quantum conditional states, bayes' rule, and state compatibility
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Quantum conditional states, Bayes’ rule, andstate compatibility
M. S. Leifer (UCL)Joint work with R. W. Spekkens (Perimeter)
Imperial College QI Seminar14th December 2010
Outline
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Topic
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Classical vs. quantum Probability
Table: Basic definitions
Classical Probability Quantum Theory
Sample space Hilbert spaceΩX = 1,2, . . . ,dX HA = CdA
= span (|1〉 , |2〉 , . . . , |dA〉)
Probability distribution Quantum stateP(X = x) ≥ 0 ρA ∈ L+ (HA)∑
x∈ΩXP(X = x) = 1 TrA (ρA) = 1
Classical vs. quantum Probability
Table: Composite systems
Classical Probability Quantum Theory
Cartesian product Tensor productΩXY = ΩX × ΩY HAB = HA ⊗HB
Joint distribution Bipartite stateP(X ,Y ) ρAB
Marginal distribution Reduced stateP(Y ) =
∑x∈ΩX
P(X = x ,Y ) ρB = TrA (ρAB)
Conditional distribution Conditional stateP(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )
P(X) ρB|A =?
Definition of QCS
Definition
A quantum conditional state of B given A is a positive operatorρB|A on HAB = HA ⊗HB that satisfies
TrB(ρB|A
)= IA.
c.f. P(Y |X ) is a positive function on ΩXY = ΩX × ΩY thatsatisfies ∑
y∈ΩY
P(Y = y |X ) = 1.
Relation to reduced and joint States
(ρA, ρB|A) → ρAB =√ρA ⊗ IBρB|A
√ρA ⊗ IB
ρAB → ρA = TrB (ρAB)
ρB|A =√ρ−1
A ⊗ IBρAB
√ρ−1
A ⊗ IB
Note: ρB|A defined from ρAB is a QCS on supp(ρA)⊗HB.
c.f. P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X ) and P(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )P(X)
Relation to reduced and joint States
(ρA, ρB|A) → ρAB =√ρA ⊗ IBρB|A
√ρA ⊗ IB
ρAB → ρA = TrB (ρAB)
ρB|A =√ρ−1
A ⊗ IBρAB
√ρ−1
A ⊗ IB
Note: ρB|A defined from ρAB is a QCS on supp(ρA)⊗HB.
c.f. P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X ) and P(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )P(X)
Relation to reduced and joint States
(ρA, ρB|A) → ρAB =√ρA ⊗ IBρB|A
√ρA ⊗ IB
ρAB → ρA = TrB (ρAB)
ρB|A =√ρ−1
A ⊗ IBρAB
√ρ−1
A ⊗ IB
Note: ρB|A defined from ρAB is a QCS on supp(ρA)⊗HB.
c.f. P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X ) and P(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )P(X)
Notation
• Drop implied identity operators, e.g.
• IA ⊗MBCNAB ⊗ IC → MBCNAB
• MA ⊗ IB = NAB → MA = NAB
• Define non-associative “product”
• M ? N =√
NM√
N
Relation to reduced and joint States
(ρA, ρB|A) → ρAB =√ρA ⊗ IBρB|A
√ρA ⊗ IB
ρAB → ρA = TrB (ρAB)
ρB|A =√ρ−1
A ⊗ IBρAB
√ρ−1
A ⊗ IB
Note: ρB|A defined from ρAB is a QCS on supp(ρA)⊗HB.
c.f. P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X ) and P(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )P(X)
Relation to reduced and joint states
(ρA, ρB|A) → ρAB = ρB|A ? ρA
ρAB → ρA = TrB (ρAB)
ρB|A = ρAB ? ρ−1A
Note: ρB|A defined from ρAB is a QCS on supp(ρA)⊗HB.
c.f. P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X ) and P(Y |X ) = P(X ,Y )P(X)
Classical conditional probabilities
Example (classical conditional probabilities)
Given a classical variable X , define a Hilbert space HX with apreferred basis |1〉X , |2〉X , . . . , |dX 〉X labeled by elements ofΩX . Then,
ρX =∑
x∈ΩX
P(X = x) |x〉 〈x |X
Similarly,
ρXY =∑
x∈ΩX ,y∈ΩY
P(X = x ,Y = y) |xy〉 〈xy |XY
ρY |X =∑
x∈ΩX ,y∈ΩY
P(Y = y |X = x) |xy〉 〈xy |XY
Topic
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Correlations between subsystems
YX
Figure: Classical correlations
P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X )
A B
Figure: Quantum correlations
ρAB = ρB|A ? ρA
Preparations
Y
X
Figure: Classical preparation
P(Y ) =∑
X
P(Y |X )P(X )
X
A
Figure: Quantum preparation
ρA =∑
x
P(X = x)ρ(x)A
ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)?
