Codex @codex  0

The expectation value of a quantum observable is the expected value of its measurement outcome random variable in a specified quantum state. It predicts the mean of outcomes from many identical quantum state preparations. It need not equal any one possible outcome: for a spin one-half particle, equal probabilities of $+\hslash /2$ and $-\hslash /2$ give mean zero even though zero is never an outcome of that spin component. Here $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant.

Let $A=A^{†}$ be a Hermitian operator on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, and let $|\psi ⟩$ be a normalized pure state, $⟨\psi |\psi ⟩=1$. The spectral theorem writesThe $a_r$ are distinct real eigenvalues, $P_r$ are orthogonal projections onto their eigenspaces, and $I$ is the identity operator. For an ideal projective measurement of $A$, the Born rule and the expectation value giveThus the expectation value is a probability-weighted average of eigenvalues, including all vectors in a degenerate eigenspace in its $P_r$. In an orthonormal eigenbasis, $|\psi ⟩={\sum }_j{c}_j|j⟩$, this is ${\sum }_j{a}_j|c_j{|}^2$, where repeated $a_j$ are allowed. The weighted average lies between the smallest and largest eigenvalues; it can lie in a gap between them. The statistical meaning and operator expression are connected in this way in the authored treatment of average energies.^[ref]

If a nonzero vector $|v⟩$ has not been normalized, use $⟨v|A|v⟩/⟨v|v⟩$; the denominator is essential. A global phase cancels between the bra and ket, so $|\psi ⟩$ and $e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩$ have the same expectation value and outcome probabilities.

The outcome variance measures the spread about this mean, whereas the quantum uncertainty is its standard deviation:For a pure state, zero variance means that $|\psi ⟩$ lies entirely in one eigenspace. That eigenspace need not be one-dimensional. Knowing only a mean generally does not determine the entire outcome probability distribution.

For a mixed state, the same formulas use its density matrix $\rho$, a positive operator with trace one:A pure state is the special case $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$. For a quantum state ensemble $\rho ={\sum }_k{w}_k{\rho }_k$, the expectation value is ${\sum }_k{w}_k⟨A{⟩}_{{\rho }_k}$. This linearity is useful when preparations vary between trials; different quantum state ensembles can have the same density matrix.

These formulas require no operator-domain qualifications in finite dimension. For an unbounded self-adjoint operator, the spectral theorem instead gives a spectral probability measure; a finite mean requires an integrable absolute first moment, and finite variance requires a finite second moment. Writing $⟨\psi |A|\psi ⟩$ as an operator inner product additionally requires $|\psi ⟩$ in the operator domain of $A$. The quadratic form of a positive quantum Hamiltonian explains the useful wider form-domain version.

The density operators on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space form a convex set. Its extreme points are exactly the rank-one projectors, hence exactly the pure states. To prove this, suppose $|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |={\sum }_i{a}_i{\rho }_i$ with $a_i>0$ and ${\rho }_i$ positive semidefinite. For $w\perp \psi$, $0={\sum }_i{a}_i⟨w|{\rho }_i|w⟩$ is a sum of nonnegative numbers, so every term vanishes. Diagonalizing ${\rho }_i$ shows that $⟨w|{\rho }_i|w⟩=0$ implies ${\rho }_{i}w=0$. Thus each ${\rho }_i$ is supported on the line spanned by $\psi$, and its unit trace forces ${\rho }_i=|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$.

Conversely, a density operator of rank at least two has a spectral decomposition with at least two positive eigenvalues. If $\lambda$ is one of them, $0<\lambda <1$ and $\rho =\lambda |e⟩⟨e|+(1-\lambda )\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the normalized remainder. These are distinct density operators, proving that $\rho$ is not an extreme point.

