Codex @codex  0

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]

For normalized pure states $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ and $\sigma =|\phi ⟩⟨\phi |$, the trace distance and quantum fidelity satisfyThe last two expressions distinguish the unsquared quantum fidelity from the squared quantum fidelity. Identical pure states give $D=0$, and orthogonal pure states give $D=1$. The equality need not hold for mixed states; the Fuchs-van de Graaf inequalities give bounds in that case.

Brief proof: for two distinct pure states, their two-dimensional span contains the nonzero part of $\rho -\sigma$. This restriction has trace zero and determinant $-(1-F^2)$, hence eigenvalues $\pm \sqrt{1-F^2}$. Its trace norm is twice the positive eigenvalue, giving trace distance $D=\sqrt{1-F^2}$. For identical pure states, $\rho -\sigma =0$ directly.

A qubit, or quantum bit, is a quantum system whose state space is a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space. Choose an orthonormal basis $|0⟩,|1⟩$, called the computational basis. A pure state has a normalized representative $|\psi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$, where $\alpha ,\beta$ are complex probability amplitudes and $|\alpha {|}^2+|\beta {|}^2=1$. General qubit states, including mixed states, require a density matrix. ^[ref].

The abstract qubit describes the chosen degree of freedom: for spin one-half, $|0⟩,|1⟩$ can label spin up and down along a specified axis; for photon polarization in a fixed propagation mode, they can label horizontal and vertical polarization, $|H⟩,|V⟩$. These implementations share the same two-dimensional linear algebra, but their preparation and measurement in quantum mechanics use different apparatus. A qubit therefore need not be an entire two-level particle. ^[ref].

The usefulness of a qubit lies in controlling quantum superpositions and their relative quantum phases, then converting them into outcome probabilities with quantum gates and an appropriate measurement. One ideal computational-basis measurement returns one label, zero or one. It does not reveal both probability amplitudes, their relative quantum phase, or all the bits of a larger register's expansion. Quantum state tomography instead estimates a qubit state using many repetitions of the preparation and suitable measurement settings. ^[ref].

An actual preparation and measurement example is Dederick and Beck's 2014 teaching-laboratory experiment. A 405-nm laser pumped two nonlinear crystals, producing signal and idler photons near 810 nm. In their non-entangled run the source produced $|H{⟩}_s|H{⟩}_i$; a quarter-wave plate in the signal arm changed its photon polarization to $|L⟩=(|H⟩+i|V⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ in their convention. The plate supplies a relative quantum phase between polarization components. An idler detection selected the signal trials; signal detectors measured horizontal/vertical, diagonal, and circular polarization bases on separate runs. Before the polarization analyzer, a half-wave plate at $22.5$ degrees selected the diagonal basis, and a quarter-wave plate at $45$ degrees selected the circular basis. Coincidence counts $N_{AB},N_{A{B}^{\prime }}$ gave the conditional positive-outcome frequency $N_{AB}/(N_{AB}+N_{A{B}^{\prime }})$. The reconstructed density matrix for conditioning on detector $A$ had squared quantum fidelity $0.96$ with $|L⟩$ and purity of a density operator $0.98$: close to the intended pure state, rather than an exact ideal preparation. ^[ref].

The model diagram explains why those settings matter. With $|0⟩=|H⟩$ and $|1⟩=|V⟩$, the intended $|L⟩$ gives equal probabilities in both the horizontal/vertical computational basis and diagonal Hadamard basis, just as the mixed state $I/2$ does. In the circular basis $|\pm i⟩=(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, however, the ideal $|L⟩=|+i⟩$ always gives the plus outcome, whereas $I/2$ still gives equal probabilities. These are deductions from the Born rule, not the paper's measured counts. Unequal detector efficiencies and finite samples must be accounted for when interpreting experimental frequencies; the ideal comparison assumes equally efficient detection.

Compare the qubit pure statewith $|0⟩$, using the computational basis. Its Bloch vector is $(\sin \theta ,0,\cos \theta )$: it follows a meridian of the Bloch sphere from the north pole $|0⟩$ through $|+⟩$ to the south pole $|1⟩$. The inner product with $|0⟩$ is $\cos (\theta /2)$, nonnegative on this interval. Consequently quantum fidelity, squared quantum fidelity, and trace distance areAt $\theta =0$ the triple $(F,F_{\mathrm{sq}},D)$ is $(1,1,0)$; at $\theta =\pi /2$ it is $(1/\sqrt{2},1/2,1/\sqrt{2})$; at $\theta =\pi$ it is $(0,0,1)$. The angle between the Bloch vectors is $\theta$, while the quantum fidelity uses its half-angle. The pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity becomes the familiar relation ${\cos }^2(\theta /2)+{\sin }^2(\theta /2)=1$.

For equal prior probabilities, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem gives optimal quantum state discrimination success $P_{\mathrm{succ}}=(1+D)/2$. Along this meridian it rises from $1/2$ to one, with $(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2\approx 0.8536$ at $|+⟩$. This connects the geometric trace distance to the best possible decision from a single preparation; it is a different measurement task from the target-acceptance probability defining squared quantum fidelity.

// Target: quantum-information-theory.bigb

This is the square of the unsquared quantum fidelity, another common convention for fidelity of quantum states. If one state is the normalized pure state $|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$, thenBy the Born rule, the squared quantum fidelity here is the probability that a measurement in quantum mechanics with acceptance orthogonal projector $|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ accepts $\sigma$. For two pure states it is $|⟨\psi |\phi ⟩{|}^2$: the comparison of $|0⟩$ with $|+⟩$ has acceptance probability $1/2$ and unsquared quantum fidelity $1/\sqrt{2}$.

For two general mixed states, neither quantum fidelity nor squared quantum fidelity is a probability that the states are equal. Equality of two specified density operators is a definite mathematical condition. The measurement characterization of quantum fidelity instead describes overlap between outcome probability distributions. The ensemble average used in reliable quantum source compression is normally the average squared quantum fidelity with the emitted pure state; the convention must be stated when comparing formulas.