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

On compatibility and improvement of different quantum state assignments

Fedor Herbut

Published Jan 1, 2004• 6 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

When Alice and Bob have different quantum knowledges or state assignments (density operators) for one and the same specific individual system, then the problems of compatibility and pooling arise. The so-called first Brun-Finkelstein-Mermin (BFM) condition for compatibility is reobtained in terms of possessed or sharp (i. e., probability one) properties. The second BFM condition is shown to be generally invalid in an infinite-dimensional state space. An argument leading to a procedure of improvement of one state assifnment on account of the other and vice versa is presented.

Related papers

Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments

Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack

Suppose N parties describe the state of a quantum system by N possibly different density operators. These N state assignments represent the beliefs of the parties about the system. We examine conditions for determining whether the N state assignments are compatible. We distinguish two kinds of procedures for assessing compatibility, the first based on the compatibility of the prior beliefs on which the N state assignments are based and the second based on the compatibility of predictive measurement probabilities they define. The first procedure leads to a compatibility criterion proposed by Brun, Finkelstein, and Mermin [BFM, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032315 (2002)]. The second procedure leads to a hierarchy of measurement-based compatibility criteria which is fundamentally different from the corresponding classical situation. Quantum mechanically none of the measurement-based compatibility criteria is equivalent to the BFM criterion.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206110•Physical Review A•Dec 31, 2002•102 citations

A Bayesian approach to compatibility, improvement, and pooling of quantum states

Matthew Leifer, Robert W. Spekkens

In approaches to quantum theory in which the quantum state is regarded as a representation of knowledge, information, or belief, two agents can assign different states to the same quantum system. This raises two questions: when are such state assignments compatible? And how should the state assignments of different agents be reconciled? In this paper, we address these questions from the perspective of the recently developed conditional states formalism for quantum theory (Leifer M S and Spekkens R W 2013 Phys. Rev. A 88 052310). Specifically, we derive a compatibility criterion proposed by Brun, Finkelstein and Mermin from the requirement that, upon acquiring data, agents should update their states using a quantum generalization of Bayesian conditioning. We provide two alternative arguments for this criterion, based on the objective and subjective Bayesian interpretations of probability theory. We then apply the same methodology to the problem of quantum state improvement, i.e. how to update your state when you learn someone else's state assignment, and to quantum state pooling, i.e. how to combine the state assignments of several agents into a single assignment that accurately represents the views of the group. In particular, we derive a pooling rule previously proposed by Spekkens and Wiseman under much weaker assumptions than those made in the original derivation. All of our results apply to a much broader class of experimental scenarios than have been considered previously in this context.

arXiv:1110.1085•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Jun 18, 2014•22 citations

How much state assignments can differ

Todd A. Brun, J. Finkelstein, N. David Mermin

The state that an observer attributes to a quantum system depends on the information available to that observer. If two or more observers have different information about a single system, they will in general assign different states. Is there any restriction on what states can be assigned, given reasonable assumptions about how the observers use their information? We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for a group of general density matrices to characterize what different people may know about one and the same physical system. These conditions are summarized by a single criterion, which we term compatibility.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109041•Physical Review A•Feb 22, 2002•43 citations

Compatibility of state assignments

N. David Mermin

Rudolf Peierls raised the question of when different density matrices can characterize the knowledge available to different people about one and the same physical system. I describe counterexamples to the condition he imposed on such state assignments, and suggest what the correct condition ought to be.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Sep 1, 2002•9 citations

Quantum state reconstruction and optimal manipulations with quantum information (1996 IOC Prize Winner)

Vladimír Bužek

The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Jul 19, 1999•0 citations

Compatibility of state assignments and pooling of information

Todd A. Brun, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Christopher Perry

A measure for the compatibility of state assignments of independent observers of the same quantum system is proposed, and the possibility of arriving at a unique state assignment by pooling of information is investigated.

arXiv:1310.5325•Physical Review A•Jul 13, 2015•4 citations
When Alice and Bob have different quantum knowledges or state assignments (density operators) for one and the same specific individual system, then the problems of compatibility and pooling arise. The so-called first Brun-Finkelstein-Mermin (BFM) condition for compatibility is reobtained in terms of possessed or sharp (i. e., probability one) properties. The second BFM condition is shown to be generally invalid in an infinite-dimensional state space. An argument leading to a procedure of improvement of one state assifnment on account of the other and vice versa is presented.
Suppose N parties describe the state of a quantum system by N possibly different density operators. These N state assignments represent the beliefs of the parties about the system. We examine conditions for determining whether the N state assignments are compatible. We distinguish two kinds of procedures for assessing compatibility, the first based on the compatibility of the prior beliefs on which the N state assignments are based and the second based on the compatibility of predictive measurement probabilities they define. The first procedure leads to a compatibility criterion proposed by Brun, Finkelstein, and Mermin [BFM, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032315 (2002)]. The second procedure leads to a hierarchy of measurement-based compatibility criteria which is fundamentally different from the corresponding classical situation. Quantum mechanically none of the measurement-based compatibility criteria is equivalent to the BFM criterion.
In approaches to quantum theory in which the quantum state is regarded as a representation of knowledge, information, or belief, two agents can assign different states to the same quantum system. This raises two questions: when are such state assignments compatible? And how should the state assignments of different agents be reconciled? In this paper, we address these questions from the perspective of the recently developed conditional states formalism for quantum theory (Leifer M S and Spekkens R W 2013 Phys. Rev. A 88 052310). Specifically, we derive a compatibility criterion proposed by Brun, Finkelstein and Mermin from the requirement that, upon acquiring data, agents should update their states using a quantum generalization of Bayesian conditioning. We provide two alternative arguments for this criterion, based on the objective and subjective Bayesian interpretations of probability theory. We then apply the same methodology to the problem of quantum state improvement, i.e. how to update your state when you learn someone else's state assignment, and to quantum state pooling, i.e. how to combine the state assignments of several agents into a single assignment that accurately represents the views of the group. In particular, we derive a pooling rule previously proposed by Spekkens and Wiseman under much weaker assumptions than those made in the original derivation. All of our results apply to a much broader class of experimental scenarios than have been considered previously in this context.
The state that an observer attributes to a quantum system depends on the information available to that observer. If two or more observers have different information about a single system, they will in general assign different states. Is there any restriction on what states can be assigned, given reasonable assumptions about how the observers use their information? We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for a group of general density matrices to characterize what different people may know about one and the same physical system. These conditions are summarized by a single criterion, which we term compatibility.
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.