We study symmetrized divergences induced by centroids of α-Tsallis relative entropies between density matrices σ and ρ; up to scaling, the induced divergence equals ∣2−∥ρα+σα∥1/α∣. Earlier work (S. Sra, "Metrics induced by Jensen–Shannon and related divergences on positive definite matrices," Linear Algebra Appl., 2021) studied such divergences and metrics induced by them. That paper allowed centroids to range over the positive definite cone, while we require that the centroid itself be a density matrix. This (more natural) choice makes the metricity in this paper considerably stronger than that of the aforementioned paper. Specifically, we prove that ∣2−∥ρα+σα∥1/α∣1/2 is a metric on density matrices for 1/2≤α≤2, α=1. For α<1, the proof uses a new four-point theorem for the S-divergence that might be of independent interest. For α>1, we first prove the endpoint α=2, and then transfer it to the other orders by a tensoring trick.
Introduction
We continue the study of metric properties of symmetrized divergences on quantum states started in [19]. Square roots of symmetrized divergences sometimes turn out to be metrics, for instance Jensen–Shannon divergences for commuting states [6, 7]. For noncommuting states Lamberti et al. [10] conjectured the metric property, which was proved by both Sra [19] and Virosztek (2021) independently.
We study herein a symmetrized version of Tsallis relative entropy obtained by computing centroids, and ask whether the resulting divergence is a metric. We denote via Pd (P+d) the set of d×d positive semidefinite (definite) Hermitian matrices; and let Dd:={ρ∈P+d:trρ=1} be the density matrices, or states. For ρ,τ∈Dd, the Tsallis relative entropy [14] (Tsallis 1988) is
Tα(ρ,τ):=1−α1−trρατ1−α,α>0,α=1.(1)
The symmetrized divergence obtained by computing the Tsallis centroid of ρ and σ is then:
where ∥X∥p=(tr∣X∣p)1/p is the Schatten-p norm. The equality in (2) is the quantum Sibson identity [9, 16, 4]; Proposition 3.1 verifies it for $0<\alpha<1byHo¨lder’sinequality;thereverseHo¨lderinequalitygivesthecase\alpha>1 ({xref}Section 4`).
It is evident that dα is symmetric and nonnegative. The challenge is to show that it satisfies the triangle inequality. When the center τ in (2) is allowed to range over all Pd, the minimum value is 2α(1−h), where h=tr((ρα+σα)/2)1/α, and its square root is a metric for 1/2≤α<1[19 Theorem 4.1]. But in (2), we require the center to lie in Dd, which changes the minimum to dα2=2(1−hα). It turns out to be much more difficult to establish that dα is a metric in this case. The proof of this metricity is our first main result.
Theorem 1.1. For every d and 1/2≤α≤2, α=1, dα is a metric on Dd.
Theorem 1.1 also implies the previous results of Sra [19]; indeed, as α↑1, dα2/(2(1−α))→QJSD, which gives the Jensen–Shannon metric (Corollary A.3), and the proof gives the cone metric of Sra [19]. At α=1/2, the distance is also of negative type (Proposition 3.5).
For α<1, with p=1/α, Theorem 1.1 follows from positivity of the trace-power kernel tr(A+B)p−trAp−trBp on every three positive semidefinite matrices (Theorem 3.2). For 1<p<2, we write this kernel as a superposition of the kernels −logdet(I−XY) on strict contractions X and Y in Pd, which turns our task into proving that [−logdet(I−XiXj)]i,j=13 is positive semidefinite. This task is nontrivial, and its proof uncovers a hitherto unknown property of the S-divergence (Sra [17]), denoted δS2 below, which leads to our second main result.
Theorem 1.2. Let U1,U2,U3 be Hermitian d×d matrices with ∥Ui∥op<1. Then,
K:=[−logdet(I−UiUj)]i,j=13⪰0.(3)
Equivalently, if P0,P1,P2,P3∈P+d and ξ∈R4 satisfies ξ0+ξ1+ξ2+ξ3=0, then
a,c=0∑3ξaξcδS2(Pa,Pc)≤0.(4)
The S-divergence δS2 used in (4) is defined for any two matrices P,Q∈P+d as
δS2(P,Q):=logdet2P+Q−21logdetP−21logdetQ.(5)
It is a Jensen–Bregman divergence (Cherian et al. [3]) and δS is a metric (Sra [17]).
Recall that a symmetric function N with N(x,x)=0 is of negative type if ∑i,jcicjN(xi,xj)≤0 for every finite family of points and real coefficients with ∑ici=0. On three points, negative type of δS2 is equivalent to the triangle inequality for δS, which is key to the results of Sra [19]. However, the log-determinant inequality (3) needs four points. Indeed, using the Cayley transform Pi=(I+Ui)(I−Ui)−1 we map Hermitian strict contractions Ui onto P+d, and
Hence positivity of [−logdet(I−UiUj)]i,j=13 is the same as negative type of δS2 on the four matrices I,P1,P2,P3. By Theorem 1.2 and Schoenberg’s criterion (Schoenberg [15]), every four-point subset of (P+d,δS) embeds isometrically in R3. The number four is sharp when d≥2: Sra [17] gave a numerical five-point obstruction in dimension two; Proposition 2.5 gives an analytic one.
