Limitation for linear maps in a class for detection and quantification
of bipartite nonclassical correlation

Show preview

Hide preview

ar X
iv :1
01 2.
57 18
v3 [
qu an
t-p h]
2 7 J
un 20
12
Quantum Information and Computation, Vol. 0, No. 0 (2003) 000–000 c© Rinton Press
Limitation for linear maps in a class for detection and quantification of bipartite nonclassical correlation
AKIRA SAITOH1∗, ROBABEH RAHIMI2†, MIKIO NAKAHARA1,3‡ 1Research Center for Quantum Computing, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Kinki University
3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashi-Osaka, Osaka 577-8502, Japan 2Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada 3Department of Physics, Kinki University
3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashi-Osaka, Osaka 577-8502, Japan
Received (received date) Revised (revised date)
Eigenvalue-preserving-but-not-completely-eigenvalue-preserving (EnCE) maps were previously introduced for the purpose of detection and quantification of nonclassical correlation, employing the paradigm where nonvanishing quantum discord implies the existence of nonclassical correlation. It is known that only the matrix transposition is nontrivial among Hermiticity-preserving (HP) linear EnCE maps when we use the changes in the eigenvalues of a density matrix due to a partial map for the purpose. In this paper, we prove that this is true even among not-necessarily HP (nnHP) linear EnCE maps. The proof utilizes a con- ventional theorem on linear preservers. This result imposes a strong limitation on the linear maps and promotes the importance of nonlinear maps.
Keywords: Nonclassical correlation, Linear preservers
Communicated by : to be filled by the Editorial
1 Introduction
Nonclassical correlation in a bipartite quantum system defined differently from en- tanglement has been studied in several different contexts [1, 2, 3] and attracting much interest in quantum information science. There are quantum information processing schemes, such as superdense coding [4, 5] and some of quantum games [6, 7, 8, 9], having advantages over classical counterparts even with a slightly polarized pseudo- entangled state that possesses a certain amount of nonclassical correlation. It is also known that the quantum algorithm for an approximate trace estimation of a unitary matrix using a single pseudo-pure qubit and other qubits in the maximally mixed
∗Present address: Quantum Information Science Theory Group, National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan ∗E-mail address: akira@m.ieice.org †E-mail address: rrahimid@uwaterloo.ca ‡E-mail address: nakahara@math.kindai.ac.jp
1

2 Limitation for linear maps . . .
state [10] involves no entanglement but a considerable amount of nonclassical cor- relation [11]. With these examples, it is highly motivated to study well-formulated nonclassical correlation.
A bipartite density matrix ρAB is (properly) classically correlated (pcc) [3, 12] if and only if it has a product eigenbasis:
ρABpcc =
dAdB∑
ij=11
eij |ui〉A〈ui| ⊗ |vj〉B〈vj |
where eij are the eigenvalues; |ui〉 and |vj〉 are the eigenvectors of the reduced density matrices of subsystems A and B, respectively; dA and dB are the dimensions of the Hilbert spaces of the respective subsystems. Any ρAB having no product eigenbasis is nonclassically correlated (ncc). These definitions are equivalent to regarding a bipartite quantum state with a nonvanishing quantum discord (for any side) [2] as a nonclassically correlated state and a state with a vanishing quantum discord as a classically correlated state. Here, we have used the term quantum discord as the one defined with a minimization.
There have been several detection methods and measures of nonclassical correla- tion for this paradigm; some of them are computationally expensive while perfect in the detection range [2, 3, 13, 14, 15] (there are some conditionallya computationally tractable ones [16, 17]); the others are computationally tractable while imperfect in the detection range [18, 19]. Recently, Dakic´ et al. [20] proposed a computation- ally tractable method detecting nonclassical correlation perfectly using an operator Schmidt decomposition. Chen et al. [21] also proposed a computationally tractable methodb to detect nonclassical correlation perfectly.
