slug: yurischev-2017-xstate-unimodality
bibkey: yurischev2017extremal
doi: 10.1007/s11128-017-1701-0
url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03728v3
triage: theorem
motivation_gids:
  - D5/S3/Quantum/Information/XStateWeakUnimodalityRefutation.result

Unimodality of the X-state conditional entropy

Problem

M. A. Yurischev, Extremal properties of conditional entropy and quantum discord for XXZ, symmetric quantum states, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 249 (2017), arXiv:1702.03728v3.

Introduction:

we suppose the unimodal property for the function $S_{cond}(\theta )$ (see Appendix). So, if the unimodality hypothesis is valid the only possibility (except the trivial case $S_{cond}(\theta )=const$) for a single local extremum (minimum or maximum) to appear or disappear inside the open interval by continuous varying the parameters defining the X state is the doubling the extremun at the ends of interval $[0,\pi /2]$.

The Appendix writes the conditional entropy of an X state as $f_1(x)=-h_2(\frac{1+p_{2}x}{2},\frac{1-p_{2}x}{2})+h_4(\frac{1+p_{2}x\pm \sqrt{r_1}}{4},\frac{1-p_{2}x\pm \sqrt{r_2}}{4})$ on $x\in [0,1]$ (Eq. (A1)). Here $r_{1,2}=(p_1\pm p_{5}x{)}^2+4w^2(1-x^2)$, $w=(|p_3+p_4|+|p_3-p_4|)/4$, and $h_2,h_4$ are Shannon entropies in bits. The Appendix defines weak unimodality as follows:

A function $f(x)$ is a weakly unimodal function in the interval $[a,b]$ if there exists a value $x_m\in [a,b]$ for which it is weakly monotonically increasing for $x\le x_m$ and weakly monotonically decreasing for $x\ge x_m$. […] Analogous definitions are given for the minimum.

It then states the conjecture:

The functions $f_1(x)$ and $f_2(x)$ for every choice of parameters $p_1,\dots ,p_5$ for which all arguments of Shannon functions are non-negative can have at most only one local extremum (minimum or maximum) in the open interval $x\in (0,1)$. […] It is required to prove or refute this proposition.

Motivation

The hypothesis underlies the paper’s bifurcation picture: interior extrema of the conditional entropy appear and disappear only at the end points, so the boundaries of the regions with an interior extremum are given by end-point conditions. The frozen declaration D5/S3/Quantum/Information/XStateWeakUnimodalityRefutation.result shows that the hypothesis fails for $f_1$.

Gap

Issue #12783 classifies the hypothesis as Tier 1. Before any Lean it recorded the following checks:

• The $f_2$ clause was answered by the same author, arXiv:1706.02852: bimodal entropy after measurement.
• That paper still describes the conditional entropy as “restricted by monotonic and unimodal types”, “confirmed for … subclasses of X states” (source l. 677–682).
• arXiv:1903.08342 (l. 177) still bases its equations “on the unimodality hypothesis for the function $Q(\theta )$”.
• Semantic Scholar lists 13 forward citations of arXiv:1702.03728 and 10 of arXiv:1804.03755. The arXiv-available ones were read in source: 2201.07005, 2003.04542, 1911.04724, 1903.08342, 1706.02852, 1804.03755, 1908.02410. None states a counterexample for $f_1$.

These are orchestrator-checked readings, not-found-in-searched-scope. They do not establish exhaustive worldwide novelty.

Route

1. Take $p=(-2466,-1107,187,-163,1138)/2500$, so $w=187/5000$.
2. On $[0,1]$, $(1+p_{2}x{)}^2-r_1$ and $(1-p_{2}x{)}^2-r_2$ are nonnegative combinations of $(1-x{)}^2$, $x^2$ and $x(1-x)$, so every Shannon argument is nonnegative.
3. At $x=0,\frac{27}{50},\frac{177}{200},1$:
   • bracket the square roots by rationals;
   • bracket each Shannon argument $t$ by rationals $0<l\le t\le u\le 1$;
   • use $l(-\log u)\le -t\log t\le u(-\log l)$;
   • bound $\log l$ and $\log u$ by the alternating-free series for $\log (1-y)$ after scaling by a power of $2$, together with $|\log 2-287209/414355|\le 10^{-10}$.
4. The resulting intervals for $f_1\log 2$ give $f_1(0)>f_1(\frac{27}{50})<f_1(\frac{177}{200})>f_1(1)$, which no weakly unimodal function admits in either form.

Falsifier

The kernel-checked result is the negation of the following statement. For all real $p_1,\dots ,p_5$ such that the six arguments $\frac{1\pm p_{2}x}{2}$, $\frac{1+p_{2}x\pm \sqrt{r_1}}{4}$ and $\frac{1-p_{2}x\pm \sqrt{r_2}}{4}$ are nonnegative for every $x\in [0,1]$, the function $x\mapsto f_1(x)$ is weakly unimodal on $[0,1]$. Weak unimodality means that some $x_m\in [0,1]$ makes $f_1$ either weakly increasing on $[0,x_m]$ and weakly decreasing on $[x_m,1]$, or weakly decreasing on $[0,x_m]$ and weakly increasing on $[x_m,1]$.

This statement is the paper’s own definition of weak unimodality applied to $f_1$. The Appendix also defines strong unimodality, with strict monotonicity. Every strongly unimodal function is weakly unimodal, so the result also refutes the strong form.