What is a Hybrid System?
• Composite of a quantum system and a classical randomvariable.
• Classical r.v. X has Hilbert space HX with preferred basis|1〉X , |2〉X , . . . , |dX 〉X.
• Quantum system A has Hilbert space HA.
• Hybrid system has Hilbert space HXA = HX ⊗HA
• Operators on HXA restricted to be of the form
MXA =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗MX=x ,A
What is a Hybrid System?
• Composite of a quantum system and a classical randomvariable.
• Classical r.v. X has Hilbert space HX with preferred basis|1〉X , |2〉X , . . . , |dX 〉X.
• Quantum system A has Hilbert space HA.
• Hybrid system has Hilbert space HXA = HX ⊗HA
• Operators on HXA restricted to be of the form
MXA =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗MX=x ,A
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA =∑
x P(X = x)ρ(x)A
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA =∑
x P(X = x)ρA|X=x
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA = TrX(ρXρA|X
)
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA = TrX(√ρXρA|X
√ρX)
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)
• Hybrid joint state: ρXA =∑
x∈ΩXP(X = x) |x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
Quantum|Classical QCS are Sets of States
• A QCS of A given X is of the form
ρA|X =∑
x∈ΩX
|x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
PropositionρA|X is a QCS of A given X iff each ρA|X=x is a normalized stateon HA
• Ensemble decomposition: ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)• Hybrid joint state: ρXA =
∑x∈ΩX
P(X = x) |x〉 〈x |X ⊗ ρA|X=x
Preparations
Y
X
Figure: Classical preparation
P(Y ) =∑
X
P(Y |X )P(X )
X
A
Figure: Quantum preparation
ρA =∑
x
P(X = x)ρ(x)A
ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)
Measurements
Y
X
Figure: Noisy measurement
P(Y ) =∑
X
P(Y |X )P(X )
A
Y
Figure: POVM measurement
P(Y = y) = TrA
(E (y)
A ρA
)ρY = TrA
(ρY |A ? ρA
)?
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: P(Y = y) = TrA
(E (y)
A ρA
)
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: P(Y = y) = TrA(ρY =y |AρA
)
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: ρY = TrA(ρY |AρA
)
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: ρY = TrA(√ρAρY |A
√ρA)
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: ρY = TrA(ρY |A ? ρA
)
• Hybrid joint state: ρYA =∑
y∈ΩY|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗
√ρAρY =y |A
√ρA
Classical|Quantum QCS are POVMs
• A QCS of Y given A is of the form
ρY |A =∑
y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗ ρY =y |A
PropositionρY |A is a QCS of Y given A iff ρY =y |A is a POVM on HA
• Generalized Born rule: ρY = TrA(ρY |A ? ρA
)• Hybrid joint state: ρYA =
∑y∈ΩY
|y〉 〈y |Y ⊗√ρAρY =y |A
√ρA
Topic
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Classical Bayes’ rule
• Two expressions for joint probabilities:
P(X ,Y ) = P(Y |X )P(X )
= P(X |Y )P(Y )
• Bayes’ rule:
P(Y |X ) =P(X |Y )P(Y )
P(X )
• Laplacian form of Bayes’ rule:
P(Y |X ) =P(X |Y )P(Y )∑Y P(X |Y )P(Y )
Quantum Bayes’ rule
• Two expressions for bipartite states:
ρAB = ρB|A ? ρA
= ρA|B ? ρB
• Bayes’ rule:
ρB|A = ρA|B ?(ρ−1
A ⊗ ρB
)• Laplacian form of Bayes’ rule
ρB|A = ρA|B ?(
TrB(ρA|B ? ρB
)−1 ⊗ ρB
)
State/POVM duality
• A hybrid joint state can be written two ways:
ρXA = ρA|X ? ρX = ρX |A ? ρA
• The two representations are connected via Bayes’ rule:
ρX |A = ρA|X ?(ρX ⊗ TrX
(ρA|X ? ρX
)−1)
ρA|X = ρX |A ?(
TrA(ρX |A ? ρA
)−1 ⊗ ρA
)
ρX=x |A =P(X = x)ρA|X=x∑
x ′∈ΩXP(X = x ′)ρA|X=x ′
ρA|X=x =
√ρAρX=x |A
√ρA
TrA(ρX=x |AρA
)
State update rules
• Classically, upon learning X = x :
P(Y )→ P(Y |X = x)
• Quantumly: ρA → ρA|X=x?