Among tractable albeit imperfect ones, the scheme we proposed in Ref. [18] uses a certain class of maps acting on a given density matrix. This scheme is in analogy with the scheme using positive-but-not-completely-positive (PnCP) maps [22, 23, 24] commonly used for entanglement detection and quantification. It has been of our interest to find certain maps that are useful for detecting and quantifying nonclassical correlation of a quantum bipartite system. There have been some classes of maps already defined in our previous works [25, 18] for this purpose.
Let us first introduce those classes of maps. A map that preserves the eigenval- ues and their algebraic multiplicities of a matrix is called an eigenvalue-preserving (EP) map. Sometimes the term “spectrum-preserving” is used in the same meaning, but it often means spectrum-preserving without taking the multiplicity into account.
a To be tractable, the measures in Refs. [16, 17] require that a proper Schmidt basis be found within polynomial time in dAdB. bThey proved that a necessary and sufficient condition for a bipartite density matrix ρAB to be a one-way classically correlated (1wcc) state ρAB1wcc =
∑ j σ
A j ⊗ |vj〉
B〈vj | (σ A j ’s are positive semidefinite
Hermitian matrices acting of subsystem A and {|vj〉 B} is a complete orthonormal set (CONS) of sub-
system B) is that, for an arbitrary CONS {|ui〉 A} (i = 1, . . . , dA) of subsystem A, all A〈ui|ρ
AB|ui′ 〉 A’s
commute with each other (i, i′ = 1, . . . , dA). By their theorem, one has only to test a polynomial number of commuting relations (by applying their theorem to both sides) to decide whether ρAB has a product eigenbasis or not.

A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara 3
Therefore, we employ the term EP in this paper. Among EP maps, Hermiticity pre- serving (HP) maps were thought to be rather natural in quantum physics. We con- sidered linear and nonlinear HP EP maps that are not completely EP in our previous contribution [18]. We call such maps HP eigenvalue-preserving-but-not-completely- eigenvalue-preserving (EnCE) maps.
An HP EP map ΛHPEP maps a density matrix ρ to a density matrix ρ ′ with the
same eigenvalues by definition. Thus
ΛHPEP : ∑
i
ei|vi〉〈vi| 7→ ∑
i
ei|vi′〉〈vi′|
with ei the ith eigenvalue of ρ and ρ ′; |vi〉 and |vi′〉 the corresponding eigenvectors of ρ
and ρ′, respectively. Therefore, ΛHPEP maps any projector set {|vi〉〈vi|} corresponding to a complete orthonormal set (CONS) {|vi〉} to another projector set {|vi′〉〈vi′|} corresponding to a CONS {|vi′〉}.
An HP EnCE map is an HP EP map that is not completely EP, i.e., IA ⊗ ΛBHPEP does not always preserve the eigenvalues of a density matrix for some dimensions of subsystem A. For any linear or nonlinear HP EnCE map ΛHPEnCE, the maps IA ⊗ ΛBHPEnCE and ΛAHPEnCE ⊗ IB both preserve the eigenvalues of a density matrix ρAB when it has a product eigenbasis, by the definition of the class of the maps, while they may change when it has no product eigenbasis. Therefore, changes in the eigenvalues under the action of IA ⊗ ΛBHPEnCE and/or ΛAHPEnCE ⊗ IB can be used for detection and quantification of nonclassical correlation. As an example of detection, consider the state ρp = (1 − p)I/d + pρNPT with 0 < p ≤ 1, d the dimension of the Hilbert space, and ρNPT a state possessing negative partial transposition (NPT) [22, 23], and consider the matrix transposition T as an HP EnCE map. (The state ρp is possibly a separable state.) Obviously, (I ⊗T )ρp has different eigenvalues from ρp. As for quantification, we introduced a measure using a form of logarithmic fidelity, which is subadditive when an HP EnCE map is chosen appropriately [18].
