Trading Resources in Quantum Shannon Theory

Trading resources in quantum Shannon theory
Mark M. Wilde
Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics,

Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Center for Computation and Technology,
Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
mwilde@lsu.edu
Based on arXiv:1709.01111, 1605.04922, 1206.4886, 1105.0119, 1004.0458, 1001.1732,

0901.3038, 0811.4227 (with Bradler, Guha, Hayden, Hsieh, Leditzky, Qi, Touchette) and
Chapter 25 of arXiv:1106.1445
CQuIC Seminar, University of New Mexico, January 31, 2019
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 1 / 42

Main message
Question: What are the net rates at which a sender and receiver can
generate classical communication, quantum communication, and
entanglement by using a quantum channel many times?
Many special cases are known, such as the classical capacity theorem
[Hol98, SW97], quantum capacity theorem
[Sch96, SN96, BNS98, BKN00, Llo97, Sho02, Dev05], and the
entanglement-assisted classical capacity theorem [BSST02]
A priori, this question might seem challenging, but there is a

surprisingly simple answer for several channels of interest:
Just combine a single protocol with teleportation, super-dense coding,
and entanglement distribution

Background — quantum mechanics
Quantum channels
Quantum channels represent noisy physical evolutions of quantum systems.
Mathematically, a quantum channel is a linear, completely positive,
trace-preserving map, thus taking an input quantum state to an output
quantum state. Quantum channels are usually denoted by N , M, P, etc.
Isometric extensions of quantum channels

Every quantum channel has an isometric extension: There exists an
isometry taking an input density operator to the tensor-product Hilbert
space of output and environment. Channel is realized by applying isometry
and discarding environment
Quantum measurements
A quantum measurement is a special type of quantum channel with
quantum input and classical output
Background — resources
Resources [Ben04, DHW04, DHW08]

Let [c → c] denote a noiseless classical bit channel from Alice
(sender) to Bob (receiver), which performs the following mapping on
a qubit density operator

ρ00 ρ01 ρ00 0
ρ= →
ρ10 ρ11 0 ρ11
Let [q → q] denote a noiseless quantum bit channel from Alice to

Bob, which perfectly preserves a qubit density operator.
Let [qq] denote a noiseless ebit shared between Alice and Bob,
√ which
is a maximally entangled state |Φ+ iAB = (|00iAB + |11iAB )/ 2.
Entanglement distribution, super-dense coding, and teleportation are
non-trivial protocols for combining these resources

Entanglement distribution
|0〉 A H
|0〉 A’ id A’→B
Alice performs local operations (the Hadamard and CNOT) and

consumes one use of a noiseless qubit channel to generate one
noiseless ebit |Φ+ iAB shared with Bob.
Resource inequality: [q → q] ≥ [qq]

Super-dense coding [BW92]
Conditional Operations
x1
x2 Qubit
Channel
X Z
|Ф+ 〉AB x1
x2
Bell Measurement
Alice and Bob share an ebit. Alice would like to transmit two classical
bits x1 x2 to Bob. She performs a Pauli rotation conditioned on x1 x2
and sends her share of the ebit over a noiseless qubit channel. Bob
then performs a Bell measurement to get x1 x2 .
Resource inequality: [q → q] + [qq] ≥ 2[c → c]

Teleportation [BBC+ 93]
Bell Measurement
Two Classical
|ψ〉A’ Channels
|Ф + 〉AB
X Z |ψ〉B
Conditional Operations
Alice would like to transmit an arbitrary quantum state |ψiA0 to Bob.

Alice and Bob share an ebit before the protocol begins. Alice can
“teleport” her quantum state to Bob by consuming the entanglement
and two uses of a noiseless classical bit channel.
Resource inequality: 2[c → c] + [qq] ≥ [q → q]

Combining protocols [HW10]
Think of each protocol as a rate triple (C , Q, E )

Entanglement distribution is (0, −1, 1)
Super-dense coding is (2, −1, −1)
Teleportation is (−2, 1, −1)
All achievable rate triples are then given by
{(C , Q, E ) = α(−2, 1, −1) + β(2, −1, −1) + γ(0, −1, 1) : α, β, γ ≥ 0}
Writing as a matrix equation, inverting, and applying constraints

α, β, γ ≥ 0 gives the following achievable rate region:
C + Q + E ≤ 0,
Q + E ≤ 0,
C + 2Q ≤ 0.

