one parent measurement followed by classical post-processing. We extend this measurement compatibility to the notion of \emph{$d$-compatibility} for measurements, channels, and instruments whose parent passes a $d$-dimensional quantum system and unlimited classical information to the post-processing. We formulate $d$-compatibility as a common linear factorization of operator spaces and operator systems and show that $d$-compatible families form a closed set, even with infinitely many settings and a separable infinite-dimensional input. To certify $d$-incompatibility, we define the compatibility functional as the smallest product of completely bounded norms over common factorizations through a $d$-dimensional register. Using factorization theory of operator spaces, we show that measure-and-prepare channels defined in terms of mutually unbiased bases and pinching channels defined in terms of Heisenberg-Weyl operators are $d$-incompatible in certain regimes of $d$. We also link $d$-compatibility of multi-instruments to the preparability of Choi assemblages using channel-state duality, and use this connection to show that for bipartite states the (in)compatibility of instruments can be used to certify Schmidt numbers and the implementability of the instrument using one-way LOCC protocols. Finally, our compatibility functional also bounds the generalized robustness of compatibility, which we interpret through a memory-bounded nontransient preparation game.

Related papers

Characterizing and quantifying the incompatibility of quantum instruments

Arindam Mitra, Máté Farkas

Incompatibility of quantum devices is one of the cornerstones of quantum theory, and the incompatibility of quantum measurements and channels has been linked to quantum advantage in certain information-theoretic tasks. In this work, we focus on the less well explored question of the incompatibility of quantum instruments, that is, devices that describe the measurement process in its entirety, accounting for both the classical measurement outcome and the quantum postmeasurement state. In particular, we focus on the recently introduced notion of parallel compatibility of instruments, which has been argued to be a natural notion of instrument compatibility. We introduce, in a manner similar to the case of measurements and channels, the incompatibility robustness of quantum instruments and derive universal bounds on it. We then prove that postprocessing of quantum instruments is a free operation for parallel compatibility. Last, we provide families of instruments for which our bounds are tight and families of compatible indecomposable instruments.

arXiv:2209.02621•Physical Review A•Mar 24, 2023•14 citations

Incompatibility of quantum testers

Michal Sedlák, Daniel Reitzner, Giulio Chiribella +1 more

The existence of incompatible measurement setups is one of the distinctive features of quantum theory. Here we extend the notion of incompatibility from measurements that test preparations to measurements that test dynamical processes. Such measurements, known as testers, consist of the preparation of an input state, the application of the tested process, and a measurement on the output. Mathematically, testers are described by a suitable generalization of the notion of positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Unlike in the case of POVMs, however, testers that commute are not necessarily compatible, and testers that are compatible do not necessarily commute. Given a set of testers, we define the robustness of incompatibility as the minimum amount of mixing needed to make the testers compatible. We show that (i) the robustness is lower bounded by the distinguishability of the input states prepared by the different testers, and (ii) maximum robustness is attained when the input states are orthogonal. An extensive analysis of incompatibility is provided for factorized qubit testers with two outcomes. All our results can be extended to measurements that test quantum processes consisting of multiple time steps.

•Nov 3, 2015•1 citation

Incompatibility as a Resource for Programmable Quantum Instruments

Kaiyuan Ji, Eric Chitambar

Quantum instruments represent the most general type of quantum measurement, as they incorporate processes with both classical and quantum outputs. In many scenarios, it may be desirable to have some “on-demand” device that is capable of implementing one of many possible instruments whenever the experimenter desires. We refer to such objects as programmable instrument devices (PIDs), and this paper studies PIDs from a resource-theoretic perspective. A physically important class of PIDs are those that do not require quantum memories to implement, and these are naturally “free” in this resource theory. Additionally, these free objects correspond precisely to the class of unsteerable channel assemblages in the study of channel steering. The traditional notion of measurement incompatibility emerges as a resource in this theory since any PID controlling an incompatible family of instruments requires a quantum memory to build. We identify an incompatibility preorder between PIDs based on whether one can be transformed into another using processes that do not require additional quantum memories. Necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for when such transformations are possible based on how well certain guessing games can be played using a given PID. Ultimately our results provide an operational characterization of incompatibility, and they offer semi-device-independent tests for incompatibility in the most general types of quantum instruments. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