The conjecture’s wording counts local extrema. Read with non-strict local extrema, it is false already for constant $f_1$: take $p_2=p_3=p_4=p_5=0$, $|p_1|\le 1$. The Introduction excludes that trivial case. A weakly unimodal function has no strict local extremum in $(0,1)$ other than $x_m$. The Lean result does not by itself produce two strict local extrema (see Triage).

Evidence

• The four values (mpmath, 50 digits, bits):
  • $f_1(0)=0.0483262050$;
  • $f_1(27/50)=0.0483145773$;
  • $f_1(177/200)=0.0483282133$;
  • $f_1(1)=0.0483099449$.
• The certified intervals for $f_1\log 2$ have widths at most $4.002\cdot 10^{-8}$. The three separations used by the contradiction, for $f_1(0)>f_1(27/50)$, $f_1(177/200)>f_1(27/50)$ and $f_1(177/200)>f_1(1)$, are at least $8.0\cdot 10^{-6}$.

The canonical source is D5/S3/Quantum/Information/XStateWeakUnimodalityRefutation.lean.

• Public declarations: h2, h4, wParam, r1, r2, f1, ArgsNonneg, WeaklyUnimodal, claim and result.
• Reuse: h2 and h4 are the frozen shannonEntropy of D5/S3/Entropy/MaxEntropy, divided by log 2.
• Freeze identities:
  • module statement sha256:cf25406f7afc7905d874ae45a0a4a947f2268004635fdb3f00f8354ce23fead6;
  • result statement sha256:97c57bb87c02426bbb21f1c24030917248ee275602295296c0e326aa5383471e;
  • Freeze event sha256:5ff336716a0de0e9df6e7731e14dfef554ec43b32510e2ce8ed981680d619d8c. Its project-level frozen prerequisite is the Freeze event of D5/S3/Entropy/MaxEntropy.
• Axioms: the proof uses only propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound. It contains no sorry, no native_decide and no new axiom.

Triage

Tier 1 hypothesis of a 2017 journal article. Resolution: Refuted, by D5/S3/Quantum/Information/XStateWeakUnimodalityRefutation.result.

• proof_shape: bind-only. The settlement of the named hypothesis is the new content; there is no escape witness.
• admission_basis: open-problem-resolution (issue #12783).
• Utility kind certified-instance, basis refutes the module’s claim.

What the settlement shows

• Proved by result:
  • the parameters $p$ above have nonnegative Shannon arguments on $[0,1]$;
  • $f_1(\cdot ;p)$ is not weakly unimodal on $[0,1]$, in either the maximum or the minimum form.
• Consequence for extrema (orchestrator argument, not stated in Lean):
  • $f_1$ is continuous on $[0,1]$. Its minimum on $[0,177/200]$ is attained in the open interval, at a local minimum $m$. Its maximum on $[27/50,1]$ is attained in the open interval, at a local maximum $M$. Since $f_1(m)\le f_1(27/50)<f_1(177/200)\le f_1(M)$, the points $m$ and $M$ are distinct.
  • On $(0,1)$ all six Shannon arguments of this $p$ are positive, so $f_1$ is real-analytic there. It is not constant, so $m$ and $M$ are strict local extrema.
  • The conjecture therefore also fails in its extremum-counting wording.
• Where the example lives (orchestrator readings, not stated in Lean):
  • $|p_1|=0.9864$ is close to $1$.
  • At the four points, the arguments $\frac{1+p_{2}x-\sqrt{r_1}}{4}$ and $\frac{1-p_{2}x-\sqrt{r_2}}{4}$ lie between $3\cdot 10^{-4}$ and $6.5\cdot 10^{-3}$, and the four values of $f_1$ differ by about $10^{-5}$ bits.
  • $h_2$ and $h_4$ are concave on their probability simplices (the paper calls them convex, l. 1395). Their curvature does not decide the shape, because $f_1$ is a difference of entropies.
• Effect on the paper’s other conclusions (checked by reading the v3 source):
  • Two statements do not hold for general X states:
    • the abstract’s statement (l. 42–45) that $S_{cond}(\theta )$ “for X states can have at most one local extremum in the open interval”;
    • the bifurcation argument of the Introduction (l. 169–175), by which interior extrema appear only by doubling at the end points.
  • The hypothesis is a statement about general X states (Appendix, l. 1300–1306). The witness’s density matrix has unequal middle diagonal entries. It is therefore not symmetric, and lies outside the XXZ symmetric subclass studied in the body of the paper (orchestrator computation through the parametrization of [Y15]).
  • The numerical phase diagrams and the region boundaries found for that subclass are not contradicted by this example.
  • The boundary equations (SII1) of the Introduction (l. 151) capture regime changes that pass through the end points. For general X states they need not capture all of them.
  • arXiv:1903.08342 bases its equations on the same hypothesis for $Q(\theta )$. Outside the subclasses where unimodality is proved or checked, its conclusions are conditional.
• Open here:
  • whether $f_1$ is weakly unimodal on the XXZ symmetric subclass;
  • the largest number of local extrema of $f_1$ in $(0,1)$;
  • whether the counterexample region has positive measure in the seven-parameter X-state domain. The parameter walk that produced this witness passed through nearby rational $p$ with the same pattern; this is not proved.

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

The literature checks do not establish worldwide priority, and a complete forward-citation graph was not obtained. The Lean kernel verifies the encoded statement and its axiom closure. Its correspondence to the paper, including the reading of “at most one local extremum” through the paper’s definition of weak unimodality, is checked by reading the source and the definitions.