Unit resource capacity region [HW10]
(0,-1,1)
1
ED
0.5
(0,0,0)
E 0
SD TP
-0.5
(-2,1,-1)
-1
-1 (2,-1,-1) -2
0 0
Q 1 2 C
The unit resource capacity region is C + Q + E ≤ 0, Q + E ≤ 0,

C + 2Q ≤ 0 and is provably optimal.

Trading resources using a quantum channel
Main question: What net rates of classical communication, quantum

communication, and entanglement generation can we achieve by
using a quantum channel N many times?
That is, what are the rates Cout , Qout , Eout , Cin , Qin , Ein ≥ 0
achievable in the following resource inequality?
hN i + Cin [c → c] + Qin [q → q] + Ein [qq]

≥ Cout [c → c] + Qout [q → q] + Eout [qq]
The union of all achievable rate triples

(Cout − Cin , Qout − Qin , Eout − Ein ) is called the quantum dynamic
capacity region.

Trading resources using a quantum channel
Reference
R t tf
SA
A1
A’ B
N
A’ B
Alice E N
M
A’ B
TA N
A2
L B
TB SB
B
Bob B1
B D M
Figure: The most general protocol for generating classical communication,

quantum communication, and entanglement with the help of the same respective
resources and many uses of a quantum channel.

What to do?
What strategy should we use to communicate classical

and quantum information simultaneously, along with the
assistance of entanglement?
One idea is time-sharing, but it is possible to do better...

Background — entropies
The optimal rates are expressed in terms of entropies, which we
review briefly
Given density operator σ, quantum entropy defined as
H(σ) = − Tr{σ log σ}.
Given a bipartite density operator ρAB , the quantum mutual
information is defined as
I (A; B)ρ = H(A)ρ + H(B)ρ − H(AB)ρ
The coherent information I (AiB)ρ is defined as
I (AiB)ρ = H(B)ρ − H(AB)ρ
Given a tripartite density operator ρABC , the conditional mutual
information is defined as
I (A; B|C )ρ = H(AC )ρ + H(BC )ρ − H(C )ρ − H(ABC )ρ

Quantum dynamic capacity theorem (setup) [WH12b]
(1)
Define the state-dependent region CCQE (N , σ) as the set of all rates
C , Q, and E , such that
C + 2Q ≤ I (AX ; B)σ ,
Q + E ≤ I (AiBX )σ ,
C + Q + E ≤ I (X ; B)σ + I (AiBX )σ .
The above entropic quantities are with respect to a classical–quantum

state σXAB , where
X
σXAB ≡ pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗ NA0 →B (φxAA0 ),
x
and the states φxAA0 are pure.

Quantum dynamic capacity theorem (statement) [WH12b]
(1)
Define CCQE (N ) as the union of the state-dependent regions
(1)
CCQE (N , σ):
(1) (1)
[
CCQE (N ) ≡ CCQE (N , σ).
σ
Then the quantum dynamic capacity region CCQE (N ) of a channel N

is equal to the following expression:
∞
[ 1 (1)
CCQE (N ) = C (N ⊗k ),
k CQE
k=1
where the overbar indicates the closure of a set.

It is implicit that one should consider states on A0k instead of A0
when taking the regularization.

