## Categories of Quantum and Classical Channels

(extended abstract)

Bob Coecke ∗

Chris Heunen †

Aleks Kissinger ∗

University of Oxford, Department of Computer Science { coecke,heunen,alek @cs.ox.ac.uk }

We introduce the CP*-construction on a dagger compact closed category as a generalisation of Selinger's CPM-construction. While the latter takes a dagger compact closed category and forms its category of 'abstract matrix algebras' and completely positive maps, the CP*-construction forms its category of 'abstract C*-algebras' and completely positive maps. This analogy is justified by the case of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, where the CP*-construction yields the category of finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps.

The CP*-construction fully embeds Selinger's CPM-construction in such a way that the objects in the image of the embedding can be thought of as 'purely quantum' state spaces. It also embeds the category of classical stochastic maps, whose image consists of 'purely classical' state spaces. By allowing classical and quantum data to coexist, this provides elegant abstract notions of preparation, measurement, and more general quantum channels.

## 1 Introduction

One of the motivations driving categorical treatments of quantum mechanics is to place classical and quantum systems on an equal footing in a single category, so that one can study their interactions. The main idea of categorical quantum mechanics [1] is to fix a category (usually dagger compact) whose objects are thought of as state spaces and whose morphisms are evolutions. There are two main variations.

- · 'Dirac style': Objects form pure state spaces, and isometric morphisms form pure state evolutions.
- · 'von Neumann style': Objects form spaces of mixed states, and morphisms form mixed quantum evolutions, also known as quantum channels .

The prototypical example of a 'Dirac style' category is FHilb , the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps. One can pass to a 'von Neumann style category' by considering the C*algebras of operators on these Hilbert spaces, with completely positive maps between them. Selinger's CPM-construction provides an abstract bridge from the former to the latter [18], turning morphisms in V into quantum channels in CPM [ V ] . However, this passage loses the connection between quantum and classical channels. For example, CPM [ FHilb ] only includes objects corresponding to the entire state space of some quantum system, whereas we would often like to focus in subspaces corresponding to particular classical contexts. There have been several proposals to remedy this situation, which typically involve augmenting CPM [ V ] with extra objects to carry this classical structure. Section 1.1 provides an overview.

This extended abstract 1 introduces a new solution to this problem, called the CP*-construction, which is closer in spirit to the study of quantum information using C*-algebras (see e.g. [15]). Rather than

∗ Supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

† Supported by EPSRC Fellowship EP/L002388/1.

1 A long version of this extended abstract is now available: [8].

freely augmenting a category of quantum data with classical objects, we define a new category whose objects are 'abstract C*-algebras', and whose morphisms are the analogue of completely positive maps. It is then possible to construct a full embedding of the category CPM [ V ] , whose image yields the purely quantum channels. Furthermore, there exists another full embedding of the category Stoch V [ ] of classical stochastic maps, whose image yields the purely classical channels. The remainder of the category CP ∗ [ V ] can be interpreted as mixed classical/quantum state spaces, which carry partially coherent quantum states, such as degenerate quantum measurement outcomes.

/

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-0e2b1723-b154-4971-8d06-3210dee505c2.jpg)

/

/

/

o

o

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras. These form a crucial ingredient to the CP*-construction, which is defined in Section 3. Sections 4 and 5 then show that the CP*-construction simultaneously generalises Selinger's CPM-construction, consisting of 'quantum channels', and the Stoch -construction, consisting of 'classical channels'. We then consider two examples: Section 6 shows that CP ∗ [ FHilb ] is the category of finite- dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps, and Section 7 shows that CP ∗ [ Rel ] is the category of (small) groupoids and inverse-respecting relations. Section 8 compares CP ∗ [ V ] with Selinger's extension of the CPM-construction using split idempotents. Finally, Section 9 discusses the many possibilities this opens up.

## 1.1 Related Work

Selinger introduced two approaches to add classical data to CPM [ V ] by either freely adding biproducts to CPM [ V ] or freely splitting the †-idempotents of CPM [ V ] [19]. These new categories are referred to as CPM [ V ] ⊕ and Split † [ CPM [ V ]] , respectively.

glyph[negationslash]

When V = FHilb , both categories provide 'enough space' to reason about classical and quantum data, as any finite-dimensional C*-algebra can be defined as a sum of matrix algebras (as in CPM [ FHilb ] ⊕ ) or as a certain orthogonal subspace of a larger matrix algebra (as in Split † [ CPM [ FHilb ]] ). However, it is unclear whether the second construction captures too much: its may contain many more objects than simply mixtures of classical and quantum state spaces [19, Remark 4.9]. On the other hand, when V = FHilb , the category CPM [ FHilb ] ⊕ may be too small. That is, there may be interesting objects that are not just sums of quantum objects.

For this reason, it is interesting to study CP ∗ [ V ] , as it lies between these two constructions:

/

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-ebafea91-464d-425a-a12d-7344a6c2ed35.jpg)

/

/

/

The first embedding is well-defined whenever V has biproducts, and the second when V satisfies a technical axiom about square roots (see Definition 8.2). In the former case, CP ∗ [ V ] inherits biproducts from V , so it is possible to lift the embedding of CPM [ V ] by the universal property of the free biproduct completion; this will be proved in detail in a subsequent paper. In the latter case, one can always construct the associated dagger-idempotent of an object in CP ∗ [ V ] , and (with the assumption from Definition 8.2), the notions of complete positivity in CP ∗ [ V ] and Split † [ CPM [ V ]] coincide. We provide the details of this construction in Section 8.