arXiv:2112.03717•PRX Quantum•Mar 7, 2024•15 citations

A Theory of Quantum Instruments

Stanley Gudder

Until recently, a quantum instrument was defined to be a completely positive operation-valued measure from the set of states on a Hilbert space to itself. In the last few years, this definition has been generalized to such measures between sets of states from different Hilbert spaces called the input and output Hilbert spaces. This article presents a theory of such instruments. Ways that instruments can be combined such as convex combinations, post-processing, sequential products, tensor products and conditioning are studied. We also consider marginal, reduced instruments and how these are used to define coexistence (compatibility) of instruments. Finally, we present a brief introduction to quantum measurement models where the generalization of instruments is essential. Many of the concepts of the theory are illustrated by examples. In particular, we discuss Holevo and Kraus instruments. Quanta 2023; 12: 27–40.

arXiv:2305.17584•Quanta•Jun 6, 2023•2 citations

Incompatibility of quantum instruments

Leevi Leppäjärvi, Michal Sedlák

Quantum instruments describe outcome probability as well as state change induced by measurement of a quantum system. Incompatibility of two instruments, i. e. the impossibility to realize them simultaneously on a given quantum system, generalizes incompatibility of channels and incompatibility of positive operator-valued measures (POVMs). We derive implications of instrument compatibility for the induced POVMs and channels. We also study relation of instrument compatibility to the concept of non-disturbance. Finally, we prove equivalence between instrument compatibility and postprocessing of certain instruments, which we term complementary instruments. We illustrate our findings on examples of various classes of instruments.

arXiv:2212.11225•Quantum•Feb 12, 2024•8 citations

Compatibility of quantum instruments

Arindam Mitra, Máté Farkas

Incompatibility of quantum devices is a useful resource in various quantum information theoretical tasks, and it is at the heart of some fundamental features of quantum theory. While the incompatibility of measurements and quantum channels is well studied, the incompatibility of quantum instruments has not been explored in much detail. In this work, we revise a notion of instrument compatibility introduced in the literature that we call traditional compatibility. Then, we introduce the notion of parallel compatibility and show that these two notions are inequivalent. We then argue that the notion of traditional compatibility is conceptually incomplete and prove that, while parallel compatibility captures measurement and channel compatibility, traditional compatibility does not capture channel compatibility. Hence, we propose parallel compatibility as the conceptually complete definition of the compatibility of quantum instruments.