Remark 1.3.Theorem 1.2 also implies the positivity of the Hua–Bellman matrices. For strict contractions Z1,Z2,Z3, Sra [18] proves that the Hua–Bellman matrix (Hua [8]) Hγ=[det(I−Zi∗Zj)−γ]i,j=13 is positive semidefinite for every γ≥0. For Hermitian Zi, Theorem 1.2 recovers this entire family (where K is as in (3)) by the Schur product theorem:
Hγ=m=0∑∞m!γmK∘m⪰0(γ≥0),
where K∘m denotes entrywise power. The converse direction gives less: differentiating cTHγc at zero gives cTKc≥0 only when ∑ici=0, whereas Theorem 1.2 gives K⪰0.
Remark 1.4.Theorem 1.2 also applies to entropy-based Jensen divergences, which compare the entropy of (ρ+σ)/2 with the mean entropy of ρ and \sigma. The Jensen–Tsallis and Jensen–Rényi divergences of this form are of negative type on every four states for orders $1<q\le 2 and 0<q≤1, respectively (Theorem B.1). This strengthens the metric results of Sra [19].
so that (4) says Fξ≥0. Since Fξ vanishes when the four matrices coincide, we show that zero is its minimum. We prove that a minimizer exists and that the only critical point is the trivial one.
Existence of minimizer
We start with three elementary properties of δS that we will need.
Lemma 2.1. Let P,Q,R∈P+d. (a) δS2(GPG∗,GQG∗)=δS2(P,Q) for every invertible G.
(b) δS2(I,P)=∑ℓ=1dlogcosh(21logλℓ(P)), where λ1(P),…,λd(P) are the eigenvalues of P.
(c) δS2(P,R)≤δS2(P,Q)+δS2(Q,R)+dlog2.
By continuity, it suffices to treat ξ with nonzero coordinates and a unique largest absolute value, say ∣ξ0∣>∣ξj∣ for j=1,2,3; by Lemma 2.1(a), we may take P0=I. The domain (P+d)3 of Fξ(I,⋅) is not compact, so a minimizer need not exist. A coercive lower bound rules this out. The bound depends on ξ through νξ:=min∅=T⊊{0,1,2,3}∑a∈Tξa, which is positive for the fixed ξ.
Proposition 2.2. If νξ>0, then Fξ(I,P1,P2,P3)≥2νξ2max1≤i≤3δS2(I,Pi)−dlog2∑aξa2. Consequently, Fξ(I,⋅) attains its minimum on (P+d)3.
Proof. The values δS2(Pa,Pc) need not satisfy the triangle inequality, but by Lemma 2.1(b) and (c) they do after a shift: on {0,1,2,3}, the function D(a,c)=δS2(Pa,Pc)+dlog2 for a=c, with D(a,a)=0, is a metric. Since ∑a=cξaξc=−∑aξa2, the shift changes Fξ only by a constant:
Metrics on four points are conic combinations of cut metrics ([5 p. 422]), so,
D(a,c)=∅=T⊊{0,1,2,3}∑wT(1T(a)−1T(c))2,wT≥0,
where 1T is the indicator vector of T. Each cut contributes at least 2νξ2wT, because ∑aξa=0 gives
−a,c∑ξaξc(1T(a)−1T(c))2=2(a∈T∑ξa)2≥2νξ2,
and ∑TwT≥maxa,cD(a,c)≥maxiδS2(I,Pi) as each cut takes values in {0,1}. Together, these prove the bound. Finally, if Fξ(I,P1,P2,P3)≤0, the bound caps every δS2(I,Pi), so by Lemma 2.1(b) and logcosht≥∣t∣−log2, eigenvalues of each Pi lie in a compact interval that depends only on ξ and d. The triples with this property form a compact set containing (I,I,I), where Fξ vanishes, and Fξ(I,⋅)>0 outside it. Hence the minimum of Fξ(I,⋅) over this set is its minimum over (P+d)3. □
Potential minimizers (critical points of Fξ)
Since (P+d)3 is open, the minimizer of Proposition 2.2 is a critical point. Lemma 2.3 describes these critical points.