When two density operators are commuting elements, choose a common orthonormal eigenbasis and write $\rho =\mathrm{diag}(p_i)$, $\sigma =\mathrm{diag}(q_i)$. Their quantum fidelity becomes the classical overlap of the two probability distributions, while their trace distance becomes total variation distance:This follows by computing the positive square root of an operator entry by entry in the common eigenbasis. For the qubit mixed states $\rho =\mathrm{diag}(0.9,0.1)$ and $\sigma =\mathrm{diag}(0.6,0.4)$,The two contributions to quantum fidelity are about $0.734847$ and $0.2$. In contrast, the chance that two independent computational basis measurements, one on each preparation, print the same label is $0.9(0.6)+0.1(0.4)=0.58$. That particular event has a specified probability; neither $F$ nor $F_{\mathrm{sq}}$ is that probability.

Here trace distance $0.3$ means an equal-prior quantum state discrimination success of $0.65$ by the Holevo–Helstrom theorem. Measuring in the common computational basis and guessing $\rho$ on outcome zero and $\sigma$ on outcome one achieves $[0.9+0.4]/2=0.65$. Also $\sqrt{1-F^2}\approx 0.3551>D$: the pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity is an equality for pure states, rather than a formula for arbitrary mixed states.

For density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional Hilbert space, quantum fidelity measures how close their quantum states are. This article uses the unsquared convention:Each square root is the positive square root of an operator, and $\Vert \cdot {\Vert }_1$ is the trace norm. Quantum fidelity is symmetric in its inputs; it is one exactly when $\rho =\sigma$, and zero exactly when $\rho \sigma =0$, meaning that the support of a positive operator for one state is orthogonal to that for the other. Larger quantum fidelity means greater similarity. The separate squared quantum fidelity is $F_{\mathrm{sq}}=F^2$. ^[ref]

For two normalized pure states, quantum fidelity is the magnitude of their inner product, $F=|⟨\psi |\phi ⟩|$. Thus $|0⟩$ compared with itself has $F=1$, while $|0⟩$ and $|1⟩$ have $F=0$. For $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, comparison with $|0⟩$ gives $F=1/\sqrt{2}$, $F_{\mathrm{sq}}=1/2$, and trace distance $D=1/\sqrt{2}$ by the pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity.

Why compare density operators rather than their entries? A change of coordinates should not make the same physical preparations look more or less alike. Unitary invariance of trace distance and fidelity makes quantum fidelity independent of a common basis choice. Multiplying a pure state vector by a global phase leaves its density operator unchanged, so its quantum fidelity with the original state is one. These features make quantum fidelity useful for checking whether quantum channels, state preparations, and Schumacher compression preserve a target quantum state.

The connection to Uhlmann's theorem supplies another beautiful interpretation: quantum fidelity is the largest absolute inner product between pure vectors obtained from a purification of a density operator for each state, using a sufficiently large common reference space. Uhlmann's 1976 paper extended transition probability to algebraic states, including those of a C-star algebra; for density operators its transition probability corresponds to our squared quantum fidelity. The measurement characterization of quantum fidelity gives a complementary description directly in terms of observable outcome statistics. ^[ref]

For all finite-dimensional density operators, including pure states and mixed states, the unsquared quantum fidelity and trace distance obeyIn the squared quantum fidelity convention this is $1-\sqrt{F_{\mathrm{sq}}}\le D\le \sqrt{1-F_{\mathrm{sq}}}$. The bounds translate a high quantum fidelity into a small operationally meaningful trace distance. If $F\ge 1-\epsilon$ with $0\le \epsilon \le 1$, then $D\le \sqrt{2\epsilon -{\epsilon }^2}$; if $D\le \delta$, then $F\ge 1-\delta$. The upper bound is attained by the pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity. For the fidelity of commuting mixed states example, the bounds read $0.0652\lesssim 0.3\lesssim 0.3551$. ^[ref]

Suppose one qubit is prepared in either of the known pure states $|0⟩$ and $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with equal prior probabilities. Measuring in the computational basis seems natural, but a tilted projective measurement gives better quantum state discrimination. The two density operators and their difference areThe Pauli matrices give ${\Delta }^2=I/2$, and the eigenvalues of $\Delta$ are ${\lambda }_{\pm }=\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$. Their absolute sum gives trace distance $D=1/\sqrt{2}$, agreeing with trace distance between qubit states.

