I have come accross a formula that puzzles me a bit in the proof of lemma 23 (page 32) of [this paper][1].
The authors start from a (translationally-invariant) matrix product state:
∣ψ⟩:=∑i1,…,intr(Ai1…Ain)∣i1…in⟩
where the Ai are matrices of dimension D satisfying ∑iA†iAi=∑iAiA†i=1D×D (that is, they constitute Kraus operators for a unital channel). Then, they claim that the reduced state of the first l qudits looks like:
ρl=∑i1,…,iltr(Ai1…Ail1D×DDA†j1…A†jl)∣i1⟩⟨j1∣⊗…⊗∣il⟩⟨jl∣
Yet, the first expression that looks obvious to me would rather be:
ρl=∑i1,…,il(∑in+1,…,intr(Ai1…AilAil+1…Ain)tr(A†in…A†il+1A†il…A†i1))∣i1⟩⟨j1∣⊗…⊗∣il⟩⟨jl∣
It looks as if by some magic the authors converted the sum of product of traces above to the trace of a product! Any idea where that would come from? At first, I thought it had to do with the A being randomized (see paragraph on top of page 32), but by giving it a closer look, it seems the statements of lemma 23 do not include an expectation value with respect to the Haar measure, as opposed e.g to lemma 24, so I am not sure what to think.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2947