In particular for HP linear EnCE maps, the only nontrivial map is T as we showed in Ref. [18] using Wigner’s unitary-antiunitary theorem [26, 27, 28, 29]. One may notice that an HP linear EnCE map is nothing but an operation to change an or- thonormal basis to another one with the same dimension. In short, any HP linear EP map can be decomposed into unitary transformations and T . Therefore, any HP linear EnCE map can also be decomposed into unitary transformations and T . To overcome this limitation, we introduced a nonlinear extension in the previous work [18].
A natural question arises as to whether there is a nontrivial linear EnCE map other than T if we consider not-necessarily Hermiticity preserving (nnHP) maps. This contribution will reach a negative answer with the following theorem.
Theorem 1 For any nnHP linear EnCE map Υ and an identity map I of any di- mension, the set of eigenvalues of (IA ⊗ ΥB)ρAB is the same as that of ρAB for all ρAB, or the same as that of (IA⊗T B)ρAB for all ρAB, where ρAB is a density matrix of a bipartite system AB.

4 Limitation for linear maps . . .
This is the main theorem we are going to prove. It suggests that, even among nnHP linear EnCE maps, T is the only nontrivial map for the purpose of detecting and quantifying nonclassical correlation as far as we use the changes in the eigen- values. Thus, linear ones cannot detect and quantify nonclassical correlation of the states whose eigenvalues are unchanged by the partial transposition, such as one-way classically correlated states [12].
The result shown here should not be regarded as a limitation for general linear operations although it is, of course, a natural choice to explore nonlinear EnCE maps.
In this paper, we begin with preliminary lemmas in Section 2 and describe the results in the subsequent sections. As we mentioned, we are going to prove that T is the only nontrivial nnHP linear EnCE map for our purpose. This will be proved in two different contexts. In Section 3, we discuss the case where we regard a map as one preserving eigenvalues of any matrix. In Section 4, we discuss the case where we regard a map as one preserving eigenvalues of any density matrix. The results are summarized in Section 5 with remarks.
2 Preliminary Lemmas
Let us begin with two lemmas for linear maps that are used in proofs hereafter. Here, Md(F) denotes the set of d × d matrices over a field F and Sd denotes the set of d× d density matrices (positive semidefinite Hermitian matrices with unit trace). In addition, as usual, linearity is defined in the following way. Definition 1 For two spaces V and W of matrices over F, we say that a map Λ : V →W is linear if Λ(αu + βv) = αΛ(u) + βΛ(v) for all α, β ∈ F and u, v ∈ V .
Now the lemmas are stated as follows. Lemma 1 Consider linear maps Λ1 : Md(C) → Md(C) and Λ2 : Md(C) → Md(C) with integer d > 0. Suppose they are equivalent as maps, i.e., Λ1L = Λ2L for all L ∈ Md(C). Then, I ⊗ Λ1 and I ⊗ Λ2 are equivalent as maps for an identity map I acting on the space of q×q matrices for any integer q > 1, i.e., (I⊗Λ1)M = (I⊗Λ2)M for all M ∈Mqd(C). Proof. By linearity, for any matrix M =
∑q,q,d,d i,j,k,l=1,1,1,1 cijkl|i〉〈j|⊗ |k〉〈l| with cijkl ∈
C, we have (I⊗Λ1)M = ∑
ijkl cijkl|i〉〈j|⊗Λ1(|k〉〈l|) and (I⊗Λ2)M = ∑
ijkl cijkl|i〉〈j|⊗ Λ2(|k〉〈l|). Obviously, (I ⊗Λ1)M = (I⊗Λ2)M since, by the assumption, Λ1(|k〉〈l|) = Λ2(|k〉〈l|) ∀k, l. ✷. Lemma 2 Consider linear maps Λ1 : Sd → Md(C) and Λ2 : Sd → Md(C) with integer d > 0. Suppose Λ1ρ = Λ2ρ for all ρ ∈ Sd. Then, (I ⊗ Λ1)σ = (I ⊗ Λ2)σ for an identity map I acting on the space of q × q density matrices for any integer q > 1 and all σ ∈ Sqd. Proof. It is always possible to represent a qd × qd density matrix σ as σ =∑
ij cijαi⊗βj with a finite number of cij ∈ R (note that they may be negative), q× q density matrices αi, and d × d density matrices βj . This is because any Hermitian basis operator can be represented as a linear combination of a finite number of density matrices. By linearity of Λ1 and Λ2, (I ⊗ Λ1)σ =
∑ ij cijαi ⊗ Λ1βj and (I ⊗ Λ2)σ =∑
ij cijαi ⊗ Λ2βj hold. By the assumption, Λ1βj = Λ2βj ∀j. Hence (I ⊗ Λ1)σ = (I ⊗ Λ2)σ. ✷.