Example: Qubit dephasing channel
Take the channel to be the qubit dephasing channel

N (ρ) = (1 − p)ρ + pZ ρZ with dephasing parameter p = 0.2.
Take the input state as
1
σXAA0 ≡ (|0ih0|X ⊗ φ0AA0 + |1ih1|X ⊗ φ1AA0 ),
2
where
0 p p
φ
AA0
≡ 1/4|00iAA0 + 3/4|11iAA0 ,
1 p p
φ
AA0
≡ 3/4|00iAA0 + 1/4|11iAA0 .
The state σXAB resulting from the channel is NA0 →B (σXAA0 )

Example: Qubit dephasing channel (ctd.)
Entanglement consumption rate 0.9

EAC
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 I
0.4
0.3
0.2 III CEF CEF-TP
0.1 EAQ
0
0
CEF-SD-ED
CEQ
LSD II
0.1
Quan 0.2 0.3 0.4 0
tum c 0.5 0.5
omm 0.6 1
u tion rate
rate nication 0.7 0.8 1.5 communica
Classical
(1)
Figure: An example of the state-dependent achievable region CCQE (N , σ)
corresponding to a state σXABE that arises from a qubit dephasing channel with
dephasing parameter p = 0.2. The figure depicts the octant corresponding to the
consumption of entanglement and the generation of classical and quantum
communication.

Direct part of the quantum dynamic capacity theorem
Entanglement-assisted classical and quantum communication

There is a protocol that implements the following resource inequality:
1 1
hN i + I (A; E |X )ρ [qq] ≥ I (A; B|X )ρ [q → q] + I (X ; B)ρ [c → c]
2 2
where ρXABE is a state of the following form:
X
ρXABE ≡ pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗ UAN0 →BE (ϕxAA0 ),
x
the states ϕxAA0 are pure, and UAN0 →BE is an isometric extension of the
channel NA0 →B .
Combine this with the unit protocols of teleportation, super-dense
coding, and entanglement distribution

Combining the protocols gives the following set of achievable rates:

      
C 0 2 −2 α I (X ; B)σ
Q  = −1 −1 1  β  +  1 I (A; B|X )σ  ,
2
E 1 −1 −1 γ − 21 I (A; E |X )σ
where α, β, γ ≥ 0.
Inverting the matrix equation, applying the constraints α, β, γ ≥ 0,
and using entropy identities gives the following region:
C + 2Q ≤ I (AX ; B)σ ,
C + Q + E ≤ I (X ; B)σ + I (AiBX )σ ,
which establishes the achievability part.

How to achieve the following resource inequality?

1 1
hN i + I (A; E |X )ρ [qq] ≥ I (A; B|X )ρ [q → q] + I (X ; B)ρ [c → c]
2 2
Tools for achievability part [Wil15, Chapter 25]

HSW classical capacity theorem [Hol98, SW97]
Entanglement-assisted classical capacity theorem [BSST02] (see also
[HDW08])
Modification of a classical trick called “superposition coding” [Sho04]
Another trick called coherent communication [Har04, DHW08]

Converse part
Consider the most general protocol:

Reference
R t tf
SA
A1
A’ B
N
A’ B
Alice E N
M
A’ B
TA N
A2
L B
TB SB
B
Bob B1
B D M
Make use of uniform continuity bounds for entropy, quantum data

processing, and dimension bounds for information quantities

Computing the boundary of the region [WH12b]
~ ≡ (C , Q, E ) a rate
~ ≡ (wC , wQ , wE ) ∈ R3 be a weight vector, R
Let w
x
vector, and E ≡ {pX (x), φAA0 } an ensemble.
Can phrase the task of computing the boundary of the single-copy

capacity region as an optimization problem:
P ∗ (~
w ) ≡ sup w ~
~ ·R
~
R,E
subject to C + 2Q ≤ I (AX ; B)σ ,

C + Q + E ≤ I (X ; B)σ + I (AiBX )σ ,
~ and
where the optimization is with respect to all rate vectors R
ensembles E, with σXAB a state of the previously given form.

Quantum dynamic capacity formula [WH12b]
By linear programming duality, if P ∗ (~

w ) < ∞, then the optimization
problem is equivalent to computing the quantum dynamic capacity
formula, defined as
D~λ (N ) ≡ max λ1 I (AX ; B)σ +λ2 I (AiBX )σ +λ3 [I (X ; B)σ + I (AiBX )σ ] ,

σ
where σXAB is a state of the previously given form and

~λ ≡ (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) is a vector of Lagrange multipliers such that
λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ≥ 0.
Suppose for a given channel N that D~λ (N ⊗n ) = nD~λ (N ) ∀n ≥ 1

and ~λ 0. Then the computation of the boundary simplifies
significantly. This happens for a number of important channels.

Example: Quantum erasure channel
Erasure channel is defined as follows:
N ε (ρ) = (1 − ε) ρ + ε|eihe|,
where ρ is a d-dimensional input state, |ei is an erasure flag state

orthogonal to all inputs (so that the output space has dimension
d + 1), and ε ∈ [0, 1] is the erasure probability.
Let N ε be a quantum erasure channel with ε ∈ [0, 1/2]. Then the

quantum dynamic capacity region CCQE (N ε ) is equal to the union of
the following regions, obtained by varying λ ∈ [0, 1]:
C + 2Q ≤ (1 − ε) (1 + λ) log d,
Q + E ≤ (1 − 2ε) λ log d,
C + Q + E ≤ (1 − ε − ελ) log d.

Example: Quantum erasure channel
1
SD
TP
Entanglement consumption rate
0.8 SD
0.6
0.4
0.2
rve
0 CEF cu
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6 ED
ED
−0.8
−1
−0.5
0 −1 −1.5
0.5 0 −0.5
1 1 0.5
2 1.5
1.5 2.5
Quantum communication rate Classical communication rate
Figure: The quantum dynamic capacity region for the (qubit) quantum erasure
channel with ε = 1/4. The plot demonstrates that time-sharing is optimal.

The dynamic capacity region CCQE (∆p ) of a dephasing channel with

dephasing parameter p ∈ [0, 1] is the set of all C , Q, and E such that
C + 2Q ≤ 1 + h2 (ν) − h2 (γ(ν, p)),

Q + E ≤ h2 (ν) − h2 (γ(ν, p)),
C + Q + E ≤ 1 − h2 (γ(ν, p)),
where ν ∈ [0, 1/2], h2 is the binary entropy function, and

r
1 1 p p
γ(ν, p) ≡ + 1 − 16 · 1− ν(1 − ν).
2 2 2 2

1.5
Entanglement consumption rate

1 SD
TP
SD
0.5
rve
CEF cu
0
−0.5
ED
ED
−1
−1
0 −2
−1
1 0
1
2 2
Quantum communication rate 3 Classical communication rate
Figure: A plot of the dynamic capacity region for a qubit dephasing channel with
dephasing parameter p = 0.2. Slight improvement over time-sharing.

Example: Pure-loss bosonic channel
Pure-loss channel is defined from the following input-output relation:

√ p
â → b̂ = η â + 1 − η ê,
where â is the input annihilation operator for the sender, ê is the

input annihilation operator for the environment, and η ∈ [0, 1] is the
transmissivity of the channel.
Place a photon number constraint on the input mode to the channel,

such that the mean number of photons at the input cannot be greater
than NS ∈ [0, ∞).
Example: Pure-loss bosonic channel [WHG12]
Build trade-off codes from an ensemble of the following form:

p(1−λ)NS (α), DA0 (α)|ψTMS (λ)iAA0 ,
where α ∈ C,
1 n o
p(1−λ)NS (α) ≡ exp − |α|2 / [(1 − λ) NS ] ,
π (1 − λ) NS
λ ∈ [0, 1] is a photon-number-sharing parameter, DA0 (α) is a

“displacement” unitary operator acting on system A0 , and |ψTMS (λ)iAA0 is
a “two-mode squeezed” (TMS) state:
∞
s
X [λNS ]n
|ψTMS (λ)iAA0 ≡ |niA |niA0 ,
n=0
[λNS + 1]n+1

The quantum dynamic capacity region for a pure-loss bosonic channel with
transmissivity η ≥ 1/2 is the union of regions of the form:
C + 2Q ≤ g (λNS ) + g (ηNS ) − g ((1 − η) λNS ),

Q + E ≤ g (ηλNS ) − g ((1 − η) λNS ),
C + Q + E ≤ g (ηNS ) − g ((1 − η) λNS ),
where λ ∈ [0, 1] is a photon-number-sharing parameter and g (N) is the

entropy of a thermal state with mean photon number N.
This holds provided that an unsolved minimum-output entropy conjecture

is true. The region is still achievable if η < 1/2.