Lemma 2.3. For the ξ fixed above, put λj=−ξj/ξ0, so that λ1+λ2+λ3=1, λj=0, and ∣λj∣<1. If (P1,P2,P3) is a critical point of Fξ(I,⋅), then the coordinates Uj=(Pj−I)(Pj+I)−1 satisfy
Proof. Noting ∑aξa=0, and expanding δS2(Pa,Pc), we see that only joint terms survive, so that
Fξ=−a,c=0∑3ξaξclogdet(Pa+Pc).
endsmid=1
Taking derivatives of Fξ with respect to the Pi we obtain the criticality condition
a=0∑3ξa(Pi+Pa)−1=0(i=1,2,3).(8)
The equation also holds for i=0. Indeed, by Lemma 2.1(a), Fξ is unchanged when we replace Pa by etH/2PaetH/2. The derivative (d/dt)Fξ∣t=0 along this curve is the sum of its four partial derivatives. At a critical point the last three vanish, so the derivative in P0 at I in the direction H also vanishes.
Now divide (8) by −ξ0 and rewrite it as the set of equations
The second equation in Cayley coordinates is ∑jλj(I−Uj)=I, thus ∑jλjUj=0. Expanding (I−Ui)(Pi+Pj)(I−Uj) with (I−Ui)Pi=I+Ui and Pj(I−Uj)=I+Uj and rearranging gives (Pi+Pj)−1=21(I−Uj)(I−UiUj)−1(I−Ui); so, the first equation becomes ∑jλj(I−UiUj)−1=I. □
Solving the critical-point equations
On a common eigenvector of the products UiUj, the system (7) becomes scalar, so we first show that these products commute.
Lemma 2.4. Let λ1,λ2,λ3 be as in Lemma 2.3, and let U1,U2,U3 be Hermitian strict contractions satisfying (7). Then U1=U2=U3=0.
Proof.The squares commute with all Ui. Fix i, let j,k be the other two indices, and write X=Ui2, Bj=I−UiUj and Bk=I−UiUk. Multiplying the first equation in (7) on the left by Ui gives the first identity below, and the second is the equation of (7) for this i:
Here H=(1−λi)I+λiX is positive definite, since ∣λi∣<1. With Bj=HZ, the first identity gives λkBk=H(I−λjZ); substituting into the second and multiplying on the right by H yields
The left side commutes with Z. Since λi=0 and x2/(1−x) increases strictly on [0,1), φ is injective there, so X is a polynomial in φ(X) and commutes with Z, hence with Bj=HZ. For C=[Ui2,Uj] this says UiC=[Ui2,UiUj]=0, and taking adjoints gives CUi=0. So C=PCP for the projection P onto kerUi, and PCP=0 because Ui2P=PUi2=0. By symmetry in j and k,
[Ui2,Uj]=0for all i,j.(12)
Shared eigenbasis. By the first equation in (7), U3=−(λ1U1+λ2U2)/λ3, so every product UiUj lies in the span of U12, U22, U1U2 and U2U1. The first two commute with all Uj by (12), and U1U2 commutes with its adjoint U2U1, since both products equal U12U22. So these four matrices are normal and commute, and have a common orthonormal eigenbasis. Let v be a vector in it. The eigenvalue of UiUj on v is (Uiv)∗(Ujv), and since (UiUj)(UjUi)=Ui2Uj2, its modulus is ∥Uiv∥∥Ujv∥. By the equality case of Cauchy–Schwarz, the vectors U1v,U2v,U3v are parallel: Uiv=zie for a unit vector e and scalars zi with ∣zi∣=∥Uiv∥<1. Thus UiUj acts on v as zizj.
The scalar moments vanish. On v, the second set of equations in (7) becomes
j=1∑31−zizjλj=1(i=1,2,3).
Expand the denominators as geometric series, multiply by λi and sum over i. Since ∑iλi=1 and ∣zi∣<1, we obtain
0=n≥1∑j=1∑3λjzjn2.
Let ζ1,…,ζm be the distinct nonzero values among the zj, with weights wℓ=∑j:zj=ζℓλj. Then ∑ℓwℓζℓn=0 for n=1,…,m, and this Vandermonde system forces every wℓ=0. But no nonempty subset of the λj sums to zero: such a sum is λj=0, 1−λj>0, or 1. Thus m=0, so all zj=0 and Ujv=0. As v runs over an orthonormal basis, U1=U2=U3=0.
Proof. of (4). We can now prove the four-point negative-type condition (4). By Proposition 2.2 and Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, the minimum of Fξ(I,⋅) is attained at a critical point, and every critical point has U1=U2=U3=0, that is, P1=P2=P3=I. The minimum is therefore Fξ(I,I,I,I)=0. This proves (4) for the ξ fixed above, and continuity in ξ gives it for every zero-sum ξ; by the equivalence established via identity (6), the truth of (3) also follows.
Number of points
The following configuration gives the sharpness of both forms of Theorem 1.2 for d=2. The embeddings X↦X⊕0 and P↦P⊕I extend it to every d≥2.
Proposition 2.5. Let uk=(cos3kπ,sin3kπ)T for k=0,1,2, and let c=(1,1,1,−23)T.
(a) Let x=3/2, Xk=xukukT for k=0,1,2, and X3=xI. Then 0⪯Xk≺I, and the matrix
K=[−logdet(I−XiXj)]i,j=03
satisfies cTKc=log(136221)<0.