A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara 5
3 A Theorem on Linear Preservers Revisited
The maps we consider are those preserving the eigenvalues of a density matrix. In this regard, it is essential to revisit the long-standing research on linear preservers [30, 31, 32] in the theory of linear algebra. When we consider the linear maps pre- serving eigenvalues of any d × d matrix, then it is rather immediate to show that the transposition is the only nontrivial map in the context, as shown in this section. However, it should be noted that the maps of our interest are those preserving the eigenvalues of the density matrices; thus the class of the maps are possibly different from those acting on the space of general square matrices. Some additional mathe- matical evaluations are required as we will describe in the next section for the maps of our interest.
Let us revisit the result of the Marcus-Moyls theorem [33] and Minc’s theorem [34, 35] on linear transformations. Theorem 2 (From Marcus and Moyls, 1959 and Minc, 1974) A linear trans- formation Λ on Md(C) preserves the determinant and the trace for all A ∈ Md(C) if and only if Λ preserves the eigenvalues (including their algebraic multiplicities) for all A ∈ Md(C). Then there exists a matrix S in Md(C) such that ΛA = S−1AS for all A ∈Md(C), or ΛA = S−1ATS for all A ∈Md(C). Proof. This is a direct consequence of the Marcus-Moyls theorem [33] and Minc’s theorem [34, 35] on linear preservers. ✷.
Suppose we require a linear map Λ acting on the space of dB × dB matrices to preserve the eigenvalues of any matrix in MdB(C) rather than density matrices only. Then, by Theorem 2 and Lemma 1, IA ⊗ ΛB can be written as
IA ⊗ ΛB : A 7→ [IA ⊗ (SB)−1]A′(IA ⊗ SB)
where A′ stands for either A for all A ∈MdAdB(C) or (IA⊗T B)A (namely, the partial transposition of A) for all A ∈ MdAdB(C). Consequently, the set of eigenvalues of (IA ⊗ ΛB)A is equal to either that of A or that of (IA ⊗ T B)A. The partial transposition is thus the only nontrivial linear map as far as we use the changes in the eigenvalues for our purpose.
As we have already mentioned, this result is not directly applicable to the case where Λ is required to preserve the eigenvalues for density matrices only and not necessarily for general matrices. (In addition, we do not assume that Hermiticity is preserved in general.)
4 Formal Definitions and the Proof for the Main Theorem
In this section, we are going to prove our main theorem (Theorem 1) step by step. Due to its context, we restrict ourselves within maps from the set of density matrices to the set of square matrices. Note that the image need not be Hermitian.
We begin with the definitions of maps of our interest without imposing linearity. Definition 2 A not-necessarily Hermiticity preserving (nnHP) eigenvalue-preserving (EP) map Θ is a map from Sd to Md(C) such that, for a d × d density matrix ρ =∑d
i=1 ei|vi〉〈vi| (ei and |vi〉 are the ith eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector),

6 Limitation for linear maps . . .
Θ : ρ 7→ A ∈Md(C) with a matrix A having the set of eigenvalues same as that of ρ, for all ρ ∈ Sd. Definition 3 An nnHP EP-but-not-Completely-EP (nnHP EnCE) map is an nnHP EP map Θ˜ such that I ⊗ Θ˜ for some dimension for I does not preserve eigenvalues of some density matrix.