X
A
Figure: Preparation
• When you don’t know the value of Xstate of A is:
ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)=∑
x∈ΩX
P(X = x)ρA|X=x
• On learning X=x: ρA → ρA|X=x
State update rules
• Classically, upon learning X = x :
P(Y )→ P(Y |X = x)
• Quantumly: ρA → ρA|X=x?
X
A
Figure: Preparation
• When you don’t know the value of Xstate of A is:
ρA = TrX(ρA|X ? ρX
)=∑
x∈ΩX
P(X = x)ρA|X=x
• On learning X=x: ρA → ρA|X=x
State update rules
• Classically, upon learning Y = y :
P(X )→ P(X |Y = y)
• Quantumly: ρA → ρA|Y =y?
A
Y
Figure: Measurement
• When you don’t know the value of Ystate of A is:
ρA = TrY(ρY |A ? ρA
)• On learning Y=y: ρA → ρA|Y =y ?
Projection postulate vs. Bayes’ rule
• Generalized Lüders-von Neumann projection postulate:
ρA →√ρY =y |AρA
√ρY =y |A
TrA(ρY =y |AρA
)• Quantum Bayes’ rule:
ρA →√ρAρY =y |A
√ρA
TrA(ρY =y |AρA
)
Aside: Quantum conditional independence
• General tripartite state on HABC = HA ⊗HB ⊗HC :
ρABC = ρC|AB ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)
DefinitionIf ρC|AB = ρC|B then C is conditionally independent of A given B.
Theorem
ρC|AB = ρC|B iff ρA|BC = ρA|B
Corollary
ρABC = ρC|B ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)iff ρABC = ρA|B ?
(ρB|C ? ρC
)
Aside: Quantum conditional independence
• General tripartite state on HABC = HA ⊗HB ⊗HC :
ρABC = ρC|AB ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)DefinitionIf ρC|AB = ρC|B then C is conditionally independent of A given B.
Theorem
ρC|AB = ρC|B iff ρA|BC = ρA|B
Corollary
ρABC = ρC|B ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)iff ρABC = ρA|B ?
(ρB|C ? ρC
)
Aside: Quantum conditional independence
• General tripartite state on HABC = HA ⊗HB ⊗HC :
ρABC = ρC|AB ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)DefinitionIf ρC|AB = ρC|B then C is conditionally independent of A given B.
Theorem
ρC|AB = ρC|B iff ρA|BC = ρA|B
Corollary
ρABC = ρC|B ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)iff ρABC = ρA|B ?
(ρB|C ? ρC
)
Aside: Quantum conditional independence
• General tripartite state on HABC = HA ⊗HB ⊗HC :
ρABC = ρC|AB ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)DefinitionIf ρC|AB = ρC|B then C is conditionally independent of A given B.
Theorem
ρC|AB = ρC|B iff ρA|BC = ρA|B
Corollary
ρABC = ρC|B ?(ρB|A ? ρA
)iff ρABC = ρA|B ?
(ρB|C ? ρC
)
Predictive formalism
ρ X
ρ
ρ Y|A
X|A
X
Y
Adirection
inferenceof
Figure: Prep. & meas.experiment
• Tripartite CI state:
ρXAY = ρY |A ?(ρA|X ? ρX
)• Joint probabilities:
ρXY = TrA (ρXAY )
• Marginal for Y :
ρY = TrA(ρY |A ? ρA
)• Conditional probabilities:
ρY |X = TrA(ρY |A ? ρA|X
)
Retrodictive formalism
ρ X
ρ
ρ Y|A
X|A
X
Y
Adirection
inferenceof
Figure: Prep. & meas.experiment
• Due to symmetry of CI:
ρXAY = ρX |A ?(ρA|Y ? ρY
)• Marginal for X :
ρX = TrA(ρX |A ? ρA
)• Conditional probabilities:
ρX |Y = TrA(ρX |A ? ρA|Y
)• Bayesian update:
ρA → ρA|Y =y
• c.f. Barnett, Pegg & Jeffers, J.Mod. Opt. 47:1779 (2000).