(b) With Xk as in (a), let P0=I and Pk+1=(I+Xk)(I−Xk)−1 for k=0,…,3. Then δS2 is not of negative type on P0,…,P4.
Proof. (a) For i,j≤2, XiXj has rank one and det(I−XiXj)=1−x2(uiTuj)2. Since (uiTuj)2=41 for i=j, this determinant is 41 for i=j and 1613 for i=j. Also det(I−XkX3)=1−x2=41 and det(I−X32)=161. With L=log4 and ℓ=log1316,
(b) The vector ξ=(−23,1,1,1,−23) (ξT1=0) gives ∑a,e=04ξaξeδS2(Pa,Pe)=−cTKc>0.
:::
Proof of Theorem 1.1 for 1/2≤α<1
We prove Theorem 1.1 for α<1 on the positive unit sphere of a Schatten norm. The passage to the sphere rests on the equality in (2), which we prove first.
Reduction to a Schatten sphere
Proposition 3.1. Let 0<α<1, let ρ,σ∈Dd, and put M=ρα+σα. Then
(1−α)τ∈Ddmin{Tα(ρ,τ)+Tα(σ,τ)}=2−∥M∥1/α.(13)
and the minimum is attained only at
τ⋆=trM1/αM1/α.(14)
Proof. The scaled objective is 2−tr(Mτ1−α), and Schatten Hölder with exponents 1/α and 1/(1−α) gives tr(Mτ1−α)≤∥M∥1/α∥τ1−α∥1/(1−α)=∥M∥1/α. The state (14) attains equality, and strict convexity of the Schatten 1/(1−α)-norm makes it the only maximizer.
For 1<p<∞, let Sp={A∈Pd:trAp=1} and, for A,B∈Sp, let Dp(A,B)=(2−∥A+B∥p)1/2. For p=1/α, ρ↦ρα is a bijection from Dd onto Sp, and Proposition 3.1 gives dα(ρ,σ)=Dp(ρα,σα). It therefore suffices to prove the triangle inequality for 1<p≤2; Proposition 3.6 treats p>2.
An integral representation
We transfer the log-determinant form (3) of Theorem 1.2 to the trace-power kernel
Lp(A,B):=tr(A+B)p−trAp−trBp,A,B∈Pd,(15)
and then use its three-point positivity on the sphere.
Theorem 3.2. Let A1,A2,A3∈Pd. For 1<p≤2,
[Lp(Ai,Aj)]i,j=13⪰0.(16)
Proof. At p=2, L2(Ai,Aj)=2tr(AiAj) is a Gram matrix. For 1<p<2, put κp=psin(π(p−1))/π>0 and use the scalar identity [19]
Applying (3.5) to A+B, A and B and taking traces cancels the linear terms and gives
Lp(A,B)=κp∫0∞tp−1Kt(A,B)dt.(19)
Since 0⪯XAi(t)≺I, Theorem 1.2 gives [Kt(Ai,Aj)]⪰0, and integrating proves (3.4). □
The triangle inequality
Three-point positivity of Lp places any three points of Sp on a sphere, where Dp becomes a function of an angle. Let 1<p≤2, let A1,A2,A3∈Sp, and put
Gij:=21−ptr(Ai+Aj)p−1.(20)
Since trAip=1,
G=21−p[Lp(Ai,Aj)]i,j=13+(22−p−1)11T,
which is positive semidefinite by Theorem 3.2 and 22−p≥1. Since Gii=1, the matrix G is the Gram matrix of three unit vectors u1,u2,u3∈R3; write Gij=cosθij with 0≤θij≤π. These angles satisfy the spherical triangle inequality
The triangle inequality for Dp therefore reduces to a scalar property of fp.
Lemma 3.3. For 1<p≤2, the function fp in (3.10) is increasing and concave, fp(0)=0, and
fp(min{x+y,π})≤fp(x)+fp(y)(0≤x,y≤π).(23)
Proof. Since cos(θ/2) decreases on [0,π], the function fp is increasing, and fp(0)=0. For 0<θ<π, put z=cos2/p(θ/2). Differentiation gives
fp′′(θ)≤0⟺(2−z)(1−zp)≥p(1−z).(24)
Since t↦tp−1 is concave on [z,1],
p(1−z)1−zp=1−z1∫z1tp−1dt≥21+zp−1≥21+z≥2−z1.
Thus fp is concave.
Being concave with fp(0)=0, fp is subadditive; if x+y≥π, monotonicity gives fp(π)≤fp(x)+fp(π−x)≤fp(x)+fp(y). This proves (3.11). □
Proof. of Theorem 1.1 for 1/2≤α<1. Minkowski’s inequality and strict convexity of the Schatten p-norm ([1]) give Dp≥0, with equality only when A=B. For the triangle inequality, let A1,A2,A3∈Sp, with angles θij as above. By (3.9), the monotonicity of fp, and Lemma 3.3,
The angles θij give more than the triangle inequality: three states lie on a sphere with chordal distance dα.