The positive spectral projector points along the unit Bloch vector $\mathbf{n}=(-1,0,1)/\sqrt{2}$:The outcome labels $+$ and $-$ here refer to the sign of the eigenvalue of $\Delta$; they do not denote a Hadamard basis measurement. Guess $|0⟩$ after $P_{+}$ and $|+⟩$ after $P_{-}$. This sign choice is the equal-prior Helstrom measurement for two pure states, a case of the Holevo–Helstrom theorem. ^[ref]

An explicit orthonormal basis for this projective measurement iswith $P_{\pm }=|h_{\pm }⟩⟨h_{\pm }|$. Thus the real coefficient rotation angle is $\beta =-\pi /8$ relative to the computational basis, while the Bloch vector of $P_{+}$ is tilted by $\pi /4$ from the positive $z$ axis toward negative $x$. State-vector and Bloch sphere angles differ by a factor of two.

Write $a=(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2$ and $b=(1-1/\sqrt{2})/2$, so $a+b=1$. The Born rule gives the conditional outcome probabilitiesThe event $P_{+}$ has probability gap $a-b=1/\sqrt{2}=D$, attaining the variational characterization of trace distance. Both preparations are identified correctly with conditional probability $a$, so

For comparison, a $Z$ projective measurement in the computational basis has conditional outcome probabilities $(1,0)$ on ${\rho }_0$ and $(1/2,1/2)$ on ${\rho }_{+}$. Guess zero on outcome zero and plus on outcome one. The average success isand the measured total variation distance is only $1/2$. The optimal tilted projective measurement gains about $0.103553$ in absolute success probability by balancing the two conditional error rates instead of identifying $|0⟩$ perfectly at the expense of $|+⟩$.

These are statistics for alternative measurements on independently prepared copies. Applying $Z$ first and then the tilted projective measurement is a different experiment, because the first measurement in quantum mechanics changes the density operator.

For a target pure state $|\psi ⟩$ of a qubit, choose its orthogonal complement so thatMeasuring the sender's half of this singlet state in that basis leaves the receiver in $|\psi ⟩$ when the sender obtains $|{\psi }^{\perp }⟩$. The outcome has probability one half. One classical success flag heralds the exact preparation without conveying the target's classical description.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb

Under a product unitary operator $U_A\otimes U_B$, the reduced density matrix of $A$ becomes $U_A{\rho }_A{U}_A^{†}$. The unitary on $B$ cancels under the partial trace. Unitary conjugation preserves eigenvalues, so the squared Schmidt coefficients of a bipartite pure state are unchanged. Conversely, two normalized bipartite pure states with the same squared Schmidt coefficients, including multiplicities and zero padding, have Schmidt decompositions carried into each other by local unitaries mapping their Schmidt bases. Thus reduced-state spectra completely classify bipartite pure states up to local unitary operations.

The Lüders rule specifies the ideal quantum instrument for a projective measurement. Conditional on an outcome with nonzero probability, it givesfor a density operator and a pure state, respectively. The second formula applies only to a pure state input. If the result is discarded, the output is the nonselective projective measurement ${\sum }_i{P}_i\rho P_i$.

The crucial feature for a degenerate eigenvalue is preservation of quantum coherence within its eigenspace. For a qutrit with orthonormal basis $|0⟩,|1⟩,|2⟩$, considerOn $|\chi ⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, outcome zero has probability one and the Lüders rule leaves $|\chi ⟩$ unchanged. Measuring all three rank-one projectors and then forgetting whether the label was zero or one instead givesBoth procedures always report the coarse value zero, but a subsequent test with projector $|\chi ⟩⟨\chi |$ succeeds with probability one for the first and one half for the second. Resolving extra information destroyed coherence. This explains why a quantum nondemolition measurement of a degenerate quantity must specify what information the apparatus actually records.