arXiv:2110.00932•Physical Review A•May 6, 2022•14 citations
Measurement compatibility asks whether a family of quantum measurements can be simulated by one parent measurement followed by classical post-processing. We extend this measurement compatibility to the notion of \emph{ddd-compatibility} for measurements, channels, and instruments whose parent passes a ddd-dimensional quantum system and unlimited classical information to the post-processing. We formulate ddd-compatibility as a common linear factorization of operator spaces and operator systems and show that ddd-compatible families form a closed set, even with infinitely many settings and a separable infinite-dimensional input. To certify ddd-incompatibility, we define the compatibility functional as the smallest product of completely bounded norms over common factorizations through a ddd-dimensional register. Using factorization theory of operator spaces, we show that measure-and-prepare channels defined in terms of mutually unbiased bases and pinching channels defined in terms of Heisenberg-Weyl operators are ddd-incompatible in certain regimes of ddd. We also link ddd-compatibility of multi-instruments to the preparability of Choi assemblages using channel-state duality, and use this connection to show that for bipartite states the (in)compatibility of instruments can be used to certify Schmidt numbers and the implementability of the instrument using one-way LOCC protocols. Finally, our compatibility functional also bounds the generalized robustness of compatibility, which we interpret through a memory-bounded nontransient preparation game.
Incompatibility of quantum devices is one of the cornerstones of quantum theory, and the incompatibility of quantum measurements and channels has been linked to quantum advantage in certain information-theoretic tasks. In this work, we focus on the less well explored question of the incompatibility of quantum instruments, that is, devices that describe the measurement process in its entirety, accounting for both the classical measurement outcome and the quantum postmeasurement state. In particular, we focus on the recently introduced notion of parallel compatibility of instruments, which has been argued to be a natural notion of instrument compatibility. We introduce, in a manner similar to the case of measurements and channels, the incompatibility robustness of quantum instruments and derive universal bounds on it. We then prove that postprocessing of quantum instruments is a free operation for parallel compatibility. Last, we provide families of instruments for which our bounds are tight and families of compatible indecomposable instruments.
The existence of incompatible measurement setups is one of the distinctive features of quantum theory. Here we extend the notion of incompatibility from measurements that test preparations to measurements that test dynamical processes. Such measurements, known as testers, consist of the preparation of an input state, the application of the tested process, and a measurement on the output. Mathematically, testers are described by a suitable generalization of the notion of positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Unlike in the case of POVMs, however, testers that commute are not necessarily compatible, and testers that are compatible do not necessarily commute. Given a set of testers, we define the robustness of incompatibility as the minimum amount of mixing needed to make the testers compatible. We show that (i) the robustness is lower bounded by the distinguishability of the input states prepared by the different testers, and (ii) maximum robustness is attained when the input states are orthogonal. An extensive analysis of incompatibility is provided for factorized qubit testers with two outcomes. All our results can be extended to measurements that test quantum processes consisting of multiple time steps.
Quantum instruments represent the most general type of quantum measurement, as they incorporate processes with both classical and quantum outputs. In many scenarios, it may be desirable to have some “on-demand” device that is capable of implementing one of many possible instruments whenever the experimenter desires. We refer to such objects as programmable instrument devices (PIDs), and this paper studies PIDs from a resource-theoretic perspective. A physically important class of PIDs are those that do not require quantum memories to implement, and these are naturally “free” in this resource theory. Additionally, these free objects correspond precisely to the class of unsteerable channel assemblages in the study of channel steering. The traditional notion of measurement incompatibility emerges as a resource in this theory since any PID controlling an incompatible family of instruments requires a quantum memory to build. We identify an incompatibility preorder between PIDs based on whether one can be transformed into another using processes that do not require additional quantum memories. Necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for when such transformations are possible based on how well certain guessing games can be played using a given PID. Ultimately our results provide an operational characterization of incompatibility, and they offer semi-device-independent tests for incompatibility in the most general types of quantum instruments. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
Until recently, a quantum instrument was defined to be a completely positive operation-valued measure from the set of states on a Hilbert space to itself. In the last few years, this definition has been generalized to such measures between sets of states from different Hilbert spaces called the input and output Hilbert spaces. This article presents a theory of such instruments. Ways that instruments can be combined such as convex combinations, post-processing, sequential products, tensor products and conditioning are studied. We also consider marginal, reduced instruments and how these are used to define coexistence (compatibility) of instruments. Finally, we present a brief introduction to quantum measurement models where the generalization of instruments is essential. Many of the concepts of the theory are illustrated by examples. In particular, we discuss Holevo and Kraus instruments. Quanta 2023; 12: 27–40.
Quantum instruments describe outcome probability as well as state change induced by measurement of a quantum system. Incompatibility of two instruments, i. e. the impossibility to realize them simultaneously on a given quantum system, generalizes incompatibility of channels and incompatibility of positive operator-valued measures (POVMs). We derive implications of instrument compatibility for the induced POVMs and channels. We also study relation of instrument compatibility to the concept of non-disturbance. Finally, we prove equivalence between instrument compatibility and postprocessing of certain instruments, which we term complementary instruments. We illustrate our findings on examples of various classes of instruments.
Incompatibility of quantum devices is a useful resource in various quantum information theoretical tasks, and it is at the heart of some fundamental features of quantum theory. While the incompatibility of measurements and quantum channels is well studied, the incompatibility of quantum instruments has not been explored in much detail. In this work, we revise a notion of instrument compatibility introduced in the literature that we call traditional compatibility. Then, we introduce the notion of parallel compatibility and show that these two notions are inequivalent. We then argue that the notion of traditional compatibility is conceptually incomplete and prove that, while parallel compatibility captures measurement and channel compatibility, traditional compatibility does not capture channel compatibility. Hence, we propose parallel compatibility as the conceptually complete definition of the compatibility of quantum instruments.