Quantum Complementarity

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10800
• Title: Quantum Complementarity
• Authors: Davide Rolino, Paolo Perinotti, Alessandro Tosini (Università degli Studi di Pavia)
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics)
• Publication Date: October 15, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10800

Abstract

This paper proposes an operational definition of complementarity, formalizing the concept originally introduced by Bohr. Two properties of a system are considered complementary if they cannot be simultaneously well-defined. The authors further demonstrate that within the framework of quantum theory, this concept is equivalent to the incompatibility of operations—namely, their inability to be executed simultaneously.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Historical Legacy: Bohr's concept of complementarity was central to early quantum mechanics but has lacked rigorous mathematical formalization
2. Understanding Wave-Particle Duality: Traditionally, complementarity relates to wave-particle duality, but quantum information theory requires a more abstract definition
3. Operational Theory Requirements: In quantum information processing, the physical interpretation of measurement outcomes is secondary; a more abstract concept of complementarity is needed

Research Motivation

1. Concept Formalization: Providing a rigorous operational definition for Bohr's complementarity concept
2. Unified Theoretical Framework: Establishing equivalence relations between complementarity and operational incompatibility
3. Universality Exploration: Extending results to general information processing theories

Core Contributions

1. Proposed an operational definition of complementarity: Based on the idea that system properties cannot simultaneously possess definite truth values
2. Established equivalence relations: Proved that in quantum theory, complementarity is equivalent to instrument incompatibility
3. Introduced hierarchical classification of properties: Defined three levels—strong complementarity, mild complementarity, and weak complementarity
4. Generalized to general theories: Extended results to the framework of causal operational probabilistic theories (OPTs)
5. Provided complete mathematical proofs: Gave rigorous proofs of the equivalence between complementarity and incompatibility

Methodological Details

Fundamental Concept Definitions

Elementary Properties

The authors define elementary properties as repeatable atomic quantum instruments:

1. Quantum Instruments: $T_X = \{T_x\}_{x \in X}$, where each $T_x$ is a completely positive trace-non-increasing map
2. Atomic Operations: Single Kraus operator form: $T_x(\rho) = T_x\rho T_x^\dagger$
3. Repeatability Condition: $T_x T_{x'} = \delta_{x,x'} T_x$

Verifier States

For an elementary property $T_X$, verifier states $\rho^{(x)} \in \Upsilon(T_x)$ satisfy: $\text{Tr}[T_x(\rho^{(x)})] = 1$

In quantum theory, elementary properties have projective form: $T_x(\rho) = \Pi_x \rho \Pi_x, \quad \Pi_x \Pi_{x'} = \delta_{xx'}\Pi_x, \quad \sum_{x \in X} \Pi_x = I$

Complementarity Definition

Three Levels of Complementarity

Let $\rho$ be a verifier state of $T_X$. For another property $G_Y = \{G_y\}_{y \in Y}$:

1. Strong Complementarity: $\text{Tr}[G_y\rho] = \frac{1}{|Y|}$ for all $y \in Y$
2. Mild Complementarity: $\text{Tr}[G_y\rho] \in (0,1)$ for all $y \in Y$
3. Weak Complementarity: $\text{Tr}[G_y\rho] \in [0,1)$ for all $y \in Y$

Incompatibility Definition

Weak Compatibility

Two instruments $T_X$ and $G_Y$ are weakly compatible if and only if there exist an instrument $\{C_z\}_{z \in Z}$ and post-processing $\{\{P_y^{(z)}\}_{y \in Y}\}_{z \in Z}$ such that:

$T_x = \sum_{z \in S(x)} C_z \text{ (traced over ancilla)}$$G_y = \sum_{z \in Z} P_y^{(z)} \circ C_z \text{ (traced over ancilla)}$

Main Theorems

Core Theorem: In quantum theory, complementarity is equivalent to incompatibility.