Theorem 3.4. Let 1<p≤2 and A1,A2,A3∈Sp. Then
[[∥(Ai+Aj)/2∥p3]i,j=13⪰0.
In particular, for 1/2≤α<1, any three states with the metric dα embed isometrically in the unit sphere of R3.
Proof. With the angles of (3.8), ∥(Ai+Aj)/2∥p=cosψp(θij), where ψp(θ):=arccoscos2/p(θ/2) is increasing on [0,π], with ψp(0)=0 and ψp≤π/2. With β=2/p and y=cos2(θ/2), ψp′′(θ)=4β2yβ−1(1−y)/(1−yβ), and a brief calculation shows that this increases in y because (1−yβ)/(1−y)≤β. So ψp is concave, and (3.9) with the argument of Lemma 3.3 gives ψp(θ13)≤ψp(θ12)+ψp(θ23), and likewise for the other two angles. Three angles in [0,π/2] with this property are the angles between three unit vectors v1,v2,v3, whose Gram matrix is [cosψp(θij)]. For states, Ai=ρiα gives (ρiα+ρjα)/21/α=1−dα(ρi,ρj)2/2, so these unit vectors satisfy ∥vi−vj∥=dα(ρi,ρj).
The case p=2
At p=2, which corresponds to the endpoint α=1/2 of Theorem 1.1, the distance D2(A,B)=(2−(2+2trAB)1/2)1/2 depends only on the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product trAB. We can therefore work on the unit sphere of any real Hilbert space, where the distance is also of negative type.
Proposition 3.5. On the unit sphere S of a real Hilbert space H, put D(x,y)=(2−∥x+y∥)1/2. Then D is a metric of negative type on S, so (S,D1/2) embeds isometrically in a Hilbert space.
Proof. For unit vectors at angle θ, D(x,y)=2sin(θ/4)=f2(θ), so (3.9) and Lemma 3.3 prove that D is a metric.
For negative type, write D(x,y)=φ(⟨x,y⟩), where φ(cosθ)=2sin(θ/4). Then (1−t2)φ′′−tφ′+φ/16=0, so the Taylor coefficients bk of φ at 0, whose series converges on ∣t∣<1, satisfy
bk+2=(k+1)(k+2)k2−1/16bk(k≥0).
Since b0=2sin(π/8)>0 and b1=−21cos(π/8)<0, the recurrence gives bk<0 for every k≥1. Let x1,…,xn∈S, let c∈Rn with ∑ici=0, and let 0<r<1. Since ∑ici=0 and ⟨xi,xj⟩k=⟨xi⊗k,xj⊗k⟩ in the k-fold tensor power of H,
Letting r↑1 gives negative type, and Schoenberg’s criterion gives the embedding of (S,D1/2).
For states, d1/2(ρ,σ)=D2(ρ1/2,σ1/2) is a function of the quantum affinity trρ1/2σ1/2 ([11]), so Proposition 3.5 shows that d1/2 is of negative type.
The range of p
For p>2, the triangle inequality fails even on diagonal matrices.
Proposition 3.6. Let p>2 and d=2, and let A=diag(0,1), C=diag(1,0) and Bε=diag(ε,(1−εp)1/p) for 0<ε<1. Then A,Bε,C∈Sp, and
Dp(C,Bε)+Dp(Bε,A)<Dp(C,A)
for all sufficiently small ε.
Proof. All three matrices are diagonal, so the norms are ℓp norms of the diagonals. As ε→0, expanding (1−εp)1/p=1−εp/p+O(ε2p) gives Dp(A,Bε)2=p1−21−pεp+O(ε2p), so Dp(A,Bε)=O(εp/2). On the other hand, ∥C+Bε∥pp=2+pε+O(ε2) because p>2, so
Dp(C,Bε)=Dp(C,A)−4Dp(C,A)21/pε+O(ε2).
Since p/2>1, the sum Dp(C,Bε)+Dp(Bε,A) is smaller than Dp(C,A) for small ε. Adjoining zero blocks gives the same counterexample for every d≥2. □
Proof of Theorem 1.1 for 1<α≤2
For α>1, the proof of Proposition 3.1 with the reverse Hölder inequality gives the equality in (2), with the same minimizing state (14). We prove the triangle inequality first at α=2. At a minimizing middle state, the stationarity equation forces two auxiliary matrices to commute; the trace-one constraints then reduce the problem to a scalar inequality. A positive linear construction on tensor powers transfers this endpoint to the remaining orders.
For p=1/α and Ai=ρiα, strict concavity of X↦trXp gives tr(Ai+Aj)p≥2p, with equality only when Ai=Aj, so dα separates states. It remains to prove the triangle inequality.
The scalar inequality
The trace-one constraints will give weighted scalar means of at least one. To use these inequalities directly, we subtract the tangent term (x+y)/2 before averaging.