1.6
8 Trade−off coding
Q (qubits / channel use)
E (ebits / channel use)

Time−sharing
1.2
6
0.8
4
η = 3/4
0.4 2
NS = 200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 9 10 11
C (cbits / channel use) C (cbits / channel use)
(a) (b)
Figure: Suppose channel transmits on average 3/4 of the photons to the receiver,
while losing the other 1/4 en route. Take mean photon budget of about
200 photons per channel use at the transmitter. (a) classical–quantum trade-off,
(b) classical comm. with rate-limited entanglement consumption. Big gains over
time-sharing.

Example: Quantum-limited amplifier channel
Amplifier channel is defined from the following input-output relation:

√ √
â → b̂ = G â + G − 1 ê † ,
where â is the input annihilation operator for the sender, ê is the

input annihilation operator for the environment, and G ∈ [1, ∞) is the
gain of the channel. The channel is quantum-limited if the
environment is prepared in a vacuum state.
Place a photon number constraint on the input mode to the channel,

such that the mean number of photons at the input cannot be greater
than NS ∈ [0, ∞).

Example: Amplifier channel [QW17]
The quantum dynamic capacity region for a quantum-limited amplifier

channel with gain G ≥ 1 is the union of regions of the form:
C + 2Q ≤ g (λNS ) + g (GNS + Ḡ ) − g (Ḡ [λNS + 1]),

Q + E ≤ g (G λNS + Ḡ ) − g (Ḡ [λNS + 1]),
C + Q + E ≤ g (GNS + Ḡ ) − g (Ḡ [λNS + 1]),
where Ḡ = G − 1 and λ ∈ [0, 1] is a photon-number-sharing parameter

and g (N) is the entropy of a thermal state with mean photon number N.
Bosonic channel with a complete triple trade-off solution!!!!

Example: Amplifier channel [QW17]
Figure: Suppose channel amplifies with gain G = 2 the photons being transmitted
to the receiver. Take mean photon budget of about 200 photons per channel use
at the transmitter. (a) classical–quantum trade-off, (b) classical comm. with
rate-limited entanglement consumption. Big gains over time-sharing.

Recent and other developments
Trade-off between secret key, private classical communication, and

public classical communication [WH12a]
Bounds for triple trade-off capacities using operator space and

complex interpolation theory [GJL18]
Many examples of superadditive effects for the trade-off capacities

[ZZS17, ZZHS17]. Just because one capacity is single-letter, it
doesn’t mean that double- or triple-resource trade-off is single-letter.
If a channel is approximately Hadamard, then the triple-resource

capacity region is approximately single-letter [LKDW18].

Conclusion
Summary
The quantum dynamic capacity theorem characterizes the net rates at
which a sender and a receiver can generate classical communication,
quantum communication, and entanglement by using a quantum
channel many times
The region simplifies for several channels of interest
Open questions
Is there a simple characterization for distillation tasks? For progress,
see [HW10]
Can we sharpen the theorem? Strong converse bounds, error
exponents, finite-length, second-order, etc.
What about channel simulation tasks? (see, e.g., [BDH+ 14])

References I
[BBC+ 93] Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher
Peres, and William K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via
dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical Review
Letters, 70(13):1895–1899, March 1993.
[BDH+ 14] Charles H. Bennett, Igor Devetak, Aram W. Harrow, Peter W. Shor, and
Andreas Winter. The quantum reverse Shannon theorem and resource
tradeoffs for simulating quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 60(5):2926–2959, May 2014. arXiv:0912.5537.
[Ben04] Charles H. Bennett. A resource-based view of quantum information.