Remote state updates
ρX|A
A
X
B
ρY|BY
ρAB
Figure: Bipartite experiment
• Joint probability: ρXY = TrAB((ρX |A ⊗ ρY |B
)? ρAB
)• B can be factored out: ρXY = TrA
(ρY |A ?
(ρA|X ? ρX
))• where ρY |A = TrB
(ρY |BρB|A
)
Summary of state update rules
Table: Which states update via Bayesian conditioning?
Updating on: Predictive state Retrodictive state
Preparation X Xvariable
Directmeasurement X X
outcome
Remotemeasurement X It’s complicated
outcome
Topic
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Introduction to State Compatibility
S
Sρ ρ S(B)(A)
Alice BobFigure: Quantum state compatibility
• Alice and Bob assign different states to S
• e.g. BB84: Alice prepares one of |0〉S , |1〉S , |+〉S , |−〉S• Bob assigns IS
dSbefore measuring
• When do ρ(A)S , ρ
(B)S represent validly differing views?
Brun-Finklestein-Mermin Compatibility
• Brun, Finklestein & Mermin, Phys. Rev. A 65:032315(2002).
Definition (BFM Compatibility)
Two states ρ(A)S and ρ(B)
S are BFM compatible if ∃ ensembledecompositions of the form
ρ(A)S = pτS + (1− p)σ
(A)S
ρ(B)S = qτS + (1− q)σ
(B)S
Brun-Finklestein-Mermin Compatibility
• Brun, Finklestein & Mermin, Phys. Rev. A 65:032315(2002).
Definition (BFM Compatibility)
Two states ρ(A)S and ρ(B)
S are BFM compatible if ∃ ensembledecompositions of the form
ρ(A)S = pτS + junk
ρ(B)S = qτS + junk
• Special case:• If both assign pure states then they must agree.
Brun-Finklestein-Mermin Compatibility
• Brun, Finklestein & Mermin, Phys. Rev. A 65:032315(2002).
Definition (BFM Compatibility)
Two states ρ(A)S and ρ(B)
S are BFM compatible if ∃ ensembledecompositions of the form
ρ(A)S = pτS + junk
ρ(B)S = qτS + junk
• Special case:• If both assign pure states then they must agree.
Objective vs. Subjective Approaches
• Objective: States represent knowledge or information.
• If Alice and Bob disagree it is because they have access todifferent data.
• BFM & Jacobs (QIP 1:73 (2002)) provide objectivejustifications of BFM.
• Subjective: States represent degrees of belief.
• There can be no unilateral requirement for states to becompatible.
• Caves, Fuchs & Shack Phys. Rev. A 66:062111 (2002).
• However, we are still interested in whether Alice and Bobcan reach intersubjective agreement.
Objective vs. Subjective Approaches
• Objective: States represent knowledge or information.
• If Alice and Bob disagree it is because they have access todifferent data.
• BFM & Jacobs (QIP 1:73 (2002)) provide objectivejustifications of BFM.
• Subjective: States represent degrees of belief.
• There can be no unilateral requirement for states to becompatible.
• Caves, Fuchs & Shack Phys. Rev. A 66:062111 (2002).
• However, we are still interested in whether Alice and Bobcan reach intersubjective agreement.
Objective vs. Subjective Approaches
• Objective: States represent knowledge or information.
• If Alice and Bob disagree it is because they have access todifferent data.
• BFM & Jacobs (QIP 1:73 (2002)) provide objectivejustifications of BFM.
• Subjective: States represent degrees of belief.
• There can be no unilateral requirement for states to becompatible.
• Caves, Fuchs & Shack Phys. Rev. A 66:062111 (2002).
• However, we are still interested in whether Alice and Bobcan reach intersubjective agreement.
