Abstract
The sandwiched Rényi \(\alpha \)-divergences of two finite-dimensional quantum states play a distinguished role among the many quantum versions of Rényi divergences as the tight quantifiers of the trade-off between the two error probabilities in the strong converse domain of state discrimination. In this paper, we show the same for the sandwiched Rényi divergences of two normal states on an injective von Neumann algebra, thereby establishing the operational significance of these quantities. Moreover, we show that in this setting, again similarly to the finite-dimensional case, the sandwiched Rényi divergences coincide with the regularized measured Rényi divergences, another distinctive feature of the former quantities. Our main tool is an approximation theorem (martingale convergence) for the sandwiched Rényi divergences, which may be used for the extension of various further results from the finite-dimensional to the von Neumann algebra setting. We also initiate the study of the sandwiched Rényi divergences of pairs of states on a \(C^*\)-algebra and show that the above operational interpretation, as well as the equality to the regularized measured Rényi divergence, holds more generally for pairs of states on a nuclear \(C^*\)-algebra.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In [38, 39] (also [29]), it was implicitly assumed that \({\mathcal {M}}\) is \(\sigma \)-finite. But this assumption can be removed. Indeed, let \(\Phi :{\mathcal {N}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {M}}\) be a unital positive normal map between von Neumann algebras and \(\rho ,\sigma \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\). Let \(e:=s(\rho )\vee s(\sigma )\) and \(e_0:=s(\rho \circ \Phi )\vee s(\sigma \circ \Phi )\). Since \(s(\rho )(\textbf{1}-\Phi (e_0))s(\rho )=0\), \(s(\rho )=s(\rho )\Phi (e_0)=\Phi (e_0)s(\rho )\) and \(s(\rho )\le \Phi (e_0)\). Similarly, \(s(\sigma )=s(\sigma )\Phi (e_0)=\Phi (e_0)s(\sigma )\) and \(s(\sigma )\le \Phi (e_0)\). Let \(P:=\textbf{1}-s(\rho )\), \(Q:=\textbf{1}-s(\sigma )\) and \(A:=\textbf{1}-\Phi (e_0)\ge 0\); hence, \(P\ge A\) and \(Q\ge A\). Note that \(PQP\ge PAP=A\), \(QPQPQ\ge QAQ=A\), and so on. Hence, \((PQ)^nP\ge A\) for all \(n\ge 1\). Since \((PQ)^nP\rightarrow P\wedge Q\) strongly, we have \(P\wedge Q\ge A\), which means that \(e\le \Phi (e_0)\). We thus find that \({\tilde{\Phi }}:=e\Phi (\cdot )e|_{e_0{\mathcal {N}}e_0}\) is a unital positive normal map from \(e_0{\mathcal {N}}e_0\) to \(e{\mathcal {M}}e\). Note that \(e_0{\mathcal {N}}e_0\) and \(e{\mathcal {M}}e\) are \(\sigma \)-finite. Moreover, \(D_\alpha ^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )=D_\alpha ^*(\rho |_{e{\mathcal {M}}e}\Vert \sigma |_{e{\mathcal {M}}e})\) and
$$\begin{aligned} D_\alpha ^*(\rho \circ \Phi \Vert \sigma \circ \Phi ) =D_\alpha ^*(\rho \circ \Phi |_{e_0{\mathcal {N}}e_0}\Vert \sigma \circ \Phi |_{e_0{\mathcal {N}}e_0}) =D_\alpha ^*((\rho |_{e{\mathcal {M}}e})\circ {\tilde{\Phi }}\Vert (\sigma |_{e{\mathcal {M}}e})\circ {\tilde{\Phi }}). \end{aligned}$$
References
Accardi, L., Cecchini, C.: Conditional expectations in von Neumann algebras and a theorem of Takesaki. J. Funct. Anal. 45(2), 245–273 (1982)
Araki, H.: Relative entropy of states of von Neumann algebras. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 11(3), 809–833 (1976)
Araki, H.: Relative entropy for states of von Neumann algebras II. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 13(1), 173–192 (1977)
Audenaert, K.M.R., Calsamiglia, J., Masanes, Ll., Munoz-Tapia, R., Acin, A., Bagan, E., Verstraete, F.: Discriminating states: the quantum Chernoff bound. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160501 (2007)
Audenaert, K.M.R., Datta, N.: \(\alpha \)-\(z\)-Rényi relative entropies. J. Math. Phys. 56(2), 022202 (2015)
Beigi, S.: Sandwiched Rényi divergence satisfies data processing inequality. J. Math. Phys. 54(12), 122202 (2013)
Bergh, J., Löfström, J.: Interpolation Spaces: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York (1976)
Berta, M., Fawzi, O., Tomamichel, M.: On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies. Lett. Math. Phys. 107(12), 2239–2265 (2017)
Berta, M., Scholz, V.B., Tomamichel, M.: Rényi divergences as weighted non-commutative vector valued \(L_p\)-spaces. Ann. Henri Poincaré 19(6), 1843–1867 (2018)
Bratteli, O., Robinson, D.W.: Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1987)
Buscemi, F., Datta, N.: The quantum capacity of channels with arbitrarily correlated noise. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 56(3), 1447–1460 (2010)
Buscemi, F., Sutter, D., Tomamichel, M.: An information-theoretic treatment of quantum dichotomies. Quantum 3, 209 (2019)
Choi, M.A.: A Schwarz inequality for positive linear maps on \(C^*\)-algebras. Ill. J. Math. 18, 565–574 (1974)
Connes, A.: Classification of injective factors, Cases II\(_1\), II\(_\infty \), III\(_\lambda \), \(\lambda \ne 1\). Ann. Math. (2) 104(1), 73–115 (1976)
Csiszár, I.: Generalized cutoff rates and Rényi’s information measures. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 41(1), 26–34 (1995)
Datta, N.: Min- and max-relative entropies and a new entanglement monotone. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 55(6), 2816–2826 (2009)
Doplicher, S., Kastler, D., Størmer, E.: Invariant states and asymptotic abelianness. J. Funct. Anal. 3, 419–434 (1969)
Elliott, G.A.: On approximately finite-dimensional von Neumann algebras II. Can. Math. Bull. 21(4), 415–418 (1978)
Fack, T., Kosaki, H.: Generalized \(s\)-numbers of \(\tau \)-measurable operators. Pac. J. Math. 123(2), 269–300 (1986)
Frank, R.L., Lieb, E.H.: Monotonicity of a relative Rényi entropy. J. Math. Phys. 54(12), 122201 (2013)
Haagerup, U.: The standard form of von Neumann algebras. Math. Scand. 37(2), 271–283 (1975)
Hayashi, M.: Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 35(50), 10759–10773 (2002)
Hayashi, M.: Error exponent in asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing and its application to classical-quantum channel coding. Phys. Rev. A 76, 062301 (2007)
Hayashi, M., Tomamichel, M.: Correlation detection and an operational interpretation of the Rényi mutual information. J. Math. Phys. 57(10), 102201 (2016)
Hiai, F.: Absolute continuity and disjointness of states in \(C^\ast \)-dynamical systems. J. Oper. Theory 11(2), 319–331 (1984)
Hiai, F.: Equality cases in matrix norm inequalities of Golden-Thompson type. Linear and Multilinear Algebra 36(4), 239–249 (1994)
Hiai, F.: Quantum \(f\)-divergences in von Neumann algebras I. Standard \(f\)-divergences. J. Math. Phys. 59(10), 102202 (2018)
Hiai, F.: Quantum \(f\)-divergences in von Neumann algebras II. Maximal \(f\)-divergences. J. Math. Phys. 60(1), 012203 (2019)
Hiai, F.: Quantum \(f\)-Divergences in von Neumann Algebras: Reversibility of Quantum Operations. Mathematical Physics Studies, Springer, Singapore (2021)
Hiai, F.: Lectures on Selected Topics in Von Neumann Algebras. EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics. EMS Press, Berlin (2021)
Hiai, F., Mosonyi, M.: Different quantum \(f\)-divergences and the reversibility of quantum operations. Rev. Math. Phys. 29(7), 1750023 (2017)
Hiai, F., Mosonyi, M., Ogawa, T.: Error exponents in hypothesis testing for correlated states on a spin chain. J. Math. Phys. 49(3), 032112 (2008)
Hiai, F., Ohya, M., Tsukada, M.: Sufficiency and relative entropy in \(\ast \)-algebras with applications in quantum systems. Pac. J. Math. 107(1), 117–140 (1983)
Hiai, F., Tsukada, M.: Strong martingale convergence of generalized conditional expectations on von Neumann algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 282(2), 791–798 (1984)
Israel, R.B.: Convexity in the Theory of Lattice Gases. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1979)
Jaksic, V., Ogata, Y., Pautrat, Y., Pillet, C.A.: Entropic fluctuations in quantum statistical mechanics. An Introduction. In: Quantum Theory from Small to Large Scales, August 2010. Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School , vol. 95, pp. 213–410, Oxford University Press (2012)
Jaksic, V., Ogata, Y., Pillet, C.A., Seiringer, R.: Quantum hypothesis testing and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. Rev. Math. Phys. 24(6), 1230002 (2012)
Jenčová, A.: Rényi relative entropies and noncommutative \(L_p\)-spaces. Ann. Henri Poincaré 19(8), 2513–2542 (2018)
Jenčová, A.: Rényi relative entropies and noncommutative \(L_p\)-spaces II. Ann. Henri Poincaré 22(10), 3235–3254 (2021)
Junge, M., Laracuente, N.: Multivariate trace inequalities, \(p\)-fidelity, and universal recovery beyond tracial settings arXiv:2009.11866v2 (2021)
Kosaki, H.: Interpolation theory and the Wigner-Yanase-Dyson-Lieb concavity. Commun. Math. Phys. 87(3), 315–329 (1982)
Kosaki, H.: Applications of the complex interpolation method to a von Neumann algebra: non-commutative \(L^p\)-spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 56(1), 29–78 (1984)
Kosaki, H.: Relative entropy of states: a variational expression. J. Oper. Theory 16(2), 335–348 (1986)
Matsumoto, K.: A new quantum version of \(f\)-divergence. In: Reality and Measurement in Algebraic Quantum Theory, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., vol. 261, pp. 229–273. Springer, Singapore (2018)
Mosonyi, M., The strong converse exponent of discriminating infinite-dimensional quantum states. arXiv:2107.08036 (2021)
Mosonyi, M., Hiai, F.: On the quantum Rényi relative entropies and related capacity formulas. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 57(4), 2474–2487 (2011)
Mosonyi, M., Hiai, F.: Test-measured Rényi divergences. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, to appear. arXiv:2201.05477 (2022)
Mosonyi, M., Ogawa, T.: Quantum hypothesis testing and the operational interpretation of the quantum Rényi relative entropies. Commun. Math. Phys. 334(3), 1617–1648 (2015)
Mosonyi, M., Ogawa, T.: Two approaches to obtain the strong converse exponent of quantum hypothesis testing for general sequences of quantum states. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 61(12), 6975–6994 (2015)
Mosonyi, M., Ogawa, T.: Strong converse exponent for classical-quantum channel coding. Commun. Math. Phys. 355(1), 373–426 (2017)
Mosonyi, M., Ogawa, T.: Divergence radii and the strong converse exponent of classical-quantum channel coding with constant compositions. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 67(3), 1668–1698 (2021)
Müller-Lennert, M., Dupuis, F., Szehr, O., Fehr, S., Tomamichel, M.: On quantum Rényi entropies: a new generalization and some properties. J. Math. Phys. 54(12), 122203 (2013)
Nagaoka, H.: Strong converse theorems in quantum information theory. In: Proceedings of ERATO Workshop on Quantum Information Science. page 33 (2001). Also appeared in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference. ed. M. Hayashi, World Scientific (2005)
Nagaoka, H.: The converse part of the theorem for quantum Hoeffding bound. arXiv:quant-ph/0611289 (2016)
Nelson, E.: Notes on non-commutative integration. J. Funct. Anal. 15, 103–116 (1974)
Nussbaum, M., Szkoła, A.: A lower bound of Chernoff type for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing. Ann. Stat. 37(2), 1040–1057 (2009)
Petz, D.: Quasi-entropies for states of a von Neumann algebra. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 21(4), 787–800 (1985)
Petz, D.: Quasi-entropies for finite quantum systems. Rep. Math. Phys. 23(1), 57–65 (1986)
Petz, D.: Sufficiency of channels over von Neumann algebras. Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 39(153), 97–108 (1988)
Petz, D., Ruskai, M.B.: Contraction of generalized relative entropy under stochastic mappings on matrices. Infin. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top. 1(1), 83–89 (1998)
Price, G.: Extremal traces on some group-invariant \(C^*\)-algebras. J. Funct. Anal. 49(2), 145–151 (1982)
Renner, R.: Security of quantum key distribution. In: PhD dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Diss. ETH No. 16242 (2005)
Rényi, A.: On measures of entropy and information. Proc. 4th Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. and Prob. 1, pp. 547–561, Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA (1961)
Sagawa, T., Faist, P., Kato, K., Matsumoto, K., Nagaoka, H., Brandão, F.G.S.L.: Asymptotic reversibility of thermal operations for interacting quantum spin systems via generalized quantum Stein’s lemma. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 54(49), 495303 (2021)
Størmer, E.: Symmetric states of infinite tensor products of \(C^*\)-algebras. J. Funct. Anal. 3, 48–68 (1969)
Sutter, D., Berta, M., Tomamichel, M.: Multivariate trace inequalities. Commun. Math. Phys. 352(1), 37–58 (2017)
Takesaki, M.: Conditional expectations in von Neumann algebras. J. Funct. Anal. 9, 306–321 (1972)
Takesaki, M.: Duality for crossed products and the structure of von Neumann algebras of type III. Acta Math. 131, 249–310 (1973)
Takesaki, M.: Theory of Operator Algebras I. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 124. Springer, Berlin (2002)
Takesaki, M.: Theory of Operator Algebras III. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 127. Springer, Berlin (2003)
Takesaki, M., Winnink, M.: Local normality in quantum statistical mechanics. Commun. Math. Phys. 30, 129–152 (1973)
Terp, M.: \(L^p\) spaces associated with von Neumann algebras. Copenhagen Univ, Notes (1981)
Tomiyama, J.: On the projection of norm one in \(W^*\)-algebras. Proc. Japan Acad. 33, 608–612 (1957)
Umegaki, H.: Conditional expectation in an operator algebra, IV (entropy and information. Kōdai Math. Sem. Rep. 14, 59–85 (1962)
Wang, X., Wilde, M.M.: Resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability. Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033170 (2019)
Wilde, M.M., Winter, A., Yang, D.: Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched Rényi relative entropy. Commun. Math. Phys. 331(2), 593–622 (2014)
Acknowledgements
The work of M.M. was partially funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary via the research grants K124152 and KH129601, and by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology and the National Research, Development and Innovation Office within the Quantum Information National Laboratory of Hungary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Matthias Christandl.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Relative Modular Operators
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be a general von Neumann algebra with the predual \({\mathcal {M}}_*\), and \({\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) be the positive part of \({\mathcal {M}}_*\) consisting of normal positive linear functionals on \({\mathcal {M}}\). We consider \({\mathcal {M}}\) in its standard form \(({\mathcal {M}},{\mathcal {H}},J,{\mathcal {P}})\) [21], that is, \({\mathcal {M}}\) is represented on a Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}\) with the modular conjugation (a conjugate-linear involution) J and the natural cone (a self-dual cone) \({\mathcal {P}}\), satisfying the following properties:
-
(1)
\(JMJ=M'\) (\(M'\) being the commutant of \({\mathcal {M}}\)),
-
(2)
\(JxJ=x^*\), \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\cap {\mathcal {M}}'\) (the center of \({\mathcal {M}}\)),
-
(3)
\(J\xi =\xi \), \(\xi \in {\mathcal {P}}\),
-
(4)
\(xJxJ{\mathcal {P}}\subseteq {\mathcal {P}}\), \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\).
Any von Neumann algebra has a unique (up to unitary conjugation) standard form; see [21, Theorem 2.3]. Any \(\sigma \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) has a unique vector representative \(\xi _\sigma \) in \({\mathcal {P}}\) so that \(\sigma (x)=\langle \xi _\sigma ,x\xi _\sigma \rangle \), \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\). The support \(s(\sigma )=s_{\mathcal {M}}(\sigma )\in {\mathcal {M}}\) of \(\sigma \) is the orthogonal projection onto \(\overline{{\mathcal {M}}'\xi _\sigma }\), while the \({\mathcal {M}}'\)-support \(s_{{\mathcal {M}}'}(\sigma )\in {\mathcal {M}}'\) is the orthogonal projection onto \(\overline{{\mathcal {M}}\xi _\sigma }\) so that \(s_{{\mathcal {M}}'}(\sigma )=Js_{\mathcal {M}}(\sigma )J\).
For any \(\rho ,\sigma \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\), the closable conjugate-linear operators \(S_{\rho ,\sigma }\) and \(F_{\rho ,\sigma }\) are defined by
for which \(S_{\rho ,\sigma }^*={{\overline{F}}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\). The relative modular operator \(\Delta _{\rho ,\sigma }\) [3] is
and the polar decomposition of \({{\overline{S}}}_{\rho ,\sigma }\) is given as \({{\overline{S}}}_{\rho ,\sigma }=J\Delta _{\rho ,\sigma }^{1/2}\). When \(\rho =\sigma \), \(\Delta _{\sigma ,\sigma }\) is the modular operator \(\Delta _\sigma \).
When \({\mathcal {M}}=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\) on a Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}\), consider the Hilbert–Schmidt class \({\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})\) with the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product \(\langle X,Y\rangle _\textrm{HS}:=\textrm{Tr}(X^*Y)\), \(X,Y\in {\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})\); then, the standard form of \(\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\) is given as
where \(\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\) is represented on \({\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})\) by the left multiplications \(L_AX:=AX\) for \(A\in \mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\), \(X\in {\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})\), and \({\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})_+:=\{X\in {\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}}):X\ge 0\}\). Each \(\rho \in \mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})_*^+\) is identified with a trace-class operator \({\hat{\rho }}\ge 0\) so that \(\rho (X)=\textrm{Tr}({\hat{\rho }} X)=\langle {\hat{\rho }}^{1/2},X{\hat{\rho }}^{1/2}\rangle _\textrm{HS}\), \(X\in \mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\), and \({\hat{\rho }}^{1/2}\in {\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})_+\) is the vector representative of \(\rho \). For \(\rho ,\sigma \in \mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})_*^+\), the relative modular operator \(\Delta _{\rho ,\sigma }\) is written as \(\Delta _{\rho ,\sigma }=L_{{\hat{\rho }}}R_{{\hat{\sigma }}^{-1}}\), where \({\hat{\sigma }}^{-1}\) is the generalized inverse (i.e., the inverse with restriction to the support \(s(\sigma ){\mathcal {H}}\)) of \({\hat{\sigma }}\) and \(R_{{\hat{\sigma }}^{-1}}\) is the right multiplication by \({\hat{\sigma }}^{-1}\). Of course, when \(\dim {\mathcal {H}}<+\infty \), we have \({\mathcal {C}}_2({\mathcal {H}})=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\).
Haagerup’s \(L^p\)-spaces
Assume that \({\mathcal {M}}\) is \(\sigma \)-finite, i.e., there exists a faithful \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\). Let us denote by \({\mathcal {N}}\) the crossed product \({\mathcal {M}}\rtimes _\omega {\mathbb {R}}\) of \({\mathcal {M}}\) by the modular automorphism group \(\sigma _t^\omega =\Delta _\omega ^{it}(\cdot )\Delta _\omega ^{-it}\), \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\). Le \(\theta _s\), \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\), be the dual action of \({\mathcal {N}}\) so that \(\tau \circ \theta _s=e^{-s}\tau \), \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\), where \(\tau \) is the canonical trace on \({\mathcal {N}}\); the crossed product construction was developed in the structure theory of von Neumann algebras [68]. Let \({\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}\) denote the space of \(\tau \)-measurable operators [55, 72] affiliated with \({\mathcal {N}}\). For each \(p\in (0,+\infty ]\), Haagerup’s \(L^p\)-space \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) [72] is defined by
(in particular, \(L^\infty ({\mathcal {M}})={\mathcal {M}}\)), whose positive part is \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})_+:=L^p({\mathcal {M}})\cap {\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}_+\). There exists an order isomorphism \({\mathcal {M}}_*\cong L^1({\mathcal {M}})\), given as \(\psi \in {\mathcal {M}}_*\mapsto h_\psi \in L^1({\mathcal {M}})\), so that \(\textrm{tr}(h_\psi ):=\psi ({\textbf{1}})\), \(\psi \in {\mathcal {M}}_*\), defines a positive linear functional \(\textrm{tr}\) on \(L^1({\mathcal {M}})\). For \(1\le p<+\infty \), the \(L^p\)-norm \(\Vert a\Vert _p\) of \(a\in L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) is given by \(\Vert a\Vert _p:=\textrm{tr}(|a|^p)^{1/p}\), and the \(L^\infty \)-norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _\infty \) is the operator norm on \({\mathcal {M}}\). For \(1\le p<+\infty \), \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) is a Banach space with the norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _p\), whose dual Banach space is \(L^q({\mathcal {M}})\), where \(1/p+1/q=1\), by the duality
In particular, \(L^2({\mathcal {M}})\) is a Hilbert space with the inner product \(\langle a,b\rangle =\textrm{tr}(a^*b)\) (\(=\textrm{tr}(ba^*)\)). Then,
becomes a standard form of \({\mathcal {M}}\), where \({\mathcal {M}}\) is represented on \(L^2({\mathcal {M}})\) by the left multiplication. Each \(\rho \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) is represented as
with the vector representative \(h_\rho ^{1/2}\in L^2({\mathcal {M}})_+\). Note that the support projection \(s(\rho )\) (\(\in {\mathcal {M}}\)) of the functional \(\rho \) coincides with that of the operator \(h_\rho \). For any projection \(e\in {\mathcal {M}}\), Haagerup’s \(L^p\)-space \(L^p(e{\mathcal {M}}e)\) is identified with \(eL^p({\mathcal {M}})e\) and the standard form of \(e{\mathcal {M}}e\) is given by \((e{\mathcal {M}}e,eL^2({\mathcal {M}})e,J=\,^*,eL^2({\mathcal {M}})_+e)\).
Note that \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) is independent (up to isometric isomorphism) of the choice of \(\omega \) (where \(\omega \) can be a faithful normal semifinite weight unless \({\mathcal {M}}\) is \(\sigma \)-finite), and that when \({\mathcal {M}}\) is semifinite with a faithful normal semifinite trace \(\tau _0\), \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) can be identified with the tracial \(L^p\)-space \(L^p({\mathcal {M}},\tau _0)\) (see, e.g., [55]). In particular, when \({\mathcal {M}}=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\) with \(\omega =\textrm{Tr}\) (and so \(\Delta _\omega ={\textbf{1}}\)), note that \({\mathcal {N}}={\mathcal {M}}{\overline{\otimes }} L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) on \({\mathcal {H}}\otimes L^2({\mathbb {R}})\) and the canonical trace on \({\mathcal {N}}\) is \(\tau =\textrm{Tr}\otimes \int _{\mathbb {R}}(\cdot )e^t\,dt\), so that \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})={\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\otimes e^{-t/p}\) with \(\Vert X\otimes e^{-t/p}\Vert _{L^p({\mathcal {M}})}=\Vert X\Vert _p\) for \(X\in {\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\). Here, the symbol \(e^{-t/p}\) is used to denote the multiplication operator on \(L^2({\mathbb {R}})\), and \({\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\) is the Schatten–von Neumann p-class with \(\Vert X\Vert _p:=(\textrm{Tr}\,|X|^p)^{1/p}\). Therefore, \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) coincides with \({\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\) by just neglecting the superfluous tensor factor \(e^{-t/p}\); see [30, Remark 8.16, Example 9.11] for more details on this matter.
It might be instructive to note that Haagerup’s \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) is different from the tracial \(L^p\)-space \(L^p({\mathcal {N}},\tau )\) with the canonical trace \(\tau \), even when \({\mathcal {M}}=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\). In this case, \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})={\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\otimes e^{-t/p}\) as stated above, and for every \(X\in {\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})\),
unless \(X=0\). However, in the general case of \({\mathcal {M}}\), the exact relation of elements in \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) with the canonical trace \(\tau \) on \({\mathcal {N}}\) is expressed as follows: for every \(a\in L^p({\mathcal {M}})\) and \(p\in (0,+\infty )\),
where \(\mu _t(a)\) is the tth generalized s-number of a with respect to \(\tau \); see [19, Lemma 4.8] and [30, Lemma 9.14]. The above expression is sometimes useful though it is not used in this paper.
Kosaki’s Interpolation \(L^p\)-spaces
Assume that \({\mathcal {M}}\) is \(\sigma \)-finite and let a faithful \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) be given with \(h_{\omega }\in L^1({\mathcal {M}})_+\). Consider an embedding \({\mathcal {M}}\) into \(L^1({\mathcal {M}})\) by \(x\mapsto h_\omega ^{1/2}xh_\omega ^{1/2}\). Defining \(\Vert h_\omega ^{1/2}xh_\omega ^{1/2}\Vert _\infty :=\Vert x\Vert _\infty \) on \(h_\omega ^{1/2}{\mathcal {M}}h_\omega ^{1/2}\), we have a pair \((h_\omega ^{1/2}{\mathcal {M}}h_\omega ^{1/2},L^1({\mathcal {M}}))\) of compatible Banach spaces (see, e.g., [7]). For \(1<p<+\infty \) Kosaki’s (symmetric) \(L^p\)-space \(L^p({\mathcal {M}},\omega )\) [42] with respect to \(\omega \) is the complex interpolation Banach space
equipped with the interpolation norm \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p,\omega }\) (\(=\left\| \cdot \right\| _{C_{1/p}}\)) [7]. Moreover, \(L^1({\mathcal {M}},\omega ):=L^1({\mathcal {M}})\) with \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{1,\omega }=\left\| \cdot \right\| _1\) and \(L^\infty ({\mathcal {M}},\omega ):=h_\omega ^{1/2}{\mathcal {M}}h_\omega ^{1/2}\) (\(\cong {\mathcal {M}}\)) with \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{\infty ,\omega }=\left\| \cdot \right\| _\infty \). Kosaki’s theorem [42, Theorem 9.1] says that for every \(p\in [1,+\infty ]\) and \(1/p+1/q=1\),
that is, \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\cong L^p({\mathcal {M}},\omega )\) by the isometry \(a\mapsto h_\omega ^{1\over 2q}ah_\omega ^{1\over 2q}\). Interpolation \(L^p\)-spaces were introduced in [42] in terms of more general embeddings \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\mapsto h_\omega ^\eta xh_\omega ^{1-\eta }\in L^1({\mathcal {M}})\) with \(0\le \eta \le 1\). (The \(\eta =1/2\) case is the above symmetric \(L^1({\mathcal {M}},\omega )\).) When \({\mathcal {M}}\) is general and \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) is not faithful with the support projection \(e:=s(\omega )\in {\mathcal {M}}\), Kosaki’s \(L^p\)-space \(L^p({\mathcal {M}},\omega )\) with respect to \(\omega \) is still defined over \(e{\mathcal {M}}e\) so that (C.1) and (C.2) hold with \(eL^p({\mathcal {M}})e\) in place of \(L^p({\mathcal {M}})\).
Consider now the special case \({\mathcal {M}}=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\), and let \(\omega \in \mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})_*^+\) be given with \(e:=s(\omega )\) and \({\hat{\omega }}\in {\mathcal {C}}_1({\mathcal {H}})_+\) representing \(\omega \). When \(1\le p\le +\infty \) and \(1/p+1/q=1\), Kosaki’s \(L^p\)-space with respect to \(\omega \) is \(L^p(\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}}),\omega )={\hat{\omega }}^{1\over 2q}{\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}}){\hat{\omega }}^{1\over 2q}\) with \(\Vert {\hat{\omega }}^{1\over 2q}A{\hat{\omega }}^{1\over 2q}\Vert _{p,\omega }=\Vert A\Vert _p\) for \(A\in e{\mathcal {C}}_p({\mathcal {H}})e\) (where \({\mathcal {C}}_\infty ({\mathcal {H}})=\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})\)). In particular, when \(\dim {\mathcal {H}}<+\infty \), \(L^p(\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}}),\omega )=e\mathcal {B}({\mathcal {H}})e=\mathcal {B}(e{\mathcal {H}})\) and the interpolation \(L^p\)-norm is \(\Vert A\Vert _{p,\omega }=\Vert {\hat{\omega }}^{-{1\over 2q}}A{\hat{\omega }}^{-{1\over 2q}}\Vert _p\) for any \(A\in \mathcal {B}(e{\mathcal {H}})\). The interpolation norm in the finite-dimensional case was used in [6] for instance.
Generalized Conditional Expectations
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) and \({\mathcal {N}}\) be (\(\sigma \)-finite) von Neumann algebras, with standard forms \(({\mathcal {M}},{\mathcal {H}},J,{\mathcal {P}})\) and \(({\mathcal {N}},{\mathcal {H}}_0,J_0,{\mathcal {P}}_0)\), respectively (see Appendix A). Let \(\Phi :{\mathcal {N}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {M}}\) be a unital positive map. Let a faithful \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) be given, and assume that \(\omega \circ \Phi \) is normal and faithful on \({\mathcal {N}}\). In this case, \(\Phi \) is automatically normal and faithful (i.e., \(\Phi (x^*x)=0\) \(\implies \) \(x=0\)). Then, it was shown in [1] that there exists a unique unital normal positive map \(\Phi _\omega ^*:{\mathcal {M}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}\) such that
where \(\Omega \in {\mathcal {P}}\) and \(\Omega _0\in {\mathcal {P}}_0\) are the vector representatives of \(\omega \) and \(\omega \circ \Phi \), respectively. The map \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) is also faithful. Moreover, we have
and \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) is completely positive if and only if so is \(\Phi \). This map \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) is called the \(\omega \)-dual map of \(\Phi \), or the Petz recovery map (see [59]), whose definition by (D.1) is independent of the choice of the standard forms of \({\mathcal {M}},{\mathcal {N}}\). In terms of Haagerup’s \(L^1\)-elements \(h_\omega \) and \(h_{\omega \circ \Phi }\) (see Appendix B), we note [29, Lemma 8.3] that the map \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) is determined by
where \(\Phi _*:L^1({\mathcal {M}})\rightarrow L^1({\mathcal {N}})\) is the predual map of \(\Phi \) via \({\mathcal {M}}_*\cong L^1({\mathcal {M}})\) and \({\mathcal {N}}_*\cong L^1({\mathcal {N}})\), i.e., \(\Phi _*(h_\psi )=h_{\psi \circ \Phi }\), \(\psi \in {\mathcal {M}}_*\). Note that the construction of \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) is possible even when \(\omega \) and/or \(\omega \circ \Phi \) are not faithful (see [29, Theorem 6.1 and Lemma 8.3]), though the above setting is sufficient for our present purpose.
In particular, let \({\mathcal {N}}\) be a von Neumann subalgebra of \({\mathcal {M}}\) containing the unit of \({\mathcal {M}}\), and \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) be faithful. The \(\omega \)-dual map \(\Phi _\omega ^*\) of the injection \(\Phi :{\mathcal {N}}\hookrightarrow {\mathcal {M}}\) is called the generalized conditional expectation with respect to \(\omega \) [1], which we denote by \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }:{\mathcal {M}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}\). The map \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }\) is unital, normal, completely positive, and faithful. Property (D.2) becomes
In the present case, the standard Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}_0\) for \({\mathcal {N}}\) is taken as \({\mathcal {H}}_0=\overline{{\mathcal {N}}\Omega }\), where the vector representative \(\Omega _0\) of \(\omega \circ \Phi =\omega |_{\mathcal {N}}\) is equal to \(\Omega \). Let P be the orthogonal projection from \({\mathcal {H}}=\overline{{\mathcal {M}}\Omega }\) onto \({\mathcal {H}}_0=\overline{{\mathcal {N}}\Omega }\). In this situation, note [1] that \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }=\Phi _\omega ^*\) given in (D.1) and (D.3) can be written more explicitly as
which is also determined by \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }(x)\Omega =J_0PJx\Omega \), \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\). As is well known [67], there exists a (genuine) conditional expectation (i.e., a norm-one projection) \(E:{\mathcal {M}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}\) such that \(\omega \circ E=\omega \) on \({\mathcal {M}}\), if and only if \({\mathcal {N}}\) is globally invariant under the modular automorphism group \(\sigma _t^\omega \) (see Appendix B) of \({\mathcal {M}}\) with respect to \(\omega \), i.e., \(\sigma _t^\omega ({\mathcal {N}})={\mathcal {N}}\), \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\). If this is the case, \(J_0=J|_{{\mathcal {H}}_0}\) and \(JP=PJ\) hold so that \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }=E\). An important property of E is the bimodule property \(E(axb)=aE(x)b\) for \(a,b\in {\mathcal {N}}\) and \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\), which \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }\) does not satisfy in general. A merit of \({\mathcal {E}}_{{\mathcal {N}},\omega }\) is that it always exists, while the existence of E is very restrictive as stated above.
Injective von Neumann Algebras and Nuclear \(C^*\)-algebras
A von Neumann algebra \({\mathcal {M}}\) on a Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}\) is injective if and only if there exists a (not necessarily normal) conditional expectation (i.e., a projection of norm one [73]) from \({\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}})\) onto \({\mathcal {M}}\); see, e.g., [70, Corollary XV.1.3]. A fundamental result of Connes [14] (see also [70, Theorem XVI.1.9]) says that a von Neumann algebra \({\mathcal {M}}\) of separable predual is injective if and only if \({\mathcal {M}}\) is AFD (approximately finite dimensional), i.e., there exists an increasing sequence \(\{{\mathcal {M}}_j\}_{j=1}^\infty \) of finite-dimensional *-subalgebras of \({\mathcal {M}}\) such that \({\mathcal {M}}=\bigl (\bigcup _{j=1}^\infty {\mathcal {M}}_j\bigr )''\). In [18], the result was furthermore extended in such a way that a (general) von Neumann algebra \({\mathcal {M}}\) is injective if and only if there is an increasing net \(\{{\mathcal {M}}_i\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\) of finite-dimensional *-subalgebras of \({\mathcal {M}}\) with \({\mathcal {M}}=\bigl (\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}{\mathcal {M}}_i\bigr )''\). (Here, \({\mathcal {A}}''\) denotes the double commutant, i.e., the commutant of \({\mathcal {A}}'\), for any \({\mathcal {A}}\subseteq {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}})\).)
Next, a \(C^*\)-algebra \({\mathcal {A}}\) is said to be nuclear if, for every \(C^*\)-algebra \({\mathcal {B}}\), there is a unique \(C^*\)-cross-norm on \({\mathcal {A}}\odot {\mathcal {B}}\), i.e., \({\mathcal {A}}\otimes _{\min }{\mathcal {B}}={\mathcal {A}}\otimes _{\max }{\mathcal {B}}\); see, e.g., [70, Chap. XV]. Concerning nuclear \(C^*\)-algebras, among many others, the most fundamental result is that \({\mathcal {A}}\) is nuclear if and only if \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) is injective. Here, \({\mathcal {A}}^{*}\) denotes the Banach space dual of \({\mathcal {A}}\), and \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) the second Banach space dual of \({\mathcal {A}}\). Note that \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) is isometrically isomorphic to the universally enveloping von Neumann algebra of \({\mathcal {A}}\), and so it is customary to use \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) to denote the latter as well; see [69, Sect. III.2]. Therefore, if \({\mathcal {A}}\) is nuclear, then \(\pi ({\mathcal {A}})''\) is injective for every representation \(\pi \) of \({\mathcal {A}}\). Typical examples of nuclear \(C^*\)-algebras are AF \(C^*\)-algebras, in particular, the compact operator ideal \({\mathcal {C}}({\mathcal {H}})\) (or rather \({\mathcal {C}}({\mathcal {H}})+{\mathbb {C}}\textbf{1}\) in our present setting; see Example 4.6). Here, recall that a \(C^*\)-algebra \({\mathcal {A}}\) is AF if there exists an increasing sequence \(\{{\mathcal {A}}_k\}_{k=1}^\infty \) of finite-dimensional *-subalgebras of \({\mathcal {A}}\) such that \(\bigcup _{k=1}^\infty {\mathcal {A}}_k\) is norm-dense in \({\mathcal {A}}\). More intricate examples are provided by groups. For a discrete group G, the \(C^*\)-algebra generated by the left regular representation on \(\ell ^2(G)\) is the (reduced) group \(C^*\)-algebra \(C_r^*(G)\), while the generated von Neumann algebra is the group von Neumann algebra \(W^*(G)\). Then, G is amenable \(\iff \) \(C_r^*(G)\) is nuclear \(\iff \) \(W^*(G)\) is injective.
Strong Converse Exponent in the Finite-Dimensional Case
In this appendix, we assume that a von Neumann algebra \({\mathcal {M}}\) is finite-dimen-sional, so \({\mathcal {M}}\subseteq {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}})\) with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}\). Note that \({\mathcal {M}}\) is isomorphic to \(\bigoplus _{i=1}^m{\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}}_i)\), a finite direct sum of finite-dimensional \({\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}}_i)\), so it is clear that all the arguments in [48] are valid with \({\mathcal {M}}\) in place of \({\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {H}})\). Let \(\textrm{Tr}\) be the usual trace on \({\mathcal {M}}\) (such that \(\textrm{Tr}(e)=1\) of all minimal projections \(e\in {\mathcal {M}}\)). Below, to designate states of \({\mathcal {M}}\), we use density operators \(\rho ,\sigma \) with respect to \(\textrm{Tr}\) rather than positive functionals. Recall that both of the relative entropy \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) and the max-relative entropy \(D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) showing up in (2.4)–(2.6) play an important role to describe \(\psi (s):=\psi ^*(\rho \Vert \sigma |s+1)\) and \(H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) in [48, Sect. 4].
The aim of this appendix is to give Proposition F.2, which is used in Sect. 3.2. The main assertion is that for finite-dimensional density operators we have \(sc_r^0(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), \(r\ge 0\), which in turn can be obtained easily from the weaker inequalities \(sc_r(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), \(r\ge 0\). The latter was proved in [48]; however, the proof contains a gap, as it is implicitly assumed there that \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )<D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )\). Our main contribution in Proposition F.2 is filling this gap; for this, we give a characterization of the case \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )=D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), which may be of independent interest.
Lemma F.1
For density operators \(\rho ,\sigma \) in \({\mathcal {M}}\) with \(s(\rho )\le s(\sigma )\), the following conditions are equivalent:
-
(a)
\(s\mapsto \psi (s):=\psi ^*(\rho \Vert \sigma |s+1)\) is affine on \((0,+\infty )\);
-
(b)
\(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )=D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )\);
-
(c)
\(\rho \) and \(\sigma \) commute, and \(\rho \sigma ^{-1}=\gamma s(\rho )\) for some constant \(\gamma >0\);
-
(d)
\(s(\rho )\sigma =\sigma s(\rho )\) and \(\rho =\gamma \sigma s(\rho )\) for some constant \(\gamma >0\).
Moreover, if the above hold, then we have \(\gamma \ge 1\), \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )=\log \gamma \) and
Proof
(a)\(\iff \)(b). Since \(\psi (s)\) is a differentiable convex function on \([0,+\infty )\), this is clear from [48, Lemma 4.2].
(b)\(\implies \)(c). Consider \(D_2(\rho \Vert \sigma ):=\log \textrm{Tr}\rho ^2\sigma ^{-1}\), the standard (or Petz-type) Rényi 2-divergence of \(\rho ,\sigma \). Note that
where the first inequality is seen from the properties noted in Sect. 2, the second is due to the Araki–Lieb–Thirring inequality, and the last was shown in [11, Lemma 7]. Hence, (b) implies that \(D_2^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )=D_2(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), i.e.,
Using [26, Theorem 2.1], we find that \(\rho ,\sigma \) commute. Hence, (a) says that \(\psi (s)=\log \textrm{Tr}\,\rho ^{s+1}\sigma ^{-s}\) is affine on \((0,+\infty )\). From [32, Lemma 3.2] for the commutative case, it follows that \(\rho \sigma ^{-1}=\gamma s(\rho )\), implying (c).
(c)\(\implies \)(d) is obvious.
(d)\(\implies \)(b). From condition (c), it easily follows that \(\gamma \ge 1\) and \(D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )=\log \gamma \). Moreover, since
(b) follows.
Finally, if (b) and hence (a) hold, then \(\psi (s)=D(\rho \Vert \sigma )s\) for all \(s>0\), from which (F.1) follows immediately. \(\square \)
The next proposition is used in the proof of Theorem 3.7, while the former is a specialized case of the latter.
Proposition F.2
For every density operators \(\rho ,\sigma \) in \({\mathcal {M}}\) with \(s(\rho )\le s(\sigma )\) and any \(r\ge 0\), we have
Proof
Since \(sc_r^0(\rho \Vert \sigma )\ge {\underline{sc}}_r(\rho \Vert \sigma )\ge H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), where the second inequality is by [48, Lemma 4.7], it suffices to prove that \(sc_r^0(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), \(r\ge 0\). Moreover, the last inequality follows if we can prove that \(sc_r(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), \(r\ge 0\), since then
where the first inequality is obvious by definition, the second inequality is to be proved below, and the equality follows from the fact that \(r\mapsto H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) is a monotone increasing finite-valued convex function on \({\mathbb {R}}\), whence it is also continuous.
Let us therefore prove \(sc_r(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^*(\rho \Vert \sigma )\), \(r\ge 0\). The proof of [48, Theorem 4.10] gives this when \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )<D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )\). Assume thus that \(D(\rho \Vert \sigma )=D_{\max }(\rho \Vert \sigma )=:D\). For any \(r\ge 0\), the test sequence \(T_{n,r}:=e^{-n(r-D)_+}s(\rho )^{\otimes n}\), \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), yields
where the last equality is by (F.1), and
where we have used that \(\sigma s(\rho )=e^{-D}\rho \) by Lemma F.1. This proves \(sc_r(\rho \Vert \sigma )\le H_r^{*}(\rho \Vert \sigma )\). \(\square \)
Boundary Values of Convex Functions on (0, 1)
Let \(\{\phi _i\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\) be a set of convex functions on (0, 1) with values in \((-\infty ,+\infty ]\). Define
which is obviously convex on (0, 1) with values in \((-\infty ,+\infty ]\). We extend \(\phi _i\) and \(\phi \) to [0, 1] by continuity as
We then give the next lemma to use it in the proof of Theorem 3.7.
