Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Uniqueness of Purifications Is Equivalent to Haag Duality

Lauritz van Luijk, Alexander Stottmeister, and Henrik Wilming

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 040203 – Published 30 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/d7nm-gx37

Abstract

The uniqueness of purifications of quantum states on a system A up to local unitary transformations on a purifying system B is central to quantum information theory. We show that, if the two systems are modeled by commuting von Neumann algebras MA and MB on a Hilbert space H, then uniqueness of purifications is equivalent to Haag duality MA=MB′. In particular, the uniqueness of purifications can fail in systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom—even when MA and MB are commuting factors that jointly generate B(H) and hence allow for local tomography of all density matrices on H. We present a simple argument showing that the uniqueness of purifications, and, hence, Haag duality, fail in ground state sectors of topologically ordered models at renormalization group fixed points on infinite two-dimensional lattices, partitioned into the union of two spatially separated cones and its complement.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (83)

  1. T. Matsui, Commun. Math. Phys. 218, 393 (2001).
  2. M. Keyl, D. Schlingemann, and R. F. Werner, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 281 (2003).
  3. M. Keyl, T. Matsui, D. Schlingemann, and R. F. Werner, Rev. Math. Phys. 18, 935 (2006).
  4. R. Verch and R. F. Werner, Rev. Math. Phys. 17, 545 (2005).
  5. T. Matsui, Rev. Math. Phys. 25, 1350017 (2013).
  6. S. Hollands and K. Sanders, Entanglement Measures and Their Properties in Quantum Field Theory, SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physics, Vol. 34 (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2018).
  7. R. Longo and F. Xu, Adv. Math. 337, 139 (2018).
  8. E. Witten, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045003 (2018).
  9. R. Longo and F. Xu, Commun. Math. Phys. 381, 1031 (2021).
  10. R. Cleve, B. Collins, L. Liu, and V. Paulsen, Quantum 6, 755 (2022).
  11. J. Crann, D. W. Kribs, R. H. Levene, and I. G. Todorov, Commun. Math. Phys. 378, 1123 (2020).
  12. L. van Luijk, R. Schwonnek, A. Stottmeister, and R. F. Werner, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 152 (2024).
  13. L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming, Commun. Math. Phys. 406, 296 (2025).
  14. L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, and H. Wilming, Nat. Phys. 21, 1141 (2025).
  15. Y. Kuramochi, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 57, 2249 (2018).
  16. L. van Luijk, Entanglement in von Neumann Algebraic Quantum Information Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2025, 10.15488/19655.
  17. V. B. Scholz and R. F. Werner, arXiv:0812.4305.
  18. M. Junge, M. Navascues, C. Palazuelos, D. Perez-Garcia, V. B. Scholz, and R. F. Werner, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 52, 012102 (2011).
  19. T. Fritz, Rev. Math. Phys. 24, 1250012 (2012).
  20. N. Ozawa, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 54, 032202 (2013).
  21. Z. Ji, A. Natarajan, T. Vidick, J. Wright, and H. Yuen, arXiv:2001.04383.
  22. Z. Ji, A. Natarajan, T. Vidick, J. Wright, and H. Yuen, Commun. ACM 64, 131 (2021).
  23. W. Slofstra, J. Am. Math. Soc. 33, 1 (2020).
  24. W. Slofstra, Forum Math. Pi 7, e1 (2019).
  25. W. van Dam and P. Hayden, Phys. Rev. A 67, 060302 (2003).
  26. L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming, arxiv:2401.07299.
  27. L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 261602 (2024).
  28. R. Cleve, L. Liu, and V. I. Paulsen, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 58, 012204 (2017).
  29. R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics (Springer, New York, 1996).
  30. P. Naaijkens, Lett. Math. Phys. 101, 341 (2012).
  31. L. Fiedler and P. Naaijkens, Rev. Math. Phys. 27, 1550021 (2015).
  32. Y. Ogata, D. Pérez-García, and A. Ruiz-de Alarcón, arXiv:2509.23734.
  33. H. Araki, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 4, 1343 (1963).
  34. H. Araki, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 5, 1 (1964).
  35. P. D. Hislop, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 27, 2542 (1986).
  36. J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 16, 985 (1975).
  37. J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 17, 303 (1976).
  38. S. Doplicher, R. Haag, and J. E. Roberts, Commun. Math. Phys. 13, 1 (1969).
  39. P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen, Quantum Measurement, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2016).