A third approach by Coecke, Paquette, and Pavlovic is similar to ours in that it makes use of commutative Frobenius algebras to represent classical data [9]. As in the previous two approaches, it takes CPM [ V ] and freely adds classical structure, this time by forming the comonad associated with a particular commutative Frobenius algebra and taking the Kleisli category. All such categories are then glued

together by Grothendieck construction. The CP*-construction was originally conceived as a way to simplify this approach and overcome is limitations.

## 2 Abstract C*-algebras

This section defines so-called normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras, which will play a central role in the CP*-construction of the next section. We start by recalling the notion of a Frobenius algebra. For an introduction to dagger (compact) categories and their graphical calculus, we refer to [1, 20].

Definition 2.1. A Frobenius algebra is an object A in a monoidal category together with morphisms depicted as , , and on it satisfying the following diagrammatic equations.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-e696541d-9db4-467f-90d1-9cf4c6531c57.jpg)

Any Frobenius algebra defines a cap and a cup that satisfy the snake equation.

:

=

:

=

=

=

Definition 2.2.

A Frobenius algebra is symmetric

when

=

and

=

.

In a dagger compact category V , a dagger Frobenius algebra is a Frobenius algebra that satisfies =( ) † and =( ) † . Their import for us starts with the following theorem.

Theorem 2.3 ([21]) . Given a dagger Frobenius algebra ( A , ) in FHilb , the following operation gives A the structure of a C*-algebra.

$$\left ( \boxed { \stackrel { \uparrow } { v } } \right ) ^ { * } \coloneqq \boxed { \stackrel { \uparrow } { \downarrow } } _ { \sigma }$$

Furthermore, all finite-dimensional C*-algebras arise this way.

In light of this theorem, one might be tempted to consider dagger Frobenius algebras to be the 'correct' way to define the abstract analogue of finite-dimensional C*-algebras. However, there is one more condition, called normalisability , that is satisfied by all dagger Frobenius algebras in FHilb , yet not by dagger Frobenius algebras in general. Before we come to that, we introduce the notion of a central map for a monoid.

Definition 2.4. A map z : A → A is central for a monoid when ◦ ( z ⊗ 1 A ) = z ◦ = ◦ ( 1 A ⊗ z ) .

We call such a map central, because it corresponds uniquely to a point pz : I → A in the centre of the monoid via left (or equivalently right) multiplication by pz .

Recall that a map g : A → A in a dagger category is positive when g = h † ◦ h for some map h . It is called positive definite when it is a positive isomorphism. Using these conditions, we give the definition of a normalisability as a well-behavedness property of the 'loop' map ◦ .

Definition 2.5. A dagger Frobenius algebra is normalisable when there is a central, positive-definite map z , called the normaliser and depicted as , satisfying the following diagrammatic equation.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-f3ddbddb-edb3-4c7d-b32d-e81876e6f8a0.jpg)

Special dagger Frobenius algebras are normalisable dagger Frobenius algebra where z 2 = 1 . A Normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras are always symmetric.

Theorem 2.6. Normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras are symmetric.

Proof. The proof follows from expanding the counit and applying cyclicity of the trace ( ∗ ) .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-aade67e1-230b-49d0-be53-a7cb3bf73b22.jpg)

Definition 2.7. An object X in a dagger compact category is positive-dimensional if there is a positive definite scalar z satisfying z z = X X X . A dagger compact closed category is called positive-dimensional if all its objects are.

Proposition 2.8. For a positive-dimensional dagger compact closed category V , every object of the form A ∗ ⊗ A carries a canonical normalisable dagger Frobenius algebra, given as follows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-d0d4bba1-6931-488d-a8da-5f725d9b08bd.jpg)

Proof. The Frobenius axioms follow immediately from compact closure. By positive-dimensionality, there exists a positive-definite scalar z such that ( z 2 ◦ Tr A ( 1 A )) ⊗ 1 A = 1 . It is then possible to show that A 1 A ∗ ⊗ A ⊗ z is the normaliser.

From now on, we will always take V to be positive-dimensional.

## 3 The CP*-construction

↦

This section defines the CP*-construction. In fact, defining it is easy; most work goes into proving that it yields a dagger compact category. For the definition we need some (graphical) notation, generalising the left and right regular actions A → End A ( ) given by x → · -x ( ) and x → - · ( ) x for a finite-dimensional algebra A . More generally, for a monoid ( A , ) in a compact category, define its left and right action maps A → ∗ ⊗ A A as follows.

↦

↦

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-2573d93d-2166-47ba-b55f-22a03845636a.jpg)

Similarly, we can define for any comonoid left and right coaction maps. By convention, we work primarily with right action and coaction maps, and express them more succinctly as follows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-8fbbc1aa-e4db-479e-8238-17ffb40a9666.jpg)

Definition 3.1. Let V be a dagger compact category. Objects of CP ∗ [ V ] are normalizable dagger Frobenius algebras in V . Morphisms from ( A , ) to ( B , ) in CP ∗ [ V ] are morphisms f : A → B in V such that there exists an object X and g : A → X ⊗ B in V satisfying the following equation.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-2f98cc77-ca88-4182-ac94-ac864f48dafc.jpg)

Composition and identities are inherited from V .

Equation (1) is called the CP*-condition . We first establish that CP ∗ [ V ] is a well-defined category.

$$\text{Lemma $3.2$. $Any symmetric Frobenius algebra satisfies $\mathbb{2}_{\mathbb{2}}$} = \mathbb{2} \mathbb{2} \mathbb{2}.$$

Proof. We can use symmetry to prove the result.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-705dca5e-2b01-47e1-a0fe-dcb9122d715d.jpg)

$$\text{Lemma} \, 3. 3. \ A n y \, n o r m a l i s a b l e \, d a g g e r \, F r o b e n i u s \, a l g e b r a \, s a t i s f i e s \, \stackrel { \mathfrak { L } } { \mathfrak { L } } \, \stackrel { \mathfrak { L } } { \mathfrak { L } } \, = \, \left |.$$

Proof. Follows from Frobenius equations and a trace identity ( ∗ ) for symmetric Frobenius algebras.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-ee98d017-6ab1-470f-8bf2-1dda0f35bb5a.jpg)

These lemmas can express the CP*-condition in the sometimes more convenient 'convolution form'. Proposition 3.4. Let V be a dagger compact category, ( A , ) and ( B , ) be normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras, and f : A → B a morphism.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-667d1d21-e81f-4823-a4e3-24ad96aceae2.jpg)

Proof. For ( ⇒ ), apply ( ◦-◦ ) to both sides and use Lemma 3.3 and properties of normalisers. For ( ⇐ ), apply ( ◦-◦ ) to both sides and apply Lemma 3.2.

Theorem 3.5. If V is a dagger compact category V , so is CP ∗ [ V ] .

Proof. Identity maps 1 A : ( A , ) → ( A , ) satisfy the CP ∗ -condition: letting g = in (1) does the job by Lemma 3.2, whose left-hand side is ◦ 1 A ◦ .

Next, suppose f : ( A , ) → ( B , ) and g : ( B , ) → ( C , ) satisfy the CP*-condition. It then follows from Lemma 3.3 that their composition does, too.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-23a65d9c-5486-40f5-b573-16d846343f3d.jpg)

For the monoidal structure, take ( A , ) ⊗ ( B , ) : = ( A ⊗ B , ) . For maps f : ( A , ) → ( C , ∗ ) and g : ( B , ) → ( D , ∗ ) satisfying (1), also f ⊗ g : ( A ⊗ B , ) → ( C ⊗ D , ∗ ∗ ) satisfies the CP*-condition. This can be seen by applying the coaction of and the action of ∗ ∗ , then decomposing f into h ∗ , h and g into i ∗ , i , as follows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-17ce4703-c4e2-4d3b-8c9c-48b7d7069caa.jpg)

As for the tensor unit, note that I : =( I , r I ) is a normalisable dagger Frobenius algebra by monoidal coherence in V . Using this definition of ⊗ and I , the monoidal structure maps a , l , and r from V trivially satisfy the CP*-condition. Thus CP ∗ [ V ] is a monoidal category. CP ∗ [ V ] inherits the dagger from V . Symmetry and dual maps in V lift to the following morphisms in CP ∗ [ V ] .

$$\sigma _ { A, B } \colon ( A \otimes B, \hat { \bigtriangleup } _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \vare { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi | \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ \ | \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi | _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \ | \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \vare _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \chi _ { \bar { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare _ { \vare } } | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | w | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | t | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | v | s | \to I$$

The Frobenius identities and Lemma 3.2 establish the CP*-condition for these maps.

We refer to a morphism I → ( A , ) of CP ∗ [ V ] as a positive element of ( A , ) . Another way to express the CP*-condition for a V -morphism is to say that it preserves the property of being a positive element when applied to a some subsystem, as in the following theorem. This will be useful to connect to the traditional notion of complete positivity of linear maps between C*-algebras.

Theorem 3.6. Let ( A , ) and ( B , ) be normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras and f : A → B a morphism in a dagger compact category V . The following are equivalent:

- (a) f satisfies the CP*-condition;

(b) postcomposing with f ⊗ 1 C sends positive elements of ( A , ) ⊗ ( C , ) to positive elements of ( B , ) ⊗ ( C , ) for all dagger normalisable Frobenius algebras ( C , ) ;

(c) postcomposing with f ⊗ 1 X ∗ ⊗ X sends positive elements of ( A , ) ⊗ ( X ∗ ⊗ X , ) to positive elements of ( B , ) ⊗ ( X ∗ ⊗ X , ) for all objects X in V .

Proof. For (a) ⇒ (b): if r is a positive element of ( A , ) ⊗ ( C , ) and f satisfies the CP*-condition, then so does ( f ⊗ 1 C ) ◦ r , by Theorem 3.5. The implication (b) ⇒ (c) is trivial. Finally, for (c) ⇒ (a), take ( C , ) = ( A ∗ , ) . The action map : ( C , ) → ( C ∗ ⊗ C , ) is a morphism in CP ∗ [ V ] . As a consequence of this fact and Theorem 3.5, the following is a positive element of ( A , ) ⊗ ( X ∗ ⊗ X , ) .

$$\stackrel { \downarrow } { \rho } \rceil \, =$$

So, by assumption, ( f ⊗ 1 A ∗ ) ◦ r is also a positive element. Applying white caps to both sides finishes the proof.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-ff4fcc0f-b83f-4cc8-b0cd-988bcca23f20.jpg)

See also [8, Proposition 3.4].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-cacbfbcb-3c07-4631-9795-8a03809d6147.jpg)

## 4 Embedding Selinger's CPM-construction

This section will concentrate on the 'purely quantum' objects in CP ∗ [ V ] , by proving that the latter embeds CPM [ V ] in a full, faithful, and strongly dagger symmetric monoidal way. First, we recall Selinger's CPM-construction [18].

Definition 4.1. For a dagger compact category V , form the dagger compact category CPM [ V ] as follows. Objects are the same as those in V , and morphisms f ∈ CPM [ V ]( A B , ) are V -morphisms f : A ∗ ⊗ A → B ∗ ⊗ B for which there is g : A → X ⊗ B satisfying the following condition.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-5f99d3c2-1e04-48d7-a57e-4c88c62bfb3e.jpg)

Composition, identity maps, and ⊗ on objects are defined as in V . On morphisms, ⊗ is defined as:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-c1ec94b4-5561-445a-bdb8-1de8338942b0.jpg)

A strongly dagger symmetric monoidal functor is a functor F along with a unitary natural isomorphism j A B , : F A ( ⊗ B ) → F A ( ) ⊗ F B ( ) satisfying several coherence properties that we have no space to go in to. Our next theorem shows that CPM [ V ] is equivalent to the full subcategory of CP ∗ [ V ] consisting of objects of the form ( A ∗ ⊗ A , ) . Its proof uses ∗ -homomorphisms, which we first define.

Definition 4.2. If ( A , ) and ( B , ) are normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras in a dagger compact category V , a morphism f : A → B is called a ∗ -homomorphism when it satisfies the following equations.

Lemma 4.3. Let ( A , ) and ( B , ) be normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras in a dagger compact category V . If f : A → B is a ∗ -homomorphism, then it is a well-defined morphism in CP ∗ [ V ] .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-2dd35713-ad88-4fe2-968d-5cf52d47bbf8.jpg)

Proof. Using the definition: ◦ f ◦ =( ◦ ) ◦ ( f ∗ ⊗ f ) . Applying Lemma 3.2 completes the proof.

Theorem 4.4. Let V be a positive-dimensional dagger compact category. Define L : CPM [ V ] → CP ∗ [ V ] by setting L A ( ) : = ( A ∗ ⊗ A , ) on objects and L ( f ) = f on morphisms. Then L is a well-defined functor that is full, faithful, and strongly dagger symmetric monoidal.

Proof. For well-definedness, we show that a V -morphism f : A ∗ ⊗ A → ∗ ⊗ B B is a CPM [ V ] -morphism from A to B if and only if it is a CP ∗ [ V ] -morphism from ( A ∗ ⊗ A , ) to ( B ∗ ⊗ B , ) . First, assume f ∈ CPM [ V ] and compose with the action and coaction of the respective algebras to see that f satisfies the CP*-condition, as follows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-d02bd2b0-5948-4824-acb5-6d70bb222418.jpg)

Conversely, if f is in CP ∗ [ V ] , then it is also in CPM [ V ] , as follows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-d8c2176b-d714-40ae-8df5-0112c6b654c6.jpg)

Composition is the same in CPM [ V ] and CP ∗ [ V ] , so L is a functor that is furthermore full and faithful. Similarly, daggers are the same in CPM [ V ] and CP ∗ [ V ] , so L trivially preserves daggers. It now suffices to show that L is strongly monoidal. Define the isomorphism j A B , : L A ( ⊗ B ) → L A ( ) ⊗ L B ( ) as the reshuffling map ( 321 )( 4 : ) B ∗ ⊗ A ∗ ⊗ A ⊗ B → ∗ ⊗ A A ⊗ B ∗ ⊗ B . One can verify that this map is a ∗ -homomorphism from L A ( ⊗ B ) to L A ( ) ⊗ L B ( ) , so it must satisfy the CP*-condition. This map is also unitary, and it is a routine calculation to show that it satisfies the coherence equations for a strong symmetric monoidal functor.

## 5 Generalised stochastic maps and measurement of quantum states

Whereas the previous section focused on 'purely quantum' objects in CP ∗ [ V ] , this section looks at the 'purely classical' ones. We will define a 'purely probabilistic' category Stoch V [ ] , that by construction embeds into CP ∗ [ V ] . Thus objects in CP ∗ [ V ] can be interpreted as being 'combined classical and quantum'. The category Stoch V [ ] was first considered in [9]. It was defined in a slightly different form there, but one can prove that this coincides with the following definition.

Definition 5.1. For a dagger compact category V , define Stoch V [ ] to be the full subcategory of CP ∗ [ V ] consisting of all commutative normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras.

The next proposition justifies why this category is that of 'classical channels'. We call a morphism f : ( A , ) → ( B , ) in CP ∗ [ V ] normalised if it preserves counits: ◦ f = . Because commutative finite-dimensional C*-algebras correspond to finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces with a choice of orthonormal basis, we can think of the latter as objects of Stoch FHilb [ ] [10, 2, 13]. Recall that a stochastic map between finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is a matrix with positive real entries whose every column sums to one.

Proposition 5.2. Normalised morphisms in Stoch FHilb [ ] correspond to stochastic maps between finitedimensional Hilbert spaces.

Proof. See [15, 3.2.3 and 2.1.3].

For any Frobenius algebra ( A , ) we can consider its copyable points : the morphisms p : I → A that are 'copied' by the comultiplication, in the sense that ◦ p = p ⊗ p . This is especially interesting for commutative normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras, because in FHilb , copyable points form an orthonormal basis for A . Writing vectors in the basis of classical points, one can show that the normalised positive elements are precisely those vectors with positive coefficients that sum to 1. Thus, normalised positive elements of a commutative normalisable dagger Frobenius algebra can be regarded as probability distributions over its copyable points.