Lemma G.1
In the situation stated above, if \(\phi (u)<+\infty \) for some \(u\in (0,1)\), then
Proof
By assumption, we have a \(u_0\in (0,1)\) with \(\phi (u_0)<+\infty \). Obviously, \(\phi _i(0)\le \phi (0)\) and \(\phi _i(1)\le \phi (1)\) for all \(i\in {\mathcal {I}}\). Hence, it suffices to show that \(\phi (0)\le \sup _i\phi _i(0)\) and \(\phi (1)\le \sup _i\phi _i(1)\). Let us prove the first inequality (the proof of the latter is similar). Set \(\xi :=\sup _i\phi _i(0)\). If \(\xi =+\infty \), the assertion holds trivially. So assume \(\xi <+\infty \). By convexity, for every \(i\in {\mathcal {I}}\) we have
so that
This implies that \(\phi (0)\le \xi =\sup _i\phi _i(0)\). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 4.3
Let \(\rho ,\sigma \in {\mathcal {A}}_+^*\) and \(\pi \) be any \((\rho ,\sigma )\)-normal representation of \({\mathcal {A}}\) with \({\tilde{\rho }}=\rho _\pi \) and \({\tilde{\sigma }}=\sigma _\pi \), the normal extensions to \({\mathcal {M}}:=\pi ({\mathcal {A}})''\). Also, let \({\overline{\rho }},{\overline{\sigma }}\) be the normal extensions of \(\rho ,\sigma \) to the enveloping von Neumann algebra \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) and \({\overline{\pi }}:{\mathcal {A}}^{**}\rightarrow {\mathcal {M}}\) be the normal extension of \(\pi \) to \({\mathcal {A}}^{**}\) (see [69, p. 121]). Let \(s({\overline{\pi }})\) be the support projection of \({\overline{\pi }}\). Concerning the support projections \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\) and \(s({\overline{\rho }})\), we have \(s({\tilde{\rho }})={\overline{\pi }}(s({\overline{\rho }}))\) with \(s({\overline{\rho }})\le s({\overline{\pi }})\). Therefore, \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\) is equivalent to \(s({\overline{\rho }})\le s({\overline{\sigma }})\). This means that the condition \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\) is independent of the choice of a representation \(\pi \) as above. (The condition is called the absolute continuity of \(\rho \) with respect to \(\sigma \) [25].)
Now, let \({\hat{\pi }}\) be another \((\rho ,\sigma )\)-normal representation of \({\mathcal {A}}\) with \({\hat{\rho }}:=\rho _{{\hat{\pi }}}\) and \({\hat{\sigma }}:=\sigma _{{\hat{\pi }}}\), the normal extensions to \({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}:={\hat{\pi }}({\mathcal {A}})''\). The next lemma is a main ingredient of the proof of Theorem 4.3.
Lemma H.1
In the situation stated above, assume that \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\) (hence \(s({\hat{\rho }})\le s({\hat{\sigma }})\) as well). Let \(z_0,{\hat{z}}_0\) denote the central supports of \(s({\tilde{\sigma }}),s({\hat{\sigma }})\), respectively. Then, there exists an isomorphism \(\Lambda :{\mathcal {M}}z_0\rightarrow {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\) for which we have
and for every \(p\in [1,+\infty )\),
where \(h_{{\tilde{\sigma }}}\in L^1({\mathcal {M}})_+\) and \(h_{{\hat{\sigma }}}\in L^1({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}})_+\) are Haagerup’s \(L^1\)-elements corresponding to \({\tilde{\sigma }}\in {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) and \({\hat{\sigma }}\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}_*^+\), respectively.
Proof
We will work in the standard forms
For brevity, we write
Below the proof is divided into several steps.
Step 1. Note that
and for every \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\),
Hence, \(\{\pi (\cdot )e_0',e_0'L^2({\mathcal {M}}),k_0^{1/2}\}\) is the cyclic representation of \({\mathcal {A}}\) with respect to \(\sigma \), and similarly \(\{{\hat{\pi }}(\cdot ){\hat{e}}_0',{\hat{e}}_0'L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}),{\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\}\) is the same. By the uniqueness (up to unitary conjugation) of the cyclic representation, there exists a unitary \(V:L^2({\mathcal {M}})e_0\rightarrow L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{e}}_0\) such that
We hence have an isomorphism \(V\cdot V^*:{\mathcal {M}}e_0'\rightarrow {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{e}}_0'\).
Step 2. Since \(z_0\) is the central support of \(e_0'\), note that \(xz_0\in {\mathcal {M}}z_0\mapsto xe_0'\in {\mathcal {M}}e_0'\) (\(x\in {\mathcal {M}}\)) is an isomorphism, and similarly so is \({\hat{x}}{\hat{z}}_0\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\mapsto {\hat{x}}{\hat{e}}_0'\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{e}}_0'\) (\({\hat{x}}\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}\)). Hence, one can define an isomorphism \(\Lambda :{\mathcal {M}}z_0\rightarrow {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\) as follows:
Note [21, Lemma 2.6] that the standard forms of \({\mathcal {M}}z_0\) and \({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\) are, respectively, given by
By the uniqueness (up to unitary conjugation) of the standard form (under isomorphism) [21, Theorem 2.3], there exists a unitary \(U:L^2({\mathcal {M}})z_0\rightarrow L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{z}}_0\) such that
Step 3. Since \(s(h_0)\le e_0\le z_0\) by assumption, one has \(h_0^{1/2},k_0^{1/2}\in L^2({\mathcal {M}})z_0\), and similarly \({\hat{h}}_0^{1/2},{\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\in L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{z}}_0\). By (H.7) one has \(Uh_0^{1/2},Uk_0^{1/2}\in L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}})_+{\hat{z}}_0\). Here, we confirm that
To show this, for every \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) we find that
which implies that \(Uh_0^{1/2}={\hat{h}}_0^{1/2}\). The proof of \(Uk_0^{1/2}={\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\) is similar. By (H.5) and (H.8), we have also
These imply (H.1). Furthermore, by (H.8) and (H.9) we have \(\Lambda (e_0){\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}=Uk_0^{1/2}={\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\), from which \(\Lambda (e_0)\ge {\hat{e}}_0\) follows. Applying the same argument to \(\Lambda ^{-1}({\hat{x}})=U^*{\hat{x}}U\) (\({\hat{x}}\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\)) with \(k_0^{1/2},{\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\) exchanged gives \(\Lambda ^{-1}({\hat{e}}_0)\ge e_0\) as well. Therefore,
Step 4. We define
by transforming \(\psi \in ({\mathcal {M}}z_0)_*\mapsto \psi \circ \Lambda ^{-1}\in ({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)_*\) via \(L^1({\mathcal {M}}z_0)\cong ({\mathcal {M}}z_0)_*\) and \(L^1({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)\cong ({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)_*\), that is, \((\Lambda ^{-1})_*:h_\psi \in L^1({\mathcal {M}}z_0)\mapsto h_{\psi \circ \Lambda ^{-1}}\in L^1({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)\) for \(\psi \in ({\mathcal {M}}z_0)_*\). Of course, \((\Lambda ^{-1})_*\) is an isometry with respect to \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _1\). Now, Kosaki’s (symmetric) interpolation \(L^p\)-spaces enter into our discussions. Here, we confirm that
Indeed, for every \(x,y\in {\mathcal {M}}z_0\) we find that
which yields (H.11).