  40. S. J. Summers and R. F. Werner, Phys. Lett. 110A, 257 (1985).
  41. S. J. Summers and R. F. Werner, Ann. l’I. H. P. Phys. Théorique 49, 215 (1988), https://www.numdam.org/item/AIHPA_1988__49_2_215_0/.
  42. P. Naaijkens, Rev. Math. Phys. 23, 347 (2011).
  43. P. Naaijkens, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 54, 081901 (2013).
  44. P. Naaijkens, Contemp. Math. 717, 257 (2018).
  45. C. Jones, Quantum Topol. 15, 633 (2024).
  46. C. Jones, P. Naaijkens, D. Penneys, D. Wallick, and M. Izumi, Forum Math. SIGMA 13, e135 (2025).
  47. L. Fiedler, P. Naaijkens, and T. J. Osborne, New J. Phys. 19, 023039 (2017).
  48. C. Y. Chuah, B. Hungar, K. Kawagoe, D. Penneys, M. Tomba, D. Wallick, and S. Wei, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 65, 102201 (2024).
  49. A. Bhardwaj, T. Brisky, C. Y. Chuah, K. Kawagoe, J. Keslin, D. Penneys, and D. Wallick, Commun. Math. Phys. 406, 185 (2025).
  50. P. Naaijkens, Quantum Spin Systems on Infinite Lattices: A Concise Introduction, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 933 (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2017).
  51. A. Bols, M. Hamdan, P. Naaijkens, and S. Vadnerkar, The category of anyon sectors for non-Abelian quantum double models, arXiv:2503.15611.
  52. H. Casini, M. Huerta, J. M. Magán, and D. Pontello, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 277.
  53. H. Casini and J. M. Magán, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, 2130025 (2021).
  54. S.-H. Shao, J. Sorce, and M. Srivastava, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2025) 009.
  55. D. Harlow, S.-H. Shao, J. Sorce, and M. Srivastava, arXiv:2509.03589.
  56. V. F. R. Jones, Invent. Math. 72, 1 (1983).
  57. V. Jones and V. S. Sunder, Introduction to Subfactors, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
  58. R. Longo, Commun. Math. Phys. 126, 217 (1989).
  59. R. Longo, Commun. Math. Phys. 130, 285 (1990).
  60. R. Longo and J. E. Roberts, K-theory 11, 103 (1997).
  61. R. Longo, Commun. Math. Phys. 222, 45 (2001).
  62. H. Kosaki, Type III Factors and Index Theory, Lecture Notes Series, Vol. 43 (Global Analysis Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, 1998).
  63. H. Kosaki, J. Funct. Anal. 66, 123 (1986).
  64. D. Bisch and J. Cáceres, arxiv:2509.00227.
  65. D. Bures, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 135, 199 (1969).
  66. A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976).
  67. P. M. Alberti, Lett. Math. Phys. 7, 25 (1983).
  68. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010).
  69. T. Metger and H. Yuen, in 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, New York, 2023), pp. 1349–1356.
  70. J. Bostanci, Y. Efron, T. Metger, A. Poremba, L. Qian, and H. Yuen, arXiv:2306.13073.
  71. T. Utsumi, Y. Nakata, Q. Wang, and R. Takagi, arxiv:2509.03619.
  72. J. Bostanci, T. Metger, and H. Yuen, arXiv:2509.05257.
  73. Consider an increasing sequence of finite subsystems Bk⊂Bk+1 such that B=∪k=1∞Bk. Since each ABk is a finite-dimensional matrix algebra, it is a von Neumann algebra. We have AB=∪kABk, hence MB=(∪kABk)′′ and it follows from Kaplansky’s theorem (Theorem II.4.8 in [74] that U(MB) is the strong*-closure of U(AB)=∪kU(ABk, see, for example, Lemma 38 of Supplemental Material in [14]. In particular, the group U(AB) of finitely localized unitaries are weakly dense in U(MB).

  74. M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I (Springer, New York, 1979).
  75. F. Hiai, Quantum f-Divergences in von Neumann Algebras: Reversibility of Quantum Operations, Mathematical Physics Studies (Springer, New York, 2021).
  76. A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 303, 2 (2003).
  77. P. Naaijkens, Anyons in infinite quantum systems: QFT in D=2+1 and the toric code, Ph.D. thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2012.
  78. U. Haagerup and E. Størmer, Adv. Math. 83, 180 (1990).
  79. B. Russo and H. A. Dye, Duke Math. J. 33, 413 (1966).
  80. T. W. Palmer, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 74, 538 (1968).
  81. S.-V. Stratila and L. Zsido, Lectures on von Neumann Algebras, 2nd ed., Cambridge IISc Series (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2019).
  82. All that is needed is a unitary orthonormal Pimsner-Popa basis [83]. Examples can, for example, be constructed from outer actions of finite groups on type II1 factors, in which case the index measures the number of orthogonal purifications (as in the example of the surface code).

  83. M. Pimsner and S. Popa, Ann. Sci. l’École Normale Supérieure 19, 57 (1986).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation