Você está na página 1de 80

Generalized amplitude damping channel:

The single greatest qubit mystery 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 joint work with Sumeet Khatri and Kunal Sharma in arXiv:1903.07747

Nordita, Stockholm, Sweden, April 4, 2019

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 1 / 80


Quantum Shannon theory

The main goal of quantum Shannon theory is to understand the


fundamental limitations of communication over quantum channels

There are a variety of communication tasks of interest, including


classical communication, private classical communication, quantum
communication, LOCC-assisted quantum communication, and
LOPC-assisted private classical communication

Much progress has been made during the past few years.

This talk summarizes much of this progress, with a running example


given by the generalized amplitude damping channel.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 2 / 80


Greatest mystery?

Quantum capacity of Pauli channels with pX , pY , pZ > 0 has been


unknown for long time now (see [LDS18, LLS18] for recent progress),
but classical capacity is known [Kin02]

Classical capacity of amplitude damping channel has been unknown


for long time now (see [WXD18] for recent progress), but quantum
capacity is known [GF05]

Generalized amplitude damping channel interpolates between these


two extremes, making it the greatest single qubit mystery in quantum
Shannon theory

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 3 / 80


Generalized amplitude damping channel (GADC)

Generalized amplitude damping channel (GADC) is a two-parameter family


of channels described as follows:

Aγ,N (ρ) = A1 ρA†1 + A2 ρA†2 + A3 ρA†3 + A4 ρA†4 ,

where γ, N ∈ [0, 1] and



   
1 0 p 0 1
A1 = 1 − N √ , A2 = γ(1 − N) ,
0 1−γ 0 0
√

  
1−γ 0 p 0 0
A3 = N , A4 = γN .
0 1 1 0

The parameter γ characterizes loss, and N describes environmental noise.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 4 / 80


Physical realization of GADC by beamsplitter interaction

θ(N)

A B
1–γ
γ

E
for qubit thermal state θ(N) = (1 − N)|0ih0| + N|1ih1|

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 5 / 80


Classical capacity of GADC (Preview of results)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

UB UB
χ(Aγ,N ) Cβ (Aγ,N ) UB
Ccov CEB CFil C E (Aγ,N )

Classical capacity lies in the shaded region of each plot.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 6 / 80
Techniques for classical capacity upper bounds

1 Approximately entanglement-breaking channels [LKDW18]

2 Approximately covariant channels [LKDW18]

3 Entanglement-assisted capacity [BSST99, BSST02, Hol02a]

4 Semi-definite programming upper bounds from classical


communication codes that are quantum non-signaling-assisted yet
PPT-limited [WXD18] (here we find analytic expression for GADC)

5 Decomposition of channel as unital channel followed by pre-processing


with particular completely positive maps [Fil18]

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 7 / 80


Quantum capacity of GADC (Preview of results)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

QLB
CI QUB
2 QUB
4 QUB
6 QUB
7 QUB
8
QUB
1 QUB
3 QUB
5

Quantum capacity lies in the shaded region of each plot.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 8 / 80
Techniques for quantum capacity upper bounds

Extreme case of N = 0 or N = 1 is amplitude damping channel, for which


we know quantum capacity [GF05]

1 Decomposition of GADC as serial concatenation of two amplitude


damping channels [LG15] and apply data-processing “bottleneck”
inequalities [WPG07, SS08]

2 Approximately degradable channels and approximately antidegradable


channels [SSWR17]

3 Rains information strong converse upper bound [TWW17]

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 9 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of GADC (Preview)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

↔,LB
QRCI Q1↔,UB Q2↔,UB Q3↔,UB Q4↔,UB Q5↔,UB

LOCC-assisted quantum capacity lies in the shaded region of each plot.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 10 / 80
Techniques for LOCC-assisted quantum capacity bounds

1 Squashed entanglement upper bound [TGW14, Wil16] and


decompositions for squashing channel inspired by [GEW16, DSW18]

2 Max-Rains information upper bound from [BW18] (here we find


analytic expression for GADC)

3 Approximately teleportation-simulable channel bound from [KW17]


(here we find analytic expression for GADC)

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 11 / 80


Classical communication

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 12 / 80


Classical communication code

Suppose that Alice and Bob are connected by a quantum channel


NA→B and that they are allowed to use it n times. The resulting
⊗n
channel is NA→B .
An (n, |M|, ε) classical comm. code consists of an encoding channel
EM 0 →An and a decoding measurement channel DB n →M̂ such that
⊗n
F (ΦM M̂ , (DB n →M̂ ◦ NA→B ◦ EM 0 →An )(ΦMM 0 )) ≥ 1 − ε,

where
1 X
ΦM M̂ ≡ |mihm|M ⊗ |mihm|M̂ ,
dim(HM ) m
1
|M| = number of messages and the rate R = n log2 |M|.
Note that ΦM M̂ represents a classical state, and the goal is for the
coding scheme to preserve the classical correlations in this state.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 13 / 80


Schematic of a classical communication code

Alice Bob
A’ B
N
A’ B M’
M N
E D
A’ B
N

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 14 / 80


Classical capacity

A rate R for classical communication is achievable if for all ε ∈ (0, 1],


δ > 0, and sufficiently large n, there exists an (n, 2n(R−δ) , ε) classical
communication code.

The classical capacity C (N ) of a quantum channel N is equal to the


supremum of all achievable rates.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 15 / 80


What is known about classical capacity
Holevo information lower bound on classical capacity [Hol98, SW97]:
χ(N ) ≤ C (N )

where χ(N ) = max x I (X ; B)ω ,


pX (x),ρA
X
ωXB ≡ pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗ N (ρxA ).
x

For some special channels, we know that χ(N ) = C (N ).


But it is also known [Has09] that there exists a channel for which
χ(N ) < C (N ).
This superadditivity phenomenon is due to quantum entanglement.
In general, classical capacity equal to regularized Holevo information:
1
C (N ) = lim χ(N ⊗n )
n→∞ n
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 16 / 80
Additivity of Holevo information for special channels

Classical capacity given in terms of single-letter Holevo information for

1 Entanglement-breaking channels [Sho02a]

2 Unital qubit channels [Kin02] (i.e., N (I2 ) = I2 )

There are other classes of channels, but we focus on the two above.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 17 / 80


Entanglement-breaking channels [HSR03]

An entanglement-breaking (EB) channel N is defined [HSR03] such


that for every input state ρRS , the output

(idR ⊗NS )(ρRS )

is a separable state.

To determine whether a given channel is entanglement-breaking, it


suffices to check whether the following state is separable [HSR03]:

(idR ⊗NS )(|ΦihΦ|RS ).

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 18 / 80


Entanglement-breaking channels

Every EB channel N can be written as a composition of a


measurement M followed by a preparation P [HSR03]:

N = P ◦ M.

Thus, internally, every EB channel transforms a quantum system to a


classical one and then back: q → c → q. In this sense, such channels
are one step up from classical channels and inherit some properties of
classical channels.

k
A B
σk

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 19 / 80


Diamond norm as a distinguishability measure for channels

Definition (Diamond norm [Kit97])


Diamond norm of the difference N − M:

kN − Mk ≡ max kNA→B (ψRA ) − MA→B (ψRA )k1


ψRA

Can be calculated by a semi-definite program [Wat13]:


minimize: µ
subject to: TrB ZRB ≤ µIR
ZRB ≥ (NA→B − MA→B )(ΓRA )
ZRB ≥ 0,
where ΓRA = |ΓihΓ|RA and
X
|ΓiRA = |iiR |iiA .
i

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 20 / 80


Diamond norm as distinguishability measure (ctd.)

A
Alice
B
Bob Channel

Figure: Most general scenario for quantum channel discrimination

Optimal success probability in quantum channel discrimination:


 
1 1
1 + kN − Mk
2 2

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 21 / 80


Approximately entanglement-breaking channels [LKDW18]

Fix quantum systems A and B, and let

E ≡ {MA→B | MA→B (ΦRA ) is separable}

denote the set of all entanglement-breaking channels.

Definition (Approximately EB channels [LKDW18])


For ε ∈ [0, 1], a quantum channel NA→B is ε-entanglement-breaking, if

min 1 kN − Mk ≤ ε,
M∈E 2

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 22 / 80


Approximately EB upper bound on classical capacity

Theorem ([LKDW18])
Let NA→B be an ε-entanglement-breaking quantum channel, with ε the
minimum in Definition 2. Then its classical capacity C (N ) is bounded as

C (N ) ≤ χ(M) + 2ε log |B| + g (ε)

where
g (ε) ≡ (ε + 1) log2 (ε + 1) − ε log2 ε
and MA→B is the EB channel achieving the minimum ε in Definition 2.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 23 / 80


SDP for approximately EB channels [LKDW18]

The goal of this technique is to compute a channel’s EB parameter


(i.e., smallest value of ε in Definition 2)

For channels NA→B such that |A||B| ≤ 6, this can be accomplished


by a semi-definite program [LKDW18]:

minimize: µ
subject to: TrB ZRB ≤ µIR
ZRB ≥ NA→B (ΓRA ) − MRB
TB
ZRB , MRB , MRB ≥0
TrB MRB = IR .

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 24 / 80


EB region for GADC [FRZ12, LG15]

By applying the PPT criterion to the Choi state Aγ,N (Φ), we find the
region of parameters for which the generalized amplitude damping channel
is entanglement breaking [FRZ12, LG15]:

1.0

0.8

0.6
N

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
γ

So we expect the approximately EB technique to give good upper bounds


for γ and N near this region.
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 25 / 80
Classical capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

UB UB
χ(Aγ,N ) Cβ (Aγ,N ) UB
Ccov CEB CFil C E (Aγ,N )

Bound from approximately EB technique is in purple.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 26 / 80
Covariant channels [Hol02b]

Let G be a group w/ unitary rep.’s UA (g ) on A and VB (g ) on B.


A quantum channel NA→B is covariant with respect to

{(UA (g ), VB (g ))}g ∈G ,

if for all g ∈ G

VB (g ) NA→B (·)VB (g )† = NA→B (UA (g ) · UA (g )† ).

A group G forms a unitary 1-design, if there is a unitary


representation UA (g ) of G on A such that

1 X
UA (g )ρA UA (g )† = πA
|G |
g ∈G

1
for all states ρA , where πA = |A| IA is the completely mixed state.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 27 / 80


Relevance of covariance to classical capacity

Lemma ([Kin02])
Let NA→B be a qubit channel (|A| = |B| = 2) that is covariant with
respect to {(UA (g ), VB (g ))}g ∈G , and where VB (g ) is a one-design.
Then the Holevo information is equal to the classical capacity for such
covariant channels:
C (N ) = χ(N )

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 28 / 80


Symmetries of the GADC

The GADC has the following symmetries:

Phase covariance:

Aγ,N (σz ρσz ) = σz Aγ,N (ρ)σz

for all states ρ and all γ, N ∈ [0, 1].

Flip transformation:

Aγ,N (ρ) = σx Aγ,1−N (σx ρσx )σx

for all states ρ and all γ, N ∈ [0, 1]. I.e., GADC Aγ,N related to
Aγ,1−N via a simple pre- and post-processing by σx .
These symmetries imply that Aγ,N is covariant wrt Paulis for N = 1/2. So
then we know the classical capacity for these special values.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 29 / 80


Twirled channel

For a group G with unitary representations UA (g ) on A and VB (g ) on


B and an arbitrary quantum channel N : A → B, the twirled channel
NG of N is defined as
1 X
NG (ρ) = VB (g )† N (UA (g )ρUA (g )† )VB (g ).
|G |
g ∈G

This twirled channel NG is covariant with respect to


{(UA (g ), VB (g ))}g ∈G by construction.

Twirled channel can be realized by teleportation over the channel’s


Choi state N (Φ) [KW17]

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 30 / 80


Approximate covariance

Definition (Approximate covariance)


Fix a group G with unitary representations UA (g ) on A and VB (g ) on B.
For a given ε ∈ [0, 1], a channel N ε-covariant is with respect to
{(UA (g ), VB (g ))}g ∈G , if

1
kN − NG k ≤ ε.
2

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 31 / 80


Approximate covariance bound on classical capacity

Theorem
Let NA→B be an arbitrary qubit channel (with |A| = |B| = 2), and set G
to the Pauli group.
Then the classical capacity of NA→B is bounded as

C (N ) ≤ χ(NG ) + 2ε + g (ε)

where
g (ε) ≡ (ε + 1) log2 (ε + 1) − ε log2 ε
and ε = 12 kN − NG k .

For GADC Aγ,N , this reduces to

C (Aγ,N ) ≤ χ(Aγ, 1 ) + 2γ |N − 1/2| + g (γ |N − 1/2|)


2

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 32 / 80


Classical capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

UB UB
χ(Aγ,N ) Cβ (Aγ,N ) UB
Ccov CEB CFil C E (Aγ,N )

Bound from approximate covariance technique is in green.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 33 / 80
SDP upper bound for classical capacity [WXD18]

Idea: consider codes for classical communication that are allowed to


be quantum non-signaling yet PPT-limited [WXD18] (both are
semi-definite constraints).

The following generic classical capacity upper bound for an arbitrary


quantum channel N [WXD18]:

C (N ) ≤ Cβ (N ) ≡ log2 β(N ),

where

 min. Tr[SB ]
β(N ) ≡ subject to −LRB ≤ TB (NA→B (ΓRB )) ≤ LRB ,
−IR ⊗ SB ≤ TB (LRB ) ≤ IR ⊗ SB .

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 34 / 80


SDP upper bound for GADC

By employing SDP duality, there is analytic expression for Cβ for the


GADC Aγ,N [KSW19]:
p
C (Aγ,N ) ≤ Cβ (Aγ,N ) = log2 (1 + 1 − γ).

Bound is independent of noise parameter N, so some room for


improvement.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 35 / 80


Classical capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

UB UB
χ(Aγ,N ) Cβ (Aγ,N ) UB
Ccov CEB CFil C E (Aγ,N )

SDP Bound is in red.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 36 / 80
Quantum communication

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 37 / 80


Quantum communication code

Now Alice would like to transmit quantum information intact to or


generate entanglement with Bob, perhaps for some distributed
quantum computation.
An (n, |M|, ε) quantum communication code consists of an encoding
channel EM 0 →An and a decoding channel DB n →M̂ such that:
⊗n
F (ΦM M̂ , (DB n →M̂ ◦ NA→B ◦ EM 0 →An )(ΦMM 0 )) ≥ 1 − ε,

where ΦM M̂ is the maximally entangled state:

1 X
ΦM M̂ ≡ |mihm0 |M ⊗ |mihm0 |M̂ ,
dim(HM ) 0
m,m

and the qubit rate is R = n1 log2 |M|.


The goal now is for the coding scheme to preserve the quantum
correlations in the state ΦM M̂ .
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 38 / 80
Schematic of a quantum communication code

Alice Bob
A’ B
N
A’ N B
A1 B1
E D
A’ B
N

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 39 / 80


Quantum capacity

A rate R for quantum communication is achievable if for all


ε ∈ (0, 1], δ > 0, and sufficiently large n, there exists an
(n, 2n(R−δ) , ε) quantum communication code.

The quantum capacity Q(N ) of a quantum channel N is equal to the


supremum of all achievable rates.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 40 / 80


What is known about quantum capacity

Coherent information lower bound on quantum capacity


[Llo97, Sho02b, Dev05]:

Ic (N ) ≤ Q(N )

where

Ic (N ) = max I (RiB)ω ,
φRA

ωRB = NA→B (φRA ).

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 41 / 80


Degradable channels
N
Recall that every channel NA→B has an isometric channel UA→BE
extending it, such that
N
NA→B = TrE ◦ UA→BE , U † ◦ U = idA

c
A complementary channel NA→E of NA→B is defined as [DS05]
c N
NA→E = TrB ◦ UA→BE

A channel NA→B is degradable [DS05] if ∃ a degrading channel


DB→E s.t.
c
DB→E ◦ NA→B = NA→E
For such a channel N , quantum capacity is known and efficiently
computable with convex optimization [YHD08]:

Q(N ) = Ic (N )
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 42 / 80
Approximately degradable channels [SSWR17]
Take defining condition for degradable channel and consider instead
c
DB→E ◦ NA→B ≈ NA→E

Definition ([SSWR17])
A channel N is ε-degradable if ∃ a channel D such that
1
kD ◦ N − N c k ≤ ε.
2
Minimal ε can be computed by an SDP
minimize: µ
subject to: TrE ZRE ≤ µIR
c
ZRE ≥ NA→E (ΓRA ) − hΓ|BB 0 NA→B (ΓRA ) ⊗ DB 0 E |ΓiBB 0
ZRE , DB 0 E ≥ 0
TrE DB 0 E = IB 0 .
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 43 / 80
Upper bound on q. capacity from approximate degradability

For an ε-degradable channel N with corresponding approximate degrading


channel D [SSWR17]

Q(N ) ≤ UD (N ) + 2ε log2 dE + g (ε),

where UD (N ) is defined as

UD (N ) ≡ max{H(F |Ẽ )ω : ωẼ FE = ((WB→Ẽ F ⊗ idE ) ◦ VA→BE )(ρA )},


ρ

with VA→BE and WB→Ẽ F being isometric channels extending N and D,


respectively.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 44 / 80


Quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

QLB
CI QUB
2 QUB
4 QUB
6 QUB
7 QUB
8
QUB
1 QUB
3 QUB
5

Bound from approximate degradability in gold.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 45 / 80
Data-processing bounds

Amplitude damping channels Aγ,0 and Aγ,1 are degradable.


Can decompose GADC as serial concatenation of amplitude damping
channels in two different ways [LG15]:

Aγ,N = AγN,1 ◦ A γ(1−N) ,0 ,


1−γN

Aγ,N = Aγ(1−N),0 ◦ A γN
,1
.
1−γ(1−N)

This leads to four different data-processing bounds for quantum


capacity, by “bottleneck technique” [WPG07, SS08]
 
Q(Aγ,N ) ≤ Q A γ(1−N) ,0 , Q(Aγ,N ) ≤ Q(Aγ(1−N),0 ),
1−γN
 
Q(Aγ,N ) ≤ Q(AγN,1 ), Q(Aγ,N ) ≤ Q A γN ,1 .
1−γ(1−N)

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 46 / 80


Quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

QLB
CI QUB
2 QUB
4 QUB
6 QUB
7 QUB
8
QUB
1 QUB
3 QUB
5

Data-processing bounds in red, blue, green, and magenta.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 47 / 80
Rains information of a quantum channel

Rains relative entropy R(A; B)ρ of a bipartite state ρAB


[Rai01, ADMVW02]:

R(A; B)ρ ≡ min D(ρAB kσAB )


σAB ∈PPT0 (A:B)

where D(ρAB kσAB ) is the quantum relative entropy and



TB
PPT0 (A : B) = {σAB : σAB ≥ 0, σAB ≤ 1}
1

Define Rains information R(N ) of a channel NA0 →B as

R(N ) ≡ max R(A; B)ρ ,


φAA0

where ρAB ≡ NA0 →B (φAA0 ) and optimization over pure bipartite input
states φAA0 , with |A| = |A0 |.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 48 / 80


Rains information (ctd.)

Rains information is concave in reduced density operator of input


φAA0 [KSW19].

It can be efficiently computed via semi-definite approximations of the


matrix logarithm [FSP18, FF18] because constraints for set
PPT0 (A : B) are semi-definite.

Rains information is an upper bound on quantum capacity [TWW17]:

Q(N ) ≤ R(N ).

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 49 / 80


Quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
γ γ γ

QLB
CI QUB
2 QUB
4 QUB
6 QUB
7 QUB
8
QUB
1 QUB
3 QUB
5

Rains information bound in purple (Q8 ).


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 50 / 80
LOCC-assisted quantum
communication

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 51 / 80


LOCC channel

In the theory of entanglement and quantum communication, one often


assumes that Alice and Bob can communicate classical data for free.

Paradigm is local op.’s and classical comm. (LOCC) [BDSW96].

A one-way LOCC channel from Alice to Bob consists of Alice


performing a quantum instrument, sending classical outcome to Bob,
who performs a quantum channel conditioned on the classical data.

An LOCC channel consists of finite, but arbitrarily large number of


1-way LOCC channels from Alice to Bob and then from Bob to Alice.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 52 / 80


LOCC channel (ctd.)

An LOCC channel can be written as a separable channel LAB→A0 B 0 :


X
z z
LAB→A0 B 0 (ρAB ) = (EA→A 0 ⊗ FB→B 0 )(ρAB ),

z
where {EA→A z
0 }z and {FB→B 0 }z are sets of completely positive, trace

non-increasing maps, such that LAB→A0 B 0 is a completely positive,


trace-preserving map (quantum channel).

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 53 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum communication

A1’ A2’ A’n MA

A1 B1 A2 B2 An Bn
LOCC N LOCC N LOCC LOCC N LOCC

B1’ B2’ B’n MB

An (n, M, ε) protocol for LOCC-assisted quantum communication


over the quantum channel N calls the channel n times.
In between every channel use, Alice and Bob are allowed to perform
an LOCC channel for free.
The final state ωMA MB should have fidelity larger than 1 − ε with a
maximally entangled state ΦMA MB of Schmidt rank M:

hΦ|MA MB ωMA MB |ΦiMA MB ≥ 1 − ε.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 54 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum capacity

A rate R is achievable for LOCC-assisted quantum communication if


for all ε ∈ (0, 1], δ > 0, and sufficiently large n, there exists an
(n, 2n(R−δ) , ε) LOCC-assisted quantum communication protocol.

The LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of a channel N , denoted by


Q ↔ (N ), is equal to the supremum of all achievable rates.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 55 / 80


Squashed entanglement of a bipartite state [CW04]

Squashed entanglement [CW04]


For a state ρAB , the squashed entanglement is defined as

Esq (A; B)ρ = 1


2 S inf I (A; B|E 0 )S(ψ)
E →E 0

where CMI wrt SE →E 0 (ψABE ) and ψABE is a purification of ρAB .

Conditional mutual information: A

I (A; B|E 0 )S(ψ) = S(B|E 0 )S(ψ) −S(B|AE 0 )S(ψ) |ψ〉ABE


B
Conditional entropy:
E E’
S
S(A|B)ρ = S(AB)ρ − S(B)ρ

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 56 / 80


Squashed entanglement of a quantum channel [TGW14]

Squashed entanglement of a channel Esq defined as [TGW14]

Esq (N ) = max Esq (R; B)ω


ϕRA

where ωRB = NA→B (ϕRA ).

Concave in the reduced density operator TrR [ϕRA ] [TGW14].

Upper bound on LOCC-assisted