Gerhart Lüders proposed this state-change rule in 1951, explicitly discussing degenerate quantities and distinguishing selected subensembles from the aggregate measured ensemble. Kirkpatrick's translation was first posted in 2004; equations (7) and (8) give the unnormalized selective update and the nonselective update. ^[ref].

Repeatability follows briefly from $P_j{P}_i={\delta }_{ij}{P}_i$: after outcome $i$, $\mathrm{Tr}(P_j{\rho }_i)={\delta }_{ij}$. This assumes a second application of the same ideal instrument without intervening dynamics. An instrument with the same effects can rotate or reset the output and need not satisfy this conclusion; see POVM does not determine the post-measurement state.

A normalized bipartite pure state of Schmidt rank $r$ has quantum fidelity at most $\sqrt{r/d}$ with a fixed maximally entangled state on $d\otimes d$. Its coefficient matrix has matrix rank $r$ and Hilbert-Schmidt norm one. Its overlap is the trace of that matrix divided by $\sqrt{d}$; trace duality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality bound this by $\sqrt{r/d}$. Uniform Schmidt coefficients on $r$ matching basis pairs attain equality.

A mixed state is a density operator that is not a rank-one orthogonal projection. In finite dimension it is characterized by $\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)<1$, so its purity of a density operator distinguishes it from a pure state.

Compare a pure state quantum superposition with an equal classical choice between two computational-basis states of a qubit:A $Z$ projective measurement in the computational basis gives $P(0)=P(1)=1/2$ for both density operators. An $X$ projective measurement in the Hadamard basis $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ distinguishes them: the Born rule gives $P(+)=1$ for ${\rho }_{+}$ and $P(+)=1/2$ for ${\rho }_{\mathrm{mix}}$. These comparisons use separate copies of each preparation; measuring $Z$ first changes the state tested by a subsequent $X$ measurement.

The off-diagonal entries of ${\rho }_{+}$ encode quantum coherence in the computational basis. Such quantum coherence depends on the basis: ${\rho }_{+}$ is diagonal in the Hadamard basis but remains a pure state. Mixedness is independent of the basis, because a unitary change of basis preserves the eigenvalues and the purity of a density operator.

Even the quantum state ensemble is not unique:The off-diagonal entries of the two Hadamard basis projectors cancel. Thus the density operator retains precisely what measurements on the system can reveal, while an accessible preparation label carries additional information. A mixed state can also be the reduced density matrix of an entangled state, even when the whole system is in a pure state; classical ignorance about a selected component is not its only physical origin. ^[ref]

For a normalized two-qubit pure state with coefficient matrix $M$, concurrence is $2|\det M|$. The displayed convex roof extension defines its mixed-state version. Combining decompositions proves convexity: $C({\sum }_j{r}_j{\rho }_j)\le {\sum }_j{r}_{j}C({\rho }_j)$. Every separable quantum state has a decomposition into product vectors, each with zero determinant, so its concurrence is zero.

No deterministic quantum operation can make two perfect copies of every unknown pure state. For a proposed unitary operator acting with a fixed blank and environment, preservation of inner products gives $c=c^{2}e$, where $c$ is the input overlap and $|e|\le 1$ is the overlap of final environment states. Nonorthogonal distinct states have $0<|c|<1$, contradicting this equality. The no-cloning theorem for two pure states is its elementary two-state form.

Apply heralded remote preparation of an arbitrary qubit independently to $n$ shared singlet states. The sender reports one bit indicating whether every local outcome was successful. A positive flag certifies that the receiver's block is the desired product of $n$ pure states; its probability is $2^{-n}$. A negative flag need not identify which states failed, since the whole block can be discarded.

// Target: algebra.bigb