Quantum Information and Computation, 4:460–466, December 2004.
[BKN00] Howard Barnum, Emanuel Knill, and Michael A. Nielsen. On quantum

fidelities and channel capacities. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
46(4):1317–1329, July 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/9809010.
[BNS98] Howard Barnum, M. A. Nielsen, and Benjamin Schumacher. Information

transmission through a noisy quantum channel. Physical Review A,
57(6):4153–4175, June 1998.

References II
[BSST02] Charles H. Bennett, Peter W. Shor, John A. Smolin, and Ashish V.

Thapliyal. Entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel and the
reverse Shannon theorem. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
48(10):2637–2655, October 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0106052.
[BW92] Charles H. Bennett and Stephen J. Wiesner. Communication via one- and
two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. Physical Review
Letters, 69(20):2881–2884, November 1992.
[Dev05] Igor Devetak. The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a
quantum channel. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(1):44–55,
January 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0304127.
[DHW04] Igor Devetak, Aram W. Harrow, and Andreas Winter. A family of quantum
protocols. Physical Review Letters, 93(23):239503, December 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0308044.
[DHW08] Igor Devetak, Aram W. Harrow, and Andreas Winter. A resource framework
for quantum Shannon theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
54(10):4587–4618, October 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0512015.

References III
[GJL18] Li Gao, Marius Junge, and Nicholas LaRacuente. Capacity bounds via
operator space methods. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59(12):122202,
2018. arXiv:1509.07294.
[Har04] Aram Harrow. Coherent communication of classical messages. Physical
Review Letters, 92(9):097902, March 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0307091.
[HDW08] Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Igor Devetak, and Andreas Winter. Entanglement-assisted

capacity of quantum multiple-access channels. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 54(7):3078–3090, July 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0511228.
[Hol98] Alexander S. Holevo. The capacity of the quantum channel with general
signal states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 44(1):269–273,
January 1998. arXiv:quant-ph/9611023.
[HW10] Min-Hsiu Hsieh and Mark M. Wilde. Trading classical communication,

quantum communication, and entanglement in quantum Shannon theory.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(9):4705–4730, September
2010. arXiv:0901.3038.

References IV
[LKDW18] Felix Leditzky, Eneet Kaur, Nilanjana Datta, and Mark M. Wilde.
Approaches for approximate additivity of the Holevo information of quantum
channels. Physical Review A, 97(1):012332, January 2018.
arXiv:1709.01111.
[Llo97] Seth Lloyd. Capacity of the noisy quantum channel. Physical Review A,
55(3):1613–1622, March 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9604015.
[QW17] Haoyu Qi and Mark M. Wilde. Capacities of quantum amplifier channels.

Physical Review A, 95(1):012339, January 2017. arXiv:1605.04922.
[Sch96] Benjamin Schumacher. Sending entanglement through noisy quantum

channels. Physical Review A, 54(4):2614–2628, October 1996.
[Sho02] Peter W. Shor. The quantum channel capacity and coherent information. In
Lecture Notes, MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computation, 2002.
[Sho04] Peter W. Shor. Quantum Information, Statistics, Probability (Dedicated to

A. S. Holevo on the occasion of his 60th Birthday): The classical capacity
achievable by a quantum channel assisted by limited entanglement. Rinton
Press, Inc., 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0402129.

References V
[SN96] Benjamin Schumacher and Michael A. Nielsen. Quantum data processing

and error correction. Physical Review A, 54(4):2629–2635, October 1996.
arXiv:quant-ph/9604022.
[SW97] Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D. Westmoreland. Sending classical

information via noisy quantum channels. Physical Review A, 56(1):131–138,
July 1997.
[WH12a] Mark M. Wilde and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Public and private resource trade-offs
for a quantum channel. Quantum Information Processing, 11(6):1465–1501,
December 2012. arXiv:1005.3818.
[WH12b] Mark M. Wilde and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. The quantum dynamic capacity
formula of a quantum channel. Quantum Information Processing,
11(6):1431–1463, December 2012. arXiv:1004.0458.
[WHG12] Mark M. Wilde, Patrick Hayden, and Saikat Guha. Information trade-offs for
optical quantum communication. Physical Review Letters, 108(14):140501,
April 2012. arXiv:1105.0119.