Subjective Bayesian Compatibility
S
Sρ ρ S(B)(A)
Alice BobFigure: Quantum compatibility
Intersubjective agreement
=
Alice
S
Bob
X
T
ρ ρ(A) (B)S S
Figure: Intersubjective agreement via a remote measurement
• Alice and Bob agree on the model for X
ρ(A)X |S = ρ
(B)X |S = ρX |S, ρX |S = TrT
(ρX |T ? ρT |S
)
Intersubjective agreement
Alice
S
Bob
X
T
ρ ρ(A) (B)S S|X=x X=x|=
Figure: Intersubjective agreement via a remote measurement
ρ(A)S|X=x =
ρX=x |S ? ρ(A)S
TrS
(ρX=x |S ? ρ
(A)S
) ρ(B)S|X=x =
ρX=x |S ? ρ(B)S
TrS
(ρX=x |S ? ρ
(B)S
)• Alice and Bob reach agreement about the predictive state.
Intersubjective agreement
Alice Bob
ρ ρ(A) (B)S S|X=x X=x|=
X
S
Figure: Intersubjective agreement via a preparation vairable
• Alice and Bob reach agreement about the predictive state.
Intersubjective agreement
Alice Bob
ρ ρ(A) (B)S S|X=x X=x|=
X
S
Figure: Intersubjective agreement via a measurement
• Alice and Bob reach agreement about the retrodictivestate.
Subjective Bayesian compatibility
Definition (Quantum compatibility)
Two states ρ(A)S , ρ
(B)S are compatible iff ∃ a hybrid conditional
state ρX |S for a r.v. X such that
ρ(A)S|X=x = ρ
(B)S|X=x
for some value x of X , where
ρ(A)XS = ρX |S ? ρ
(A)S ρ
(B)X |S = ρX |S ? ρ
(B)S
Theorem
ρ(A)S and ρ(B)
S are compatible iff they satisfy the BFM condition.
Subjective Bayesian compatibility
Definition (Quantum compatibility)
Two states ρ(A)S , ρ
(B)S are compatible iff ∃ a hybrid conditional
state ρX |S for a r.v. X such that
ρ(A)S|X=x = ρ
(B)S|X=x
for some value x of X , where
ρ(A)XS = ρX |S ? ρ
(A)S ρ
(B)X |S = ρX |S ? ρ
(B)S
Theorem
ρ(A)S and ρ(B)
S are compatible iff they satisfy the BFM condition.
Subjective Bayesian justification of BFM
BFM⇒ subjective compatibility.
• Common state can always be chosen to be pure |ψ〉S
ρ(A)S = p |ψ〉〈ψ|S + junk, ρ
(B)S = q |ψ〉〈ψ|S + junk
• Choose X to be a bit with
ρX |S = |0〉 〈0|X ⊗ |ψ〉〈ψ|S + |1〉 〈1|X ⊗(IS − |ψ〉〈ψ|S
).
• Compute
ρ(A)S|X=0 = ρ
(B)S|X=0 = |ψ〉〈ψ|S
Subjective Bayesian justification of BFM
Subjective compatibility⇒ BFM.
• ρ(A)SX = ρX |S ? ρ
(A)S = ρ
(A)S|X ? ρ
(A)X
ρ(A)S = TrX
(ρ
(A)SX
)= PA(X = x)ρ
(A)S|X=x +
∑x ′ 6=x
P(X = x ′)ρ(A)S|X=x ′
= PA(X = x)ρ(A)S|X=x + junk
• Similarly ρ(B)S = PB(X = x)ρ
(B)S|X=x + junk
• Hence ρ(A)S|X=x = ρ
(B)S|X=x ⇒ ρ
(A)S and ρ(B)
S are BFMcompatible.
Topic
1 Quantum conditional states
2 Hybrid quantum-classical systems
3 Quantum Bayes’ rule
4 Quantum state compatibility
5 Further results and open questions
Further results
Forthcoming paper(s) with R. W. Spekkens also include:
• Dynamics (CPT maps, instruments)• Temporal joint states• Quantum conditional independence• Quantum sufficient statistics• Quantum state pooling
Earlier papers with related ideas:
• M. Asorey et. al., Open.Syst.Info.Dyn. 12:319–329 (2006).• M. S. Leifer, Phys. Rev. A 74:042310 (2006).• M. S. Leifer, AIP Conference Proceedings 889:172–186
(2007).• M. S. Leifer & D. Poulin, Ann. Phys. 323:1899 (2008).
Open question
What is the meaning of fully quantum Bayesianconditioning?
ρB → ρB|A = ρA|B ?(
TrB(ρA|B ? ρB
)−1 ⊗ ρB
)
Thanks for your attention!
People who gave me money
• Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) GrantRFP1-06-006
People who gave me office space when I didn’t have anymoney
• Perimeter Institute• University College London