Lemma 4.1. Let wk,xk,yk≥0 satisfy ∑kwk=1, ∑kwkxk≥1, and ∑kwkyk≥1. If r=∑kwk1+xk2 and s=∑kwk1+yk2, then
k∑wkxk2+yk2≤L(r,s):=2+(r2−2+s2−2)2.(25)
Proof. Jensen’s inequality gives r,s≥2. For a,b≥0, put
δ(a,b)=a2+b2−2a+b,D(a,b)=δ(a,b)(δ(a,b)+22).
We first prove the pointwise inequality
D(x,y)≤D(x,1)+D(1,y),x,y≥0.(26)
For a≤b, both δ and D are nonincreasing in a and nondecreasing in b. Thus (4.2) holds when x,y lie on the same side of 1. By symmetry and continuity, it remains to treat 0<x<1<y.
We compare −Dx(x,y) with its value at y=1. For fixed 0<x<1 and y≥1, write H=2(x2+y2), S=x+y, and E=H−S>0. Then D2=E(E+4)/2, and differentiation gives
Dxy(x,y)=H3D(x,y)3E2[6(S−xy)+(2−xy)E].
Since S−xy=x+(1−x)y>0, the bracket is positive if xy≤2. If xy>2, it has the sign of
6−x+(1−x)yxy−2E.
Both factors in the subtracted product are positive and increasing in y, since
Thus Dxy can change sign only from positive to negative, so −Dx(x,y) has no interior maximum as a function of y≥1. Its limit at infinity is 1/2.
At y=1, rationalization gives
D(x,1)=(1−x)h(x),h(x)2=21+2(1+x2)+x+11−x.
The fraction is positive and decreasing, so h>1/2, h′<0, and −Dx(x,1)=h(x)−(1−x)h′(x)>1/2. Hence −Dx(x,y)≤−Dx(x,1) for 0<x<1 and y≥1, and integrating proves (4.2):
To average (4.2), we use concavity of L on [2,∞)2. In the interior, put u=r2−2, v=s2−2, q=u+v, and ξ=(r/u,s/v)⊤. Differentiation gives
∇2L=L32[ξξ⊤−qL2diag(u−3,v−3)]⪯0,
where the last inequality follows by weighted Cauchy–Schwarz from r2u+s2v=u3+v3+2q≤q(q2+2)=qL2. Also Lr=qr/(uL)≥1, because q2r2−u2L2=2(q2−u2)≥0, and similarly Ls≥1. Integrating these derivative bounds gives
L(r+a,s+b)≥L(r,s)+a+b,r,s≥2,a,b≥0.(28)
Let (X,Y) take the values (xk,yk) with probabilities wk, and put t=EX2+Y2. Define
R=2+δ(X,1),S=2+δ(Y,1),T=2+δ(X,Y).
These variables are at least 2, and (4.2) is exactly T≤L(R,S). The mean constraints give a:=(EX−1)/2≥0 and b:=(EY−1)/2≥0, so ER=r−a, ES=s−b and ET=t−a−b. Concavity and (28) now give (4.1):
t−a−b≤EL(R,S)≤L(r−a,s−b)≤L(r,s)−a−b.(29)
The endpoint alpha=2
The scalar means in Lemma 4.1 arise from a trace comparison. Commutativity is needed only for the auxiliary matrices in this comparison, not for the states.
Lemma 4.2. Let Z≻0, and let R1,…,Rℓ be commuting Hermitian matrices. If
F2:=j∑Rj2−cI⪰0,C:=Z1/2(j∑RjZRj−cZ)Z1/2⪰0,
where F⪰0 and c∈R, then trC≤tr(ZF).
Proof. For W≻0, Hilbert–Schmidt Cauchy–Schwarz gives (trC)2≤tr(CW−1)trW. Choose W=Z1/2(F+εI)Z1/2. Since each Rj commutes with F, cyclicity of trace gives
tr(CW−1)=tr[ZF2(F+εI)−1]≤tr(ZF),trW=tr(ZF)+εtrZ.
Let ε↓0. □
Proposition 4.3. The function d2 satisfies the triangle inequality on Dd for every d.
Proof. Write T(X,Y)=trX2+Y2, so d2(X,Y)=T(X,Y)2−2 for states. By continuity, it suffices to treat distinct positive definite states ρ,σ. Minimize f(z)=d2(ρ,z)+d2(z,σ) over Dd. A minimizer exists by compactness. If it is an endpoint, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise put
u=d2(ρ,z)>0,v=d2(σ,z)>0,K1=ρ2+z2,K2=σ2+z2,
and tj=trKj, so t12=u2+2 and t22=v2+2. The gradient is
∇f(z)=21(zH+Hz),H=ut1K1−1+vt2K2−1≻0.
The minimizer is positive definite. Indeed, if e∈kerz is a unit vector, the feasible path zε=(1−ε)z+εee∗ has derivative −tr(z2H)<0.