Step 5. Thanks to (H.11) we see that the isometry \((\Lambda ^{-1})_*:L^1({\mathcal {M}}z_0)\rightarrow L^1({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)\) with respect to \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _1\) is restricted to an isometry from \(k_0^{1/2}({\mathcal {M}}z_0)k_0^{1/2}\) (embedded into \(L^1({\mathcal {M}}z_0)\)) onto \({\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0){\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\) (embedded into \(L^1({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0)\)) with respect to \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _\infty \), i.e.,
By Kosaki’s construction in [42] (or the Riesz–Thorin theorem), it follows that \((\Lambda ^{-1})_*\) gives rise to an isometry
with respect to the interpolation norms \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p,{\tilde{\sigma }}}\) and \(\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p,{\hat{\sigma }}}\) for any \(p\in [1,+\infty )\). For every \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}z_0\), applying this to \(k_0^{1/2}xk_0^{1/2}\) with (H.11) gives
By [42, Theorem 9.1], for every \(p\in [1,+\infty )\) the above equality is rephrased as Haagerup’s \(L^p\)-norm equality
which is (H.2), as asserted. \(\square \)
We are now in a position to prove Theorem 4.3.
Proof of (i)
We use the variational expressions in Proposition 2.3 based on Lemma H.1. Assume first that \(\alpha >1\). If \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\not \le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\), then \(s({\hat{\rho }})\not \le s({\hat{\sigma }})\) (as mentioned at the beginning of this appendix) so that both of \(D_\alpha ^*({\tilde{\rho }}\Vert {\tilde{\sigma }})\) and \(D_\alpha ^*({\hat{\rho }}\Vert {\hat{\sigma }})\) are \(+\infty \). Hence, we assume that \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\) (and \(s({\hat{\rho }})\le s({\hat{\sigma }})\)). Using (2.7), we have
Next, assume that \(1/2\le \alpha <1\). When \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\), we use (2.8) as above to have
For general \(\rho ,\sigma \in {\mathcal {A}}_+^*\), let \(\sigma _\varepsilon :=\sigma +\varepsilon \rho \) for any \(\varepsilon >0\). Then, \(\sigma _\varepsilon \) has the normal extensions \({\tilde{\sigma }}_\varepsilon ={\tilde{\sigma }}+\varepsilon {\tilde{\rho }}\) to \({\mathcal {M}}\) and \({\hat{\sigma }}_\varepsilon ={\hat{\sigma }}+\varepsilon {\hat{\rho }}\) to \({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}\). The above case yields \(Q_\alpha ^*({\tilde{\rho }}\Vert {\tilde{\sigma }}_\varepsilon )=Q_\alpha ^*({\hat{\rho }}\Vert {\hat{\sigma }}_\varepsilon )\) for all \(\varepsilon >0\). From the continuity of \(Q_\alpha ^*\) on \({\mathcal {M}}_*^+\times {\mathcal {M}}_*^+\) in the norm topology when \(1/2\le \alpha <1\) (see [29, Theorem 3.16 (3)]), letting \(\varepsilon \searrow 0\) gives \(Q_\alpha ^*({\tilde{\rho }}\Vert {\tilde{\sigma }})=Q_\alpha ^*({\hat{\rho }}\Vert {\hat{\sigma }})\), implying (4.4).
Proof of (ii)
Assume first that \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\) (hence, \(s({\hat{\rho }})\le s({\hat{\sigma }})\)). Below let us use the same symbols as in the proof of Lemma H.1. Recall [3] that the relative modular operator \(\Delta _{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}\) is defined as \(\Delta _{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}:=S_{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}^*\overline{S_{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}}\), where \(S_{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}\) is a closable conjugate linear operator defined by
Similarly, \(\Delta _{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}:=S_{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}^*\overline{S_{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}}\) is given, where
Since \(s(h_0)\le e_0\le z_0\), we can consider \(S_{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}\) and \(\Delta _{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}\) as operators on \(L^2({\mathcal {M}})z_0\) (they are zero operators on \((L^2({\mathcal {M}})z_0)^\perp \)). Similarly, \(S_{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}\) and \(\Delta _{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}\) are considered on \(L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{z}}_0\). Let us use an isomorphism \(\Lambda :{\mathcal {M}}z_0\rightarrow {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\) and a unitary \(U:L^2({\mathcal {M}})z_0\rightarrow L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{z}}_0\). Since \(\overline{{\mathcal {M}}k_0^{1/2}}=L^2({\mathcal {M}})e_0\) and \(\overline{{\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}}=L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{e}}_0\), it follows from (H.9) that \(U(L^2({\mathcal {M}})e_0)=L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{e}}_0\) and hence, \(U((L^2({\mathcal {M}})e_0)^\perp )=(L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{e}}_0)^\perp \). For every \({\hat{x}}=\Lambda (x)\in {\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}{\hat{z}}_0\) (with \(x\in {\mathcal {M}}z_0\)) and \({\hat{\zeta }}\in (L^2({\hat{{\mathcal {M}}}}){\hat{e}}_0)^\perp \), we find that
This implies that \(S_{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}=US_{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}U^*\) and hence, \(\Delta _{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}=U\Delta _{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}U^*\). Therefore, for every \(\alpha \in [0,+\infty )\), \({\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\) is in \({\mathcal {D}}(\Delta _{{\hat{\rho }},{\hat{\sigma }}}^{\alpha /2})\) if and only if \(k_0^{1/2}=U^*{\hat{k}}_0^{1/2}\) is in \({\mathcal {D}}(\Delta _{{\tilde{\rho }},{\tilde{\sigma }}}^{\alpha /2})\), and in this case,
Otherwise, \(Q_\alpha ({\tilde{\rho }}\Vert {\tilde{\sigma }})=Q_\alpha ({\hat{\rho }}\Vert {\hat{\sigma }})=+\infty \).
Next, assume that \(s({\tilde{\rho }})\not \le s({\tilde{\sigma }})\), equivalently \(s({\hat{\rho }})\not \le s({\hat{\sigma }})\). Then, \(Q_\alpha ({\tilde{\rho }}\Vert {\tilde{\sigma }})=Q_\alpha ({\hat{\rho }}\Vert {\hat{\sigma }})=+\infty \) for \(\alpha >1\). When \(0\le \alpha <1\), let \(\sigma _\varepsilon :=\sigma +\varepsilon \rho \) for every \(\varepsilon >0\). The above case yields
implying (4.5), where the continuity of \(Q_\alpha \) in the second variable holds for \(0\le \alpha <1\). \(\square \)
Remark H.2
The notion of standard f-divergences \(S_f(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) with a parametrization of operator convex functions f on \((0,+\infty )\) has been studied in [27] in the von Neumann algebra setting. From the above proof of (ii), we observe that \(S_f(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) can be extended to \(\rho ,\sigma \in {\mathcal {A}}_+^*\) as
independently of the choice of a \((\rho ,\sigma )\)-normal representation \(\pi \) of \({\mathcal {A}}\). Then, we can easily extend properties of \(S_f(\rho \Vert \sigma )\) given in [27] to the \(C^*\)-algebra setting (like Proposition 4.5 for the sandwiched and the standard Rényi divergences).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hiai, F., Mosonyi, M. Quantum Rényi Divergences and the Strong Converse Exponent of State Discrimination in Operator Algebras. Ann. Henri Poincaré 24, 1681–1724 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-022-01250-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-022-01250-5
Keywords
- Quantum Rényi divergence
- Injective von Neumann algebra
- Nuclear \(C^*\)-algebra
- Martingale convergence
- State discrimination
- Quantum hypothesis testing
- Strong converse exponent