Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-generatedProof: AI-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

A uniform transpose-fidelity bound for the one-decay channel

Statement

Let C:L(C2)→L(C3) be a channel such that C(I2)=2I3/3 and C(Z)=diag⁡(1/3,−2/3,1/3), with Z=diag⁡(1,−1). Let T be its transpose recovery for the full logical code I2. Then Fe(TC)≥3/8. More precisely, if C∗ denotes the adjoint for the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product ⟨A,B⟩HS=Tr⁡(A†B) and Q0=I2/2, Q1=Z/2, Q2=(0110)/2, Q3=(0−ii0)/2, then TC=32C∗C,Fe(TC)=38∑j=03∥C(Qj)∥HS2≥38. Here ∥A∥HS2=Tr⁡(A†A) is the sum of squared entry moduli.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

For code I2 the transpose map has Kraus maps Ka†C(I2)−1/2, with no output-support ambiguity when C(I2) is positive definite. Transpose (Petz) recovery on a code

[F2]

The qubit entanglement fidelity is the maximally entangled overlap and is linear in the recovered channel. Entanglement fidelity on a finite logical space

[F3]

Use finite matrix units, adjoints and ordered tensor coordinates. Finite operator and ket conventions

[F4]

A finite-dimensional channel has a finite Kraus representation C(X)=∑KaXKa† with normalized adjoint-product sum. Finite channel, Kraus, Choi, and Stinespring equivalence

[F5]

For compatible finite rectangular matrices A∈Me×d(C) and B∈Md×e(C), the diagonal-sum trace satisfies Tr⁡e(AB)=Tr⁡d(BA); in particular, square matrix trace is cyclic. Finite matrix trace cyclicity and nondegeneracy

Proof

Given: The channel, its two specified output matrices and the full logical code.

Goal: Obtain a positive-square expression for its recovered fidelity and a uniform lower bound.

1.1givenF1F3F4F5algebra

Choose a finite Kraus representation by [F4]. Its Hilbert–Schmidt adjoint is C∗(Y)=∑aKa†YKa, since rectangular trace cyclicity in [F5] verifies the defining adjoint identity entrywise. Because C(I2)−1/2=3/2I3, the transpose formula [F1] gives T(Y)=(3/2)C∗(Y). Hence E:=TC=(3/2)C∗C and ⟨Q,E(Q)⟩HS=(3/2)∥C(Q)∥HS2 for every matrix Q.

2.1F2F3F5step 1.1algebra

Expanding the qubit maximally entangled projector in matrix units Eab=∣a⟩⟨b∣ in [F2] gives Fe(E)=14∑a,bTr⁡(Eab†E(Eab)). The sum is unchanged under any orthonormal change of matrix basis: substituting its unitary coefficient matrix makes the cross coefficients collapse to Kronecker deltas. The four stated Qj are an orthonormal basis, as multiplication of their entries verifies. Thus Fe(E)=14∑j⟨Qj,E(Qj)⟩HS=38∑j∥C(Qj)∥HS2.

3.1givenF3F5step 2.1algebra∎

The first specified output has ∥C(Q0)∥HS2=12Tr⁡((2I3/3)2)=2/3. The second has ∥C(Q1)∥HS2=12(1/9+4/9+1/9)=1/3. The remaining two squared norms are nonnegative, so their sum with these first two is at least one. Substitution in step 2.1 gives Fe(TC)≥3/8.

Depends on

Used by · 3

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.