References VI
[Wil15] Mark M. Wilde. From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory. 2015.

arXiv:1106.1445 (preprint for a 2nd edition).
[ZZHS17] Elton Yechao Zhu, Quntao Zhuang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Peter W. Shor.
Superadditivity in trade-off capacities of quantum channels. August 2017.
arXiv:1708.04314.
[ZZS17] Elton Yechao Zhu, Quntao Zhuang, and Peter W. Shor. Superadditivity of
the classical capacity with limited entanglement assistance. Physical Review
Letters, 119(4):040503, July 2017. arXiv:1704.06955.

Trading Resources in Quantum Shannon Theory

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Trading Resources in Quantum Shannon Theory

Caricato da

Copyright:

Trading resources in quantum Shannon theory

Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics,

Based on arXiv:1709.01111, 1605.04922, 1206.4886, 1105.0119, 1004.0458, 1001.1732,

CQuIC Seminar, University of New Mexico, January 31, 2019

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 1 / 42

A priori, this question might seem challenging, but there is a

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 2 / 42

Isometric extensions of quantum channels

Resources [Ben04, DHW04, DHW08]

Let [q → q] denote a noiseless quantum bit channel from Alice to

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 4 / 42

Alice performs local operations (the Hadamard and CNOT) and

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 5 / 42

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 6 / 42

Alice would like to transmit an arbitrary quantum state |ψiA0 to Bob.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 7 / 42

Think of each protocol as a rate triple (C , Q, E )

{(C , Q, E ) = α(−2, 1, −1) + β(2, −1, −1) + γ(0, −1, 1) : α, β, γ ≥ 0}

Writing as a matrix equation, inverting, and applying constraints

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 8 / 42

The unit resource capacity region is C + Q + E ≤ 0, Q + E ≤ 0,

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 9 / 42

Main question: What net rates of classical communication, quantum

hN i + Cin [c → c] + Qin [q → q] + Ein [qq]

The union of all achievable rate triples

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 10 / 42

Figure: The most general protocol for generating classical communication,

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 11 / 42

What strategy should we use to communicate classical

One idea is time-sharing, but it is possible to do better...

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 12 / 42

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 13 / 42

The above entropic quantities are with respect to a classical–quantum

and the states φxAA0 are pure.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 14 / 42

Then the quantum dynamic capacity region CCQE (N ) of a channel N

where the overbar indicates the closure of a set.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 15 / 42

Take the channel to be the qubit dephasing channel

The state σXAB resulting from the channel is NA0 →B (σXAA0 )

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 16 / 42

Entanglement consumption rate 0.9

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 17 / 42

Entanglement-assisted classical and quantum communication

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 18 / 42

Combining the protocols gives the following set of achievable rates:

which establishes the achievability part.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 19 / 42

How to achieve the following resource inequality?

Tools for achievability part [Wil15, Chapter 25]

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 20 / 42

Consider the most general protocol:

Make use of uniform continuity bounds for entropy, quantum data

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 21 / 42

Can phrase the task of computing the boundary of the single-copy

subject to C + 2Q ≤ I (AX ; B)σ ,

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 22 / 42

By linear programming duality, if P ∗ (~

D~λ (N ) ≡ max λ1 I (AX ; B)σ +λ2 I (AiBX )σ +λ3 [I (X ; B)σ + I (AiBX )σ ] ,

where σXAB is a state of the previously given form and

Suppose for a given channel N that D~λ (N ⊗n ) = nD~λ (N ) ∀n ≥ 1

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 23 / 42

Erasure channel is defined as follows:

where ρ is a d-dimensional input state, |ei is an erasure flag state

Let N ε be a quantum erasure channel with ε ∈ [0, 1/2]. Then the

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 24 / 42