Stationarity under trz=1 gives zH+Hz=2λI, so H=λz−1, that is,
ut1R1−1+vt2R2−1=λI,Rj:=z−1/2Kjz−1/2.(30)
Thus R1,R2 commute. Operator monotonicity of the square root also gives Kj⪰z, so Rj⪰I. In a common eigenbasis ek, write
For each N, approximate these expectations simultaneously for the six inputs Ai and Ai+Aj (i<j) by a finite weighted average, with error at most 1/N; such averages exist because the integrands are continuous and dominated by ∥X∥op1/2N−1/(2p)∑rSr. Let sℓ be the nodes and qℓ≥0 their weights, and set
Di(N)=ℓ⨁dNqℓΦN,sℓ(Ai).
Their traces are the chosen weighted averages. Linearity gives
The endpoint triangle inequality passes to this limit. □
AI usage
The results in this paper were developed through extensive use of AI assistants: OpenAI’s GPT Pro for the main line of argument, and Anthropic’s Claude for the endpoint results in Section 3.4 and Appendix A.2, Remark A.2, Proposition 3.6, and the writing, positioning, and literature search. OpenAI assistants also developed the four-point consequences in Appendix B and assisted with proof simplification and reorganization. The arguments emerged through sustained work involving failed attempts, counterexamples, numerical checks, proof audits, and repairs.
Acknowledgements
The author (SS) thanks the Alexander von Humboldt (AvH) Foundation for their generous support via a Humboldt Professorship in AI.
References
Relation to the cone and Jensen–Shannon metrics
For 0<α<1, we relate dα to the two earlier metrics of the introduction: the cone metric of Sra [19], which drops the trace constraint, and the Jensen–Shannon metric, the limit of the rescaled dα as α↑1.
Comparison with the cone minimum
To let the center range over the cone, extend Tα to X,Z∈Pd by
Tα(X,Z):=1−ααtrX+(1−α)trZ−trXαZ1−α.(33)
Minimizing over the cone gives the relative-entropy Jensen–Tsallis divergence of Sra [19]; its commuting case was studied by Österreicher and Vajda [13].
Proof. Write Z=sτ, where s=trZ and τ∈Dd. For fixed s>0, Proposition 3.1 gives the unique optimal state τ=Mα/h. Since ∥ρα+σα∥1/α=2hα, the scaled objective reduces to 2α+2(1−α)s−2hαs1−α, a strictly convex function of s≥0 minimized at s=h, with value 2α(1−h). The minimizing matrix is sτ=Mα. □
Remark A.2. For 1/2≤α<1 and three states ρi, let p=1/α and take Ai=ρiα in the Gram matrix G of (3.8). Then hij:=tr((ρiα+ρjα)/2)1/α=(1+Gij)/2. Thus H=[hij]=(11T+G)/2 is a Gram matrix of unit vectors vi, and the scaled cone minimum satisfies 2α(1−hij)=α∥vi−vj∥2. Its square root satisfies the triangle inequality and separates states by (A.3) and Theorem 1.1, recovering the cone metric of Sra [19] on states. In contrast, dα(ρi,ρj)2=2(1−hijα) by (A.3), and its triangle inequality needs Lemma 3.3.
The limit alpha->1
For the Umegaki relative entropy trρ(logρ−logτ), the optimal center is m=(ρ+σ)/2 and the least total is 2QJSD(ρ,σ), where
Proof. Put Yα=ρα+σα, g(α)=trYα1/α and f(α)=g(α)α=∥Yα∥1/α. Then f(1)=2, so dα(ρ,σ)2=f(1)−f(α) by Proposition 3.1, and the limit is f′(1)/2. A brief calculation gives
so (logf)′(1)=logg(1)+g′(1)/g(1)=QJSD(ρ,σ) and f′(1)=2QJSD(ρ,σ). Since dα/(2(1−α))1/2 is a metric for 1/2≤α<1 by Theorem 1.1, its pointwise limit QJSD1/2 satisfies the triangle inequality, and strict convexity of X↦trXlogX makes it separate states. □
Appendix B. Quantum Jensen–Tsallis and Jensen–Rényi divergences
We apply Theorem 1.2 to entropy-based Jensen divergences. For ρ,σ∈Dd and m=(ρ+σ)/2, let
with QJRD1=QJSD. These divergences differ from both minima in Proposition A.1.
Theorem B.1. On any four density matrices, QJSDq is of negative type for 0<q≤2, and QJRDq is of negative type for 0<q≤1. Their square roots are metrics, and every four states with either metric embed isometrically in R3.
The square-root metric properties were proved in Sra [19]. More generally, the proof below gives four-point negative type for every Jensen divergence that is a nonnegative integral of S-divergences of shifted matrices, which includes the families of Sra [19]. For commuting states, QJSDq is of negative type on arbitrary finite sets [2, 12].
This follows from cq∫0∞tq−1(x+t)−2dt=qxq−2 after integrating twice in x and taking traces: the midpoint combination cancels the affine terms. The integral converges since δS2(ρ+tI,σ+tI) is O(1+∣logt∣) at zero and O(t−2) at infinity. Since cq>0, Theorem 1.2 proves four-point negative type for QJSDq. At q=2 the same conclusion follows from QJSD2(ρ,σ)=41∥ρ−σ∥22.
For the Rényi case, we apply the logarithmic argument of Sra [19] to four states. Fix 0<q<1 and ρ0,…,ρ3∈Dd, and put hij=tr((ρi+ρj)/2)q, so that hij=(1−q)QJSDq(ρi,ρj)+(hii+hjj)/2. By the first part and Schoenberg’s theorem, [e−s(1−q)QJSDq(ρi,ρj)]⪰0 for every s>0, and rescaling rows and columns by e−shii/2 gives [e−shij]⪰0. For any ξ∈R4 with ∑iξi=0, the identity logr=∫0∞(e−s−e−sr)ds/s therefore gives
i,j∑ξiξjloghij=−∫0∞i,j∑ξiξje−shijsds≤0.
Since (1−q)QJRDq(ρi,ρj)=loghij−21loghii−21loghjj and ∑iξi=0, this proves four-point negative type for QJRDq.
For distinct states, δS2(ρ+tI,σ+tI)>0, so (B.3) gives QJSDq(ρ,σ)>0. For 0<q<1, this also gives hij>(hii+hjj)/2≥hiihjj, hence QJRDq(ρi,ρj)>0 when ρi=ρj. Schoenberg’s criterion now gives the claimed Euclidean embeddings, so the square roots are metrics. □
References
[1]Rajendra Bhatia. Matrix Analysis. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 169. Springer, New York, 1997. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0653-8.DOI
[2]Jop Briët and Peter Harremoës. Properties of classical and quantum Jensen–Shannon divergence. Physical Review A, 79(5):052311, 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.052311.DOI
[3]Anoop Cherian, Suvrit Sra, Arindam Banerjee, and Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos. Jensen–Bregman logdet divergence with application to efficient similarity search for covariance matrices. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(9):2161–2174, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2012.259.DOI
[4]Marco Dalai. Lower bounds on the probability of error for classical and classical-quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59(12):8027–8056, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2013.2283794.DOI
[5]Michel Marie Deza and Monique Laurent. Geometry of Cuts and Metrics, volume 15 of Algorithms and Combinatorics. Springer, Berlin, 1997. ISBN 3-540-61611-X. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04295-9.DOI
[6]D. M. Endres and J. E. Schindelin. A new metric for probability distributions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 49(7):1858–1860, 2003. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2003.813506.DOI
[7]Bent Fuglede and Flemming Topsøe. Jensen–Shannon divergence and Hilbert space embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), page 31, 2004. doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2004.1365067.DOI
[9]Robert König and Stephanie Wehner. A strong converse for classical channel coding using entangled inputs. Physical Review Letters, 103:070504, 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.070504. Appendix of arXiv:0903.2838.DOI
[10]P. W. Lamberti, A. P. Majtey, A. Borras, M. Casas, and A. Plastino. Metric character of the quantum Jensen–Shannon divergence. Physical Review A, 77(5):052311, 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.052311.DOI
[11]Shunlong Luo and Qiang Zhang. Informational distance on quantum-state space. Physical Review A, 69:032106, 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.032106.DOI
[12]André F. T. Martins, Noah A. Smith, Eric P. Xing, Pedro M. Q. Aguiar, and Mário A. T. Figueiredo. Nonextensive information theoretic kernels on measures. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10:935–975, 2009.
[13]Ferdinand Österreicher and Igor Vajda. A new class of metric divergences on probability spaces and its applicability in statistics. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 55(3):639–653, 2003. doi: 10.1007/BF02517812.DOI
[14]Dénes Petz. Quasi-entropies for finite quantum systems. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 23(1):57–65, 1986. doi: 10.1016/0034-4877(86)90067-4.DOI
[15]I. J. Schoenberg. Remarks to Maurice Fréchet’s article “Sur la définition axiomatique d’une classe d’espace distanciés vectoriellement applicable sur l’espace de Hilbert”. Annals of Mathematics, 36(3):724–732, 1935. doi: 10.2307/1968654.DOI
[16]Naresh Sharma and Nadav Warsi. Fundamental bound on the reliability of quantum information transmission. Physical Review Letters, 110:080501, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080501.DOI
[17]Suvrit Sra. Positive definite matrices and the S-divergence. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 144(7):2787–2797, 2016. doi: 10.1090/proc/12953.DOI
[18]Suvrit Sra. Positive definite functions of noncommuting contractions, Hua–Bellman matrices, and a new distance metric, 2021a.arxiv.org/abs/2112.00056
[19]Suvrit Sra. Metrics induced by Jensen–Shannon and related divergences on positive definite matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 616:125–138, 2021b. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2020.12.023.DOI