When we impose linearity (see Definition 1), the class of nnHP EP maps has an interesting property as stated in the following theorem. The proof is given later in this section. Theorem 3 For an nnHP linear EP map Θlin : Sd → Md(C), there exists a matrix S in Md(C) such that either Θlinρ = S
−1ρS for all ρ ∈ Sd or Θlinρ = S−1ρTS for all ρ ∈ Sd.
(Note: In case we also impose the HP property, then S becomes unitary; the theorem under this restriction is equivalent to the statement of Proposition 2 of our previous work [18].) The theorem suggests that Θlin must map the set {|vi〉〈vi|} of any ρ to some set {|ai〉〈bi|} where vector sets {|ai〉} and {|bi〉} are biorthogonalc, i.e., the left and right eigenvectors of Θlinρ are (|bi〉)∗ and |ai〉, respectively.
Before going into the proof of the theorem, let us briefly overview how such a map is related to detection and quantification of nonclassical correlation. For any nnHP linear EnCE map Υ, we have
(IA ⊗ΥB)ρABpcc = ∑
ij
eij |ui〉A〈ui| ⊗ |aj〉B〈bj |.
The eigenvalues of ρABpcc are preserved by I A ⊗ ΥB (and by ΥA ⊗ IB). Thus changes
in the eigenvalues of ρAB by IA ⊗ΥB or by ΥA ⊗ IB imply that ρAB has no product eigenbasis. The original and the (possibly) transformed eigenvalues are used to define a measure of nonclassical correlation as we discussed in Ref. [18].
To prove Theorem 3, we firstly introduce a remark, several lemmas, and the Marcus-Moyls theorem [33]. Here, Hd denotes the set of d× d Hermitian matrices. Remark 1 An nnHP linear EP map Θlin preserves the set of eigenvalues of any positive semidefinite Hermitian matrix A+.
This is obvious considering the fact that A+ is proportional to some density matrix or otherwise a zero matrix, and Θlin is linear. The proofs hereafter are tacitly based on this remark. We now introduce the lemmas. Lemma 3 An nnHP linear EP map Θlin can be regarded as a map from Hd to Md(C) such that, for all A ∈ Hd, the set of eigenvalues of Θlin(A) is equal to that of A, if Θlin is unital (i.e., if Θlin(I) = I). Proof. By linearity, Θlin(A) = Θlin[(A + cI) − (cI)] = Θlin(A + cI) − cΘlin(I) for some c ∈ R such that A + cI ≥ 0. By assumption, Θlin is unital. Therefore Θlin(A) = Θlin(A+ cI)− cI. By the fact that the eigenvalues of Θlin(A+ cI) are same as those of A+ cI by definition, the proof is now completed. ✷.
c Generally, we say that two systems of elements {x1, . . . , xd} and {y1, . . . , yd} in a unitary space are biorthogonal if (xi, yj) = δij (1 ≤ i, j ≤ d) where ( , ) is an inner product (see, e.g., Ref. [36]). In the present context, of course, a standard inner product is employed.

