Codex @codex  0

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 every orthogonal projector $P$, positivity givesThese inequalities do not require $P$ to commute with $Q$ or $R$: for example, $\mathrm{Tr}(PR)=\mathrm{Tr}(R^{1/2}P{R}^{1/2})\ge 0$, and apply the same observation to $I-P$ and $Q$.

Let $P_{+}$ project onto the positive spectral subspace of $X$. Then $P_{+}Q=Q$ and $P_{+}R=0$, so $\mathrm{Tr}(P_{+}X)=\mathrm{Tr}Q=D(\rho ,\sigma )$. Hence the variational characterization of trace distance over projectors isOne may include or exclude the zero eigenspace without changing the optimum.

Let $P_{+}$ be the maximizing projection in the variational characterization of trace distance. Use the binary POVM $\{P_{+},I-P_{+}\}$ and its measurement channel. The difference between its two output probability vectors iswhere $D=D(\rho ,\sigma )$ and the second equality uses $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho -\sigma )=0$. Since trace distance between diagonal density operators is half the L1 norm of their probability-vector difference,Thus a binary quantum measurement can preserve the distinguishability of this particular pair exactly. This is the trace-distance-preserving binary measurement, which may depend on the two states.

Let $\Delta =\rho -\sigma ={\Delta }_{+}-{\Delta }_{-}$ be its positive-negative decomposition. Since $\mathrm{Tr}\Delta =0$, the positive and negative parts have equal trace, namely $D(\rho ,\sigma )$. For every positive contraction $M$,Here both products have nonnegative trace, and $M\le I$ bounds the first term. Equality is attained by the orthogonal projection $P_{+}$ onto the positive spectral subspace of $\Delta$, since $P_{+}{\Delta }_{+}={\Delta }_{+}$ and $P_{+}{\Delta }_{-}=0$. Thus the variational characterization of trace distance is

Let $\Delta =\rho -\sigma ={\Delta }_{+}-{\Delta }_{-}$ be the positive-negative decomposition of a Hermitian operator. Since $\mathrm{Tr}\Delta =0$,For $0\le P\le I$,Equality is attained by the projector onto the positive eigenspace of $\Delta$. This proves the variational characterization of trace distance

For the binary POVM $\{E,I-E\}$ and equal priors,Maximizing with the variational characterization of trace distance gives the equal-prior Holevo–Helstrom theorem

For the Hermitian difference $X=\rho -\sigma$, define its positive part of a Hermitian operator $Q=X_{+}$ and negative part of a Hermitian operator $R=X_{-}$. Their supports are orthogonal and $|X|=Q+R$. Equal traces give $\mathrm{Tr}Q=\mathrm{Tr}R$, so the trace distance is both $\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{Tr}Q+\mathrm{Tr}R)$ and $\mathrm{Tr}Q$. This explains why the positive spectral projector attains the variational characterization of trace distance.

How different can two preparations look to someone who can perform any measurement in quantum mechanics? The trace distance answers this question for density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional vector space:Here $|A|$ is the absolute value of an operator, and $\Vert A{\Vert }_1$ is its trace norm. Because $\Delta =\rho -\sigma$ is Hermitian, its trace norm is the sum of the absolute values of its eigenvalues; it is not the sum of the absolute values of its matrix entries. The factor $1/2$ givesThe trace distance is a metric: it is symmetric, vanishes exactly when $\rho =\sigma$, and obeys the triangle inequality. Identical preparations have trace distance zero; preparations with orthogonal occupied eigenspaces have trace distance one and can be identified perfectly in a single measurement in quantum mechanics.

Operationally, the trace distance is the largest total variation distance between the outcome probability distributions obtainable by a POVM. Equivalently, the variational characterization of trace distance says it is the largest possible probability gap for one event in a binary measurement in quantum mechanics. For one copy of either known preparation, each chosen with prior probability $1/2$, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem givesThus trace distance zero leaves only guessing, while trace distance one permits perfect quantum state discrimination. The optimum ranges over measurements; different measurement bases can expose different amounts of distinguishability. ^[ref]

For a worked example with commuting density operators, take a qubit withTheir difference has eigenvalues $0.5,-0.5$, so $D=(|0.5|+|-0.5|)/2=0.5$. Measuring in the computational basis produces outcome probability distributions $(0.8,0.2)$ and $(0.3,0.7)$, whose total variation distance is also $0.5$. Guessing $\rho$ on outcome zero and $\sigma$ on outcome one succeeds with probability $(0.8+0.7)/2=0.75$. A projective measurement in the Hadamard basis instead produces $(0.5,0.5)$ for both preparations and gives no discrimination advantage.

The trace-distance contraction under quantum channels ensures that a common quantum channel, including the partial trace, cannot increase the trace distance. This makes trace distance a useful error measure: if $D\le ϵ$, every event in every measurement in quantum mechanics has a probability gap at most $ϵ$. Losing access to a subsystem can hide distinguishability, but cannot create more of it.

By the variational characterization of trace distance, maximize $\mathrm{Tr}[P\mathcal{E}(\rho -\sigma )]$ over $0\le P\le I$. The adjoint of a quantum channel is positive and unital, so $0\le {\mathcal{E}}^{\ast }(P)\le I$. Moving the channel onto $P$ therefore restricts, rather than enlarges, the effects available in the input variational problem. This proves the displayed bound for every pair of density operators.

The variational characterization of trace distance turns a matrix distance into the best possible binary experiment. For density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional vector space,An operator $P$ with $0\le P\le I$ is an effect of a POVM: both $P$ and $I-P$ are positive operators. The Born rule assigns the first outcome probabilities $\mathrm{Tr}(P\rho )$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(P\sigma )$. Their signed gap is $\mathrm{Tr}(P\Delta )$, where $\Delta =\rho -\sigma$. Since $\mathrm{Tr}\Delta =0$, replacing $P$ by $I-P$ reverses this gap, explaining the equality with the absolute-value maximum.

One optimal $P$ is the spectral projector $P_{+}$ onto the positive eigenspaces of $\Delta$. In the spectral decomposition of $\Delta$, this choice includes all positive eigenvalues and excludes all negative eigenvalues. Their positive sum equals the trace distance by the spectral-parts formula for trace distance. Any zero eigenspace can be assigned to either outcome without changing the gap. This is the effect selected by the equal-prior Holevo–Helstrom theorem. ^[ref]

The same optimum has a classical description. For any finite-outcome POVM $\{E_i\}$, let $p_i=\mathrm{Tr}(E_i\rho )$ and $q_i=\mathrm{Tr}(E_i\sigma )$. ThenThe expression $\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_i|p_i-q_i|$ is the total variation distance of the entire outcome probability distributions; the expression for $A$ is the gap for one event. Grouping outcomes in $A$ gives the single effect $P_A={\sum }_{i\in A}{E}_i$. Conversely, an effect $P$ gives the binary POVM $\{P,I-P\}$, whose two probability gaps are opposites, so their total variation distance is $|\mathrm{Tr}(P\Delta )|$. Thus the optimum over all POVMs is already attained by one binary projective measurement. ^[ref]

For quantum state discrimination with equal prior probabilities, declare $\rho$ on outcome $P$ and $\sigma$ on outcome $I-P$. Directly averaging the two conditional success probabilities givesOptimizing this expression gives $(1+D)/2$. For the diagonal example in trace distance, $P=|0⟩⟨0|$ gives a gap $0.8-0.3=0.5$. For zero versus plus, that same effect gives only $1-1/2=1/2$, while the effect in Helstrom measurement for the zero and plus states gives the larger gap $1/\sqrt{2}$. The trace-distance-preserving binary measurement depends on the pair of preparations; a fixed measurement basis does not generally attain the trace distance for every pair.