So far we have mostly looked at classical and quantum systems in isolation. But as they live together in a category CP ∗ [ V ] , we can also consider maps between them. Consider a normalised morphism P : L H ( ) → ( A , ) from a quantum to a classical system. Then P † ◦ xi is a positive element of for each copyable point xi . Furthermore, any commutative normalisable dagger Frobenius algebra in FHilb satisfies = GLYPH&lt;229&gt; i xi . Since P is normalised, GLYPH&lt;229&gt; P † ◦ xi = P † ◦ GLYPH&lt;229&gt; xi = P † ◦ = eH : I → H ∗ ⊗ H is the cup from the compact structure on H . Positive elements in H ∗ ⊗ H represent positive operators from H to itself, and eH represents the identity operator. Thus the set { P † ◦ xi } corresponds to a positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Furthermore, for any quantum state r (i.e. normalised positive element in L H ( ) ), it is straightforward to show that P ◦ r yields the probability distribution whose i th element is the probability of getting outcome xi , computed via the Born rule.

The dual notion of a morphism E : ( A , ) → L H ( ) from a classical system to a quantum system can be thought of as a preparation. Or, more precisely, as a map carrying a classical probability distribution over some fixed set of states to a single mixed state. Choosing a particular decomposition E ◦ r for a quantum state r gives us a way to represent quantum ensembles. See also [16, 3.2.4].

## 6 Hilbert spaces

It is high time we looked at some examples. This section proves that CP ∗ [ FHilb ] is the category of all finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps. The proof also illuminates Theorem 4.4.

Namely, CPM [ FHilb ] has finite-dimensional C*factors for objects. Recall that a C*-algebra is a factor when its centre is 1-dimensional. Finite-dimensional C*-algebras in fact enjoy an easy structure theorem: they are finite direct sums of factors, and factors are precisely matrix algebras [12, Theorem III.1.1]. The following lemma recalls the structure of these factors, and the subsequent proposition determines the objects of CP ∗ [ FHilb ] .

Lemma 6.1. If H is an n-dimensional Hilbert space, then there is an isomorphism of algebras between L H ( ) and M C n ( ) . Therefore, H ∗ ⊗ H carries C*-algebra structure; the involution is as in Theorem 2.3.

Proof. First of all, M C n ( ) is a Hilbert space under the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product 〈 a b | 〉 = Tr ( a b † ) . It has a canonical orthonormal basis { ei j | i , j = 1 , . . . , n } , where ei j is the matrix all of whose entries are 0 except the ( i , j ) -entry, which is 1. Pick an orthonormal basis {| 1 〉 , . . . , | n 〉} for H , so that {〈 | ⊗ | i j 〉 | i , j = 1 , . . . , n } forms an orthonormal basis for H ∗ ⊗ H . Then the assignment 〈 | ⊗| i j 〉 ↦→ ei j implements a unitary isomorphism between H ∗ ⊗ H and M C n ( ) . Direct computation shows that matrix multiplication translates across this isomorphism to on H ∗ ⊗ H . Similarly, taking the conjugate transpose of a matrix corresponds to the involution on H ∗ ⊗ H given in Theorem 2.3.

Proposition 6.2. All dagger Frobenius algebras in FHilb are normalisable.

Proof. Let ( A , , ) be a dagger Frobenius algebra in FHilb . By Theorem 2.3, it must be isomorphic to a C*-algebra of the form ⊕ k M nk ( C ) , giving a unitary isomorphism of the associated dagger Frobenius algebras. Let { e ( k ) i j : 0 ≤ i , j &lt; nk } form an orthonormal basis for A . We can define in terms of this basis as ( e ( k ) i j ⊗ e ( k ′ ) i ′ j ′ ) = d k ′ k d i ′ j e ( k ) i j ′ . From this, we can compute Tr A ( ) directly.

$$T r _ { A } ( \hat { \hat { \varphi } } _ { \lambda } ) ( e ^ { ( k ) } _ { i j } ) = \sum _ { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \that \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde  \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \t | \tilde { \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \ t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t | \t |   \sum _ { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde \tilde \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde {  \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde } \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde $ \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde [ \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde | \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t  \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t   \t  \t   \t   \t                                                                                                                                                                                                         }                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                        )                                                                                                                                                                                                       .$$

↦

Note that ( e ( k ) i j ) = d j i . We can now define the normaliser as e ( k ) i j → √ 1 nk e ( k ) i j : this map is invertible, satisfies Tr A ( ) ◦ ( ) 2 = , and acts by a constant scalar on each summand of A and so is central.

Combining the previous proposition with Theorem 2.3, we see that the objects of CP ∗ [ FHilb ] are (in 1-to-1 correspondence with) finite-dimensional C*-algebras. We now turn to the morphisms of CP ∗ [ FHilb ] . First, let us review what (concrete) completely positive maps between C*-algebras are. Good references are [3, 17]. The main notion is that of a matrix algebra M n ( A ) over a C*-algebra A . Its elements are n -byn matrices with entries in A , given C*-structure by ( aij ) · ( bij ) = GLYPH&lt;229&gt; n k = 1 aik b k j , ( aij ) ∗ =( a ji ∗ ) , and ‖ ( aij ) ‖ = sup {‖ ( aij ) x ‖ | x ∈ A n , ‖ ‖ x = 1 , where } ‖ ( x 1 , . . . , xn ) ‖ 2 = GLYPH&lt;229&gt; n i = 1 ‖ x 1 ‖ 2 . The following well-known lemma then follows directly.

Lemma 6.3. If A is a finite-dimensional C*-algebra, then so is M n ( A . If ) f : A → B is a linear map, then so is the function M n ( f ) : M n ( A ) → M n ( B ) that sends ( aij ) to ( f ( aij )) . If f is a ∗ -homomorphism, then so is M n ( f ) .

Definition 6.4. Alinear map f : A → B between C*-algebras is positive when for every a ∈ A there exists b ∈ B satisfying f ( a a ∗ ) = b b ∗ . It is completely positive when M n ( f ) is positive for every n ∈ N .

For us it will be convenient to take another, well-known, viewpoint. If A and B are finite-dimensional C*-algebras, then so is the algebraic tensor product A ⊗ B .

Lemma 6.5. Any finite-dimensional C*-algebra A has a canonical ∗ -isomorphism M n ( A ) = ∼ A ⊗ M C n ( ) . Under this correspondence, a linear map f : A → B between C*-algebras is completely positive if and only if f ⊗ 1 M C n ( ) is positive for every n ∈ N .

↦

Proof. Borrowing notation from Lemma 6.1, the ∗ -isomorphism M n ( A ) → A ⊗ M C n ( ) is given by ( aij ) → GLYPH&lt;229&gt; n i , j = 1 aij ⊗ ei j . One easily verifies that this preserves the multiplication and involution. The second statement follows directly from Definition 6.4 by unfolding this isomorphism.

Now we have phrased the concrete notion of complete positivity in terms of tensor products with matrix algebras (cf. Theorem 3.6), and given that matrix algebras in FHilb are precisely the algebras of the form L H ( ) for some Hilbert space H , we can determine CP ∗ [ FHilb ] .

Theorem 6.6. CP ∗ [ FHilb ] is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps.

Proof. Define a functor E from CP ∗ [ FHilb ] to the category of finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps, acting on objects as in Theorem 2.3 and as identity on morphisms.

Proposition 6.2 and Theorem 2.3 show that E is surjective on objects. Suppose f : ( A , ) → ( B , ) is a morphism in CP ∗ [ V ] . Then Theorem 3.6 shows that E ( f ) must be completely positive, as characterised by Lemma 6.5. Therefore E is well-defined. Conversely, any completely positive map g between C*-algebras satisfies the CP*-condition because of Lemma 6.5, so E is full and hence an equivalence of categories.

glyph[negationslash]

Remark 6.7. It follows from the previous theorem that the embedding L does not extend to an equivalence of categories because it is not essentially surjective. That is, there are finite-dimensional C*algebras, such as A = M C 1 ( ) ⊕ M C 2 ( ) , that are not isomorphic to a factor: dim ( A ) = 1 2 + 2 2 = 5 = n 2 = dim ( M C n ( )) .

## 7 Sets and relations

The previous section justified regarding normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras as generalised (finitedimensional) C*-algebras. This section considers CP ∗ [ V ] for V = Rel , the category of sets and relations. Starting with objects, we immediately see that these 'generalised C*-algebras' are quite different.

Proposition 7.1. All normalisable dagger Frobenius algebras in Rel are special. Therefore they are (in 1-to-1 correspondence with small) groupoids.

Proof. We have to prove that normalisability implies speciality in Rel ; for this it suffices to show that z 2 = 1. Now, the normaliser z is an isomorphism. In Rel , this means it is (the graph of) a bijection. But z is also positive, and hence self-adjoint. This means it is equal to its own inverse. Therefore z 2 = 1. The second statement now follows directly from [14, Theorem 7].

Next, we turn to determining the morphisms of CP ∗ [ Rel ] .

Definition 7.2. A relation R ⊆ Mor ( G ) × Mor ( H ) between groupoids G H , respects inverses when

$$\ g R h \Longleftrightarrow g ^ { - 1 } R h ^ { - 1 }, \quad \ g R h \Longrightarrow 1 _ { \text{dom} ( g ) } R 1 _ { \text{dom} ( h ) }.$$

Proposition 7.3. CP ∗ [ Rel ] is (isomorphic to) the category of groupoids and relations respecting inverses.

Proof. In general, a morphism R ⊆ ( X × X ) × ( Y × Y ) in Rel is completely positive if and only if

$$( x ^ { \prime }, x ) R ( y ^ { \prime }, y ) \Longleftrightarrow ( x, x ^ { \prime } ) R ( y, y ^ { \prime } ), \quad ( x ^ { \prime }, x ) R ( y ^ { \prime }, y ) \Longrightarrow ( x, x ) R ( y, y ).$$

If G and H are groupoids, corresponding to Frobenius algebras ( G , ) and ( H , ) , and R ⊆ G × H ,

$$\hat { \bigcirc } _ { \vdots } = \{ ( ( g, g ^ { \prime } ), g ^ { - 1 } \circ g ^ { \prime } ) \in G ^ { 3 } \, | \, \cot ( g ) = \cot ( g ^ { \prime } ) \},$$

$$\mathfrak { \varphi } ^ { \prime } \circ R \circ \mathring { \bigtriangleup } _ { \mathfrak { K } } = \{ ( ( g, g ^ { \prime } ), ( h, h ^ { \prime } ) ) \in G ^ { 2 } \times H ^ { 2 } \, | \, \cot ( g ) = \cot ( g ^ { \prime } ), \cot ( h ) = \cot ( h ^ { \prime } ), ( g ^ { - 1 } \circ g ^ { \prime } ) R ( h ^ { - 1 } \circ h ^ { \prime } ) \}.$$

$$& \colon \text{od} ( g ^ { \prime } ) \}, \\ & + = \text{cod} ( g ^ { \prime } ), \text{cod} ( h ) = \text{cod} ( h ^ { \prime } ), ( g ^ { - 1 } \circ g ^ { \prime } ) R ( h ^ { - 1 } \circ h ^ { \prime } ) \}.$$

Substituting this into (3) translates precisely into (2).

We close this section by investigating the embedding L : CPM [ Rel ] → CP ∗ [ Rel ] . Recall that a category is indiscrete when there is precisely one morphism between each two objects. Indiscrete categories are automatically groupoids.

Lemma 7.4. The essential image of the embedding L : CPM [ Rel ] → CP ∗ [ Rel ] is the full subcategory of CP ∗ [ Rel ] consisting of indiscrete (small) groupoids.

Proof. Let X be an object in CPM [ Rel ] , that is, a set. By definition, L X ( ) corresponds to a groupoid with set of morphisms X × X , and composition

$$( y _ { 1 }, y _ { 2 } ) \circ ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} \ ( y _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) & \text{if $y_{2}=x1$}, \\ \text{undefined} & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$

We deduce that the objects of L X ( ) correspond to identities, i.e. pairs ( x 1 , x 2 ) with x 1 = x 2. So objects of L X ( ) just correspond to elements of X . Similarly, we find that dom ( x 1 , x 2 ) = x 2 and cod ( x 1 , x 2 ) = x 1. Hence ( x 1 , x 2 ) is a morphism x 2 → x 1 in L X ( ) , and it is the unique such.

## 8 Splitting idempotents

This section compares the CP*-construction to Selinger's second solution to the problem of classical channels. First, recall this construction of splitting dagger idempotents [19].

Definition 8.1. Let V be a dagger category. The category Split † [ V ] has as objects ( A p , ) where p : A → A is a morphism in V satisfying p ◦ p = p = p † ; its morphisms ( A p , ) → ( B q , ) are morphisms f : A → B in V satisfying f = q ◦ f ◦ p .

If V is a dagger compact category, then so is Split † [ V ] (see [19, Proposition 3.16]). We will need the following assumption, that is satisfied in both Rel and FHilb .

Definition 8.2. A dagger compact category V is said to have algebraic square roots when, given any normalisable Frobenius algebra on A and any central positive definite morphism f : A → A , there exists a central morphism g : A → A such that f = g ◦ g .

We thank the anonymous referee for pointing us towards the following proposition.

Proposition 8.3. Let V be a dagger compact category that has algebraic square roots. There is a functor F : CP ∗ [ V ] → Split † [ CPM [ V ]] , acting as F ( A , , ) = ◦ ◦ ( ⊗ ) on objects, and as F ( f ) = ◦ ◦ f ◦ ◦ on morphisms. It is full, faithful, and strongly dagger symmetric monoidal.

Proof. First, notice that p = F A ( , , ) is indeed a well-defined object of Split † [ CPM [ V ]] : clearly p = ◦ ◦ ◦ = p † by centrality of the normaliser, p ◦ p = p follows from Lemma 3.3, and p is completely positive by Lemma 3.2. The assumption of algebraic square roots guarantees that F ( f ) is indeed a well-defined morphism in CPM [ V ] ; by Lemma 3.3, it is in fact a well-defined morphism in Split † [ CPM [ V ]] . Moreover, it is easy to see that an arbitrary V -morphism h : A ∗ ⊗ A → ∗ ⊗ B B is a well-defined morphism in CP ∗ [ V ] if and only if it is a well-defined morphism in Split † [ CPM [ V ]] .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0049v1-figure-b28d88a5-a44b-42c7-8994-c7e79368bd75.jpg)

Both CP ∗ [ V ] and Split † [ CPM [ V ]] inherit composition, identities, and daggers from V , so F is a full and faithful functor preserving daggers. The symmetric monoidal structure in both CP ∗ [ V ] and Split † [ CPM [ V ]] is similarly defined in terms of that of V , making F strongly symmetric monoidal.

Thus, when V has algebraic square roots, CP ∗ [ V ] is equivalent to a full subcategory of Split † [ CPM [ V ]] : the one obtained by splitting only the idempotents of the form F A ( , , ) . A variation of [19, Proposition 3.16] shows that splitting any family of dagger idempotents that is closed under tensor gives a dagger compact category, and Theorem 3.5 follows. The proof that we have written out does not need the assumption of algebraic square roots; moreover, it more explicitly exhibits the structure of CP ∗ [ V ] as a category of algebras.

In summary, in sufficiently nice cases, the CP*-construction fits between the CPM-construction and its idempotent splitting.

$$\text{CPM} [ \mathbf V ] \stackrel { L } { \longrightarrow } \text{CP} ^ { * } [ \mathbf V ] \stackrel { F } { \longrightarrow } \text{Split} ^ { \dagger } [ \text{CPM} [ \mathbf V ] ]$$

/

/

/

/

Both functors are strongly dagger symmetric monoidal, as well as full and faithful. Moreover, their composition is naturally isomorphic to the canonical inclusion CPM [ V ] → Split † [ CPM [ V ]] . However, the image of the left functor does not include classical channels. Similarly, a priori there is no reason why the right functor should be an equivalence. In particular, the middle category seems to capture the right amount of objects, and provides a constructive way to access them.

## 9 Future work

Having an abstract notion of C*-algebra, (and, by extension, an abstract categorical construction placing classical and quantum information on equal footing) opens up many avenues for exploration.

- · Quantum mechanics can be characterised in information-theoretic terms [4], but this argument is often criticised because it assumes a C*-algebraic framework from the start. The CP*-construction can investigate to what extent this criticism is valid and improve on those foundations.
- · We can now abstractly study all sorts of notions from the C*-algebraic formulation of quantum information theory [15, 16]. For example, notions of complementarity can be translated between abstract and concrete C*-algebras [6, 13].
- · The category Stab of stabiliser quantum mechanics embeds into CP ∗ [ Rel ] , opening the door to abstract considerations of classical simulable circuits.
- · It would be good to see whether algebraic square roots are necessary for Proposition 8.3. We also expect to find an example showing that F is not an equivalence.
- · One could characterise categories of the form CP ∗ [ V ] , perhaps using environments [5, 11, 7].
- · It is worth investigating to what extent our construction generalises to infinite dimension [2, 7].

- · On the theoretical side, the CP*-construction might be (lax) monadic.
- · Our construction seems related in spirit to [22]; it would be good to make connections precise.

## References

- [1] Samson Abramsky &amp; Bob Coecke (2008): Categorical quantum mechanics . In: Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures: quantum logic , Elsevier, pp. 261-324, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52869-8.50010-4.
- [2] Samson Abramsky &amp; Chris Heunen (2012): H*-algebras and nonunital Frobenius algebras: first steps in infinite-dimensional categorical quantum mechanics . Clifford Lectures 71, pp. 1-24.
- [3] Rejandra Bhatia (2007): Positive definite matrices . Princeton University Press.
- [4] Rob Clifton, Jeffrey Bub &amp; Hans Halvorson (2003): Characterizing quantum theory in terms of informationtheoretic constraints . Foundations of Physics 33(11), pp. 1561-1591, doi:10.1023/A:1026056716397.
- [5] Bob Coecke (2008): Axiomatic Description of Mixed States From Selinger's CPM-construction . Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 210, pp. 3-13, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.04.014.
- [6] Bob Coecke &amp; Ross Duncan (2011): Interacting Quantum Observables: Categorical Algebra and Diagrammatics . New Journal of Physics 13, p. 043016, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/4/043016.
- [7] Bob Coecke &amp; Chris Heunen (2011): Pictures of complete positivity in arbitrary dimension . In: Proceedings of QPL , pp. 29-37, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.95.4.
- [8] Bob Coecke, Chris Heunen &amp; Aleks Kissinger (2013): Categories of Classical and Quantum Channels . arXiv:1305.3821 .
- [9] Bob Coecke, ´ ric O. Paquette &amp; Duˇ sko Pavlovi´ c (2010): E Classical and quantum structuralism . In S. Gay &amp; I. Mackey, editors: Semantic Techniques in Quantum Computation , Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-69.
- [10] Bob Coecke, Duˇ sko Pavlovi´ c &amp; Jamie Vicary (2012): A new description of orthogonal bases . Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 23(3), pp. 555-567, doi:10.1017/S0960129512000047.
- [11] Bob Coecke &amp; Simon Perdrix (2010): Environment and classical channels in categorical quantum mechanics . In: CSL'10/EACSL'10 , Springer, pp. 230-244, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15205-4 20.
- [12] Kenneth R. Davidson (1991): C*-algebras by example . American Mathematical Society.
- [13] Chris Heunen (2012): Complementarity in categorical quantum mechanics . Foundations of Physics 42(7), pp. 856-873, doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9585-9.
- [14] Chris Heunen, Ivan Contreras &amp; Alberto S. Cattaneo (2012): Relative Frobenius algebras are groupoids . Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 217, pp. 114-124, doi:10.1016/j.jpaa.2012.04.002.
- [15] Michael Keyl (2002): Fundamentals of quantum information theory . Physical Reports 369, pp. 431-548, doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00266-1.
- [16] Michael Keyl &amp; Reinhard F. Werner (2007): Channels and maps . In Dagmar Bruß &amp; Gerd Leuchs, editors: Lectures on Quantum Information , Wiley-VCH, pp. 73-86, doi:10.1002/9783527618637.ch5.
- [17] Vern Paulsen (2002): Completely bounded maps and operators algebras . Cambridge University Press.
- [18] Peter Selinger (2007): Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps . In: QPL ENTCS , 170, Elsevier, pp. 139-163, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2006.12.018.
- [19] Peter Selinger (2008): Idempotents in dagger categories . In: QPL ENTCS , 170, Elsevier, pp. 107-122, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.04.021.
- [20] Peter Selinger (2010): A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories . In: New Structures for Physics , Lecture Notes in Physics 813, Springer, pp. 289-355, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12821-9 4.
- [21] Jamie Vicary (2011): Categorical formulation of finite-dimensional quantum algebras . Communications in Mathematical Physics 304(3), pp. 765-796, doi:10.1007/s00220-010-1138-0.
- [22] Jamie Vicary (2012): Higher quantum theory . Preprint, arXiv:1207.4563 .
Bob Coecke Chris Heunen Aleks Kissinger
Categories of Quantum and Classical Channels (extended abstract)
We introduce the CP*-construction on a dagger compact closed category as a
generalisation of Selinger's CPM-construction. While the latter takes a dagger
compact closed category and forms its category of "abstract matrix algebras"
and completely positive maps, the CP*-construction forms its category of
"abstract C*-algebras" and completely positive maps. This analogy is justified
by the case of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, where the CP*-construction
yields the category of finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive
maps.
  The CP*-construction fully embeds Selinger's CPM-construction in such a way
that the objects in the image of the embedding can be thought of as "purely
quantum" state spaces. It also embeds the category of classical stochastic
maps, whose image consists of "purely classical" state spaces. By allowing
classical and quantum data to coexist, this provides elegant abstract notions
of preparation, measurement, and more general quantum channels.