A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara 7
We can prove that any nnHP linear EP map is in fact a unital map. Lemma 4 Any nnHP linear EP map Θlin satisfies Θlin(I) = I. Proof. Consider a density matrix ρ ∈ Sd with eigenvalues e1, . . . , ed. By defini- tion, Θlin preserves the eigenvalues of ρ + cI for any c ≥ −minkek (k = 1, . . . , d). Consider such c. We have detΘlin(ρ + cI) =
∏ k(ek + c). Now consider the ma-
trix Θlin(I) −1, namely, the inverse matrix of Θlin(I). This has the eigenvalue 1 with
multiplicity d. Thus detΘlin(I) −1 = 1. We have detΘlin(ρ + cI) = det [Θlin(ρ +
cI)Θlin(I) −1] = det [Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)
−1+ cI] by linearity of Θlin. Let us write the eigen- values of Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)
−1 as λ1, . . . , λd. Then we have ∏
k(λk+ c) = ∏
k(ek+ c) ∀c ≥ −minkek. Therefore, λk = ek for k = 1, . . . , d. Thus, the matrix Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)−1 has the same eigenvalues as those of ρ. Consider the case where ρ has mutually distinct nonzero eigenvalues. Then, Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)
−1 is a nonsingular simple matrix; hence there exists nonsingular Q ∈Md(C) such that Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)−1 = QDQ−1 with non- singular D = diag(e1, . . . , ed). We then use the fact that Θlin(I)Θlin(ρ)Θlin(I)
−1 is a similarity transformation of Θlin(ρ), and hence it is a similarity transformation of D. It follows that Θlin(I)QDQ
−1 is a similarity transformation of D. Now we use the fact that the Jordan decomposition of Θlin(I) is given by Θlin(I) = I + N with N the nilpotent termd. We have Θlin(I)QDQ
−1 = QDQ−1 +NQDQ−1. Because this is similar to D, its Jordan decomposition is written as S˜ + N˜ with S˜ similar to D and N˜ = 0. Hence the term NQDQ−1 should vanish, which implies N = 0. Therefore, Θlin(I) = I holds. ✷.
With Lemmas 3 and 4, we can state the following lemma. Lemma 5 An nnHP linear EP map Θlin can be regarded as a map from Hd to Md(C) such that, for all A ∈ Hd, the set of eigenvalues of Θlin(A) is equal to that of A. Proof. This is a consequence of Lemmas 3 and 4. ✷.
We introduce one more lemma. Lemma 6 A linear map Π : Hd →Md(C) can be regarded as a linear map on Md(C) [namely, a linear map from Md(C) to Md(C)]. Proof. For all A ∈ Md(C), there exists a Cartesian decomposition A = H1 + iH2 with i =
√−1, H1 = (A + A†)/2, and H2 = (A − A†)/(2i) (See, e.g., pp.178-179 of Ref. [36]). Because H1 and H2 are Hermitian, we have Π(A) = Π(H1) + iΠ(H2). ✷.
In addition to the above lemmas, it is essential to introduce a useful theorem by Marcus and Moyls [33]. Theorem 4 (Marcus and Moyls, 1959) Let Λ be a linear map on Md(C). The following conditions are equivalent: (i) Λ preserves eigenvalues for all Hermitian matrices in Md(C). (ii) Λ preserves eigenvalues for all matrices in Md(C). (iii) There exists a unimodular matrix L such that either ΛA = LAL−1 for all A ∈ Md(C) or ΛA = LA
TL−1 for all A ∈Md(C). Proof. The proof is found in Ref. [33]. ✷.
With the above preparation, we can now prove Theorem 3. Proof of Theorem 3. By Lemmas 5 and 6, an nnHP linear EP map Θlin can be
d Because the eigenvalue of Θlin(I) is 1 with multiplicity d, we have the Jordan decomposition Θlin(I) = WIW
−1 +N = I +N for some nonsingular W ∈Md(C).

8 Limitation for linear maps . . .
regarded as a linear map on Md(C) that preserves the eigenvalues of any Hermitian matrix. By Theorem 4, the proof is completed. ✷.
With Theorem 3 and Lemma 2, we obtain our main theorem: Theorem 1 For any nnHP linear EnCE map Υ and a bipartite system AB, the set of eigenvalues of (IA ⊗ ΥB)ρAB is equal to that of ρAB for all ρAB ∈ SdAdB or equal to that of (IA ⊗ T B)ρAB for all ρAB ∈ SdAdB , where T is the matrix transposition. Proof. Theorem 3 and Lemma 2 prove the theorem. ✷.
Besides our main theorem, Definition 2, Lemma 5, and Lemma 6 also imply the following fact. Remark 2 The following condition is equivalent to conditions (i)-(iii) of Theorem 4. (iv) Λ preserves eigenvalues for all density matrices in Md(C).
5 Concluding Remarks
We have proved that, for a linear map Υ in the class of nnHP EnCE and a bipartite density matrix ρ, (I⊗Υ)ρ has the same set of eigenvalues as ρ or its partial transposi- tion. This indicates that nontrivial nnHP EnCE maps for detection and quantification of nonclassical correlation, except for the transposition, should be nonlinear.
To achieve this result, we have used a conventional theorem in the theory of linear preservers (See, e.g., Refs. [30, 31, 32]). Linear maps locally acting on a quantum bipartite system are often found useful to characterize nonclassicality of correlation, such as PnCP maps used in the entanglement theory. In this sense, it is expected that more conventional theorems will be found to be useful in the development of the theory of bipartite nonclassical correlation.
It should be noted that a class of maps useful for the purpose is not limited to the one working inside Md(C) apart from EnCE maps. Furthermore, one may seek for some linear operation which is not described by a map and has a natural extension in the dimension. Therefore, the result shown in this paper should not be regarded as a limitation in the use of general linear operations although it is, of course, a natural choice to explore nonlinear EnCE maps.
Given a general nonlinear (NL) map ΛNL, there is a freedom to define I ⊗ ΛNL under the present circumstance where no axiom is commonly known. It is natural to impose the condition that (I ⊗ ΛNL)(A ⊗ B) = A ⊗ ΛNLB for any matrices A and B in the spaces on which I and ΛNL are respectively acting. In addition, as for the case where ΛNL is an nnHP nonlinear EnCE map Θ˜NL, it is desirable to impose the condition that the map I ⊗ Θ˜NL should preserve the set of eigenvalues of any density matrix with a product eigenbasis in a similar manner as linear one since we aim to use the map to detect and quantify nonclassical correlation. These conditions are satisfied by the particular nonlinear EnCE map defined in Ref. [18]. It is hoped that further discussions will be made and a natural axiom for extending the dimension by a tensor product will be found so as to utilize other nonlinear preservers for the study of nonclassical correlation.
Acknowledgement

A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara 9
A.S. and M.N. are supported by the “Open Research Center” Project for Private Universities: matching fund subsidy from MEXT. A.S. is supported by the Grant-in- Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS (Grant No. 21800077). R.R. is supported by Industry Canada and CIFAR.
References
1. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters (1999), Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys. Rev. A, 59, pp. 1070–1091.
2. H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek (2001), Quantum discord: A measure of the quantumness of correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, pp. 017901–1–4.
3. J. Oppenheim, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki (2002), Thermodynamical approach to quantifying quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, pp. 180402–1–4.
4. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner (1992), Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, pp. 2881288.
5. R. Rahimi, K. Takeda, M. Ozawa, and M. Kitagawa (2006), Entanglement witness derived from nmr superdense coding, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 39, pp. 2151–2159.
6. J. Shimamura (2004), Playing games in quantum realm, PhD thesis, Osaka University, Toyonaka.
7. S¸. K. O¨zdemir, J. Shimamura, and N. Imoto (2004), Quantum advantage does not survive in the presence of a corrupt source: optimal strategies in simultaneous move games, Phys. Lett. A, 325, pp. 104–111.
8. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara (2009), Yet another framework for quantum si- multaneous noncooperative bimatrix games, In M. Nakahara, Y. Ota, R. Rahimi, Y. Kondo, and M. Tada-Umezaki, editors,Molecular Realizations of Quantum Computing 2007, World Scientific (Singapore), pp. 223-242.
9. A. Nawaz and A. H. Toor, Quantum games and quantum discord, arXiv: 1012.1428 (quant- ph).
10. E. Knill and R. Laflamme (1998), Power of one bit of quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, pp. 5672–5675.
11. A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves (2008), Quantum discord and the power of one qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, pp. 050502–1–4.
12. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and B. Synak-Radtke (2005), Local versus nonlocal information in quantum-information theory: Formalism and phenomena, Phys. Rev. A, 71, pp. 062307–1–25.
13. M. Piani, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki (2008), No-local-broadcasting theorem for mul- tipartite quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, pp. 090502–1–4.
14. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara (2008), Nonclassical correlation in a multipartite quantum system: Two measures and evaluation, Phys. Rev. A, 77, pp. 052101–1–9.
15. S. Luo and S. Fu (2010), Geometric measure of quantum discord, Phys. Rev. A, 82, pp. 034302–1–4.
16. B. Groisman, D. Kenigsberg, and T. Mor, ”Quantumness” versus ”classicality” of quantum states, quant-ph/0703103.
17. S. Luo (2008), Using measurement-induced disturbance to characterize correlations as clas- sical or quantum, Phys. Rev. A, 77, pp. 022301–1–5.
18. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara (2011),Mathematical framework for detection and quantification of nonclassical correlation, Quantum Inf. Comput., 11, pp. 0167–0180.
19. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara (2011), Tractable measure of nonclassical corre- lation using density matrix truncations, Quantum Inf. Process., 10, pp. 431–447.

10 Limitation for linear maps . . .
20. B. Dakic´, V. Vedral, and Cˇ. Brukner (2010), Necessary and sufficient condition for nonzero quantum discord, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, pp. 190502–1–4.
21. L. Chen, E. Chitambar, K. Modi, and G. Vacanti (2011), Detecting multipartite classical states and their resemblances, Phys. Rev. A, 83, pp. 020101(R)–1–4.
22. A. Peres (1996), Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, pp. 1413– 1415.
23. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki (1996), Separability of mixed states: neces- sary and sufficient conditions, Phys. Lett. A, 223, pp. 1–8.
24. P. Horodecki (1997), Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys. Lett. A, 232, pp. 333–339.
25. A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara (2008), Evaluating measures of nonclassical cor- relation in a multipartite quantum system, Int. J. Quant. Inf., 6 (Supp. 1), pp. 787–793.
26. E. P. Wigner (1959), Group Theory, Academic Press (New York). 27. E. P. Wigner (1960), Phenomenological distinction between unitary and antiunitary sym-
metry operators, J. Math. Phys., 1, pp. 414–416. 28. E. P. Wigner (1960), Normal form of antiunitary operators, J. Math. Phys., 1, pp. 409–413. 29. C. S. Sharma and D. F. Almeida (1990), A direct proof of wigner’s theorem on maps
which preserve transition probabilities between pure states of quantum systems, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 197, pp. 300–309.
30. M. Marcus (1971), Linear transformations on matrices, J. Res. Nat. Bureau Stand. B. Math. Sci., 75B, pp. 107–113.
31. C.-K. Li and N.-K. Tsing (1992), Linear preserver problems: A brief introduction and some special techniques, Linear Algebra Appl., 162-164, pp. 217–235.
32. C.-K. Li and S. Pierce (2001), Linear preserver problems, Amer. Math. Monthly, 108, pp. 591–605.
33. M. Marcus and B. N. Moyls (1959), Linear transformations on algebras of matrices, Canad. J. Math., 11, pp. 61–66.
34. H. Minc (1974), Linear transformations on nonnegative matrices, Linear Algebra Appl., 9, pp. 149–153.
35. H. Minc (1988), Nonnegative Matrices, Wiley (New York). 36. P. Lancaster and M. Tismenetsky (1985), The Theory of Matrices (2nd Ed.), Academic
Press (San Diego).