Proof Strategy:

1. Compatibility ⇒ Non-complementarity: If two elementary properties are compatible, they possess the same set of verifier states
2. Non-complementarity ⇒ Compatibility: Utilizing the projective form of quantum elementary properties, proving that non-complementary properties must be identical properties

Experimental Setup

This work is primarily theoretical and does not involve experimental setup in the traditional sense. The authors verify their theoretical framework through mathematical proofs and conceptual analysis:

Theoretical Verification Methods

1. Mathematical Proofs: Providing rigorous proofs of the equivalence between complementarity and incompatibility
2. Conceptual Consistency Verification: Verifying that new definitions are consistent with classical quantum mechanics concepts
3. Generalization Extension: Extending results to the operational probabilistic theory framework

Case Analysis

The authors provide concrete examples in qutrit systems to illustrate why elementary properties rather than coarse-grained properties must be considered:

For a qutrit system, consider two non-elementary properties:

• $\{\Pi_0 \cdot \Pi_0 + \Pi_1 \cdot \Pi_1, \Pi_2 \cdot \Pi_2\}$
• $\{\Pi_+ \cdot \Pi_+ + \Pi_- \cdot \Pi_-, \Pi_2 \cdot \Pi_2\}$

where $|\pm\rangle = (|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. These two properties have identical verifier states, but this non-complementarity arises merely from coarse-graining.

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

1. Equivalence Theorem: In quantum theory, two elementary properties are complementary if and only if they are incompatible
2. Verifier State Characterization: Verifier states in quantum theory are fixed points of their corresponding properties
3. Universality Results: In any causal OPT, incompatibility implies complementarity

Key Lemmas

Lemma: If two quantum elementary properties are non-complementary, they must be identical properties (up to permutation).

Proof Highlights:

• Non-complementary properties possess identical verifier state sets
• Utilizing orthogonality and completeness of projection operators
• Projection operators are uniquely determined by their support

Related Work

Historical Development

1. Bohr's Original Ideas: Complementarity as a foundational concept in quantum mechanics
2. Wave-Particle Duality Research: Work by Englert, Scully, and others
3. Incompatibility Theory: Research by Busch, Heinosaari, and others on measurement incompatibility

Theoretical Frameworks

1. Operational Probabilistic Theories: Axiomatic framework established by Hardy, Chiribella, and others
2. Quantum Instrument Theory: Contributions by D'Ariano and colleagues
3. Information-Theoretic Approaches: Efforts to informationally reconstruct quantum concepts

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Conceptual Unification: Successfully unified Bohr's complementarity concept with the incompatibility concept in modern quantum information theory
2. Theoretical Completeness: Provided complete mathematical formalization of the complementarity concept
3. Universality: Results apply to broader information processing theoretical frameworks

Limitations

1. Quantum Specificity: The converse direction (incompatibility implying complementarity) requires special structures of quantum theory
2. Elementary Property Restriction: Definition is limited to elementary properties, excluding coarse-grained cases
3. Operational Complexity: Verifying complementarity in practice may require complex operations

Future Directions

1. Resource Theory: Quantifying complementarity as a quantum resource
2. Classicality Connection: Exploring relationships between complementarity and classicality (simplicity)
3. Practical Applications: Developing quantum information processing protocols based on complementarity

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor: Provides the first rigorous operational definition of complementarity
2. Mathematical Completeness: Offers a complete mathematical proof framework
3. Conceptual Innovation: Successfully bridges classical quantum mechanics concepts with modern information theory
4. Universal Perspective: Extends results to general information processing theories

Weaknesses

1. Lack of Experimental Verification: As a purely theoretical work, lacks experimental validation
2. Limited Application Scenarios: Has not yet clearly demonstrated applications in practical quantum information tasks
3. Complexity Issues: Computational complexity of verifying complementarity remains undiscussed

Impact

1. Foundational Theory Contribution: Provides new mathematical tools for quantum mechanics foundational research
2. Interdisciplinary Value: Connects quantum foundations and quantum information fields
3. Future Research Direction: Establishes foundation for resourceification research on complementarity

Applicable Scenarios

1. Quantum Foundational Research: Understanding the conceptual structure of quantum theory
2. Quantum Information Protocols: Designing quantum algorithms based on complementarity
3. Theoretical Physics Education: Providing precise formulation of complementarity concepts

References

Key references include:

1. N. Bohr's original papers on complementarity
2. G. M. D'Ariano et al.'s work on operational probabilistic theories
3. P. Busch et al.'s research on measurement incompatibility
4. G. Chiribella et al.'s information-theoretic reconstruction of quantum theory

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality theoretical physics paper that successfully modernizes Bohr's classical complementarity concept and establishes profound connections with quantum information theory. While lacking experimental verification, its theoretical contributions are significant for both quantum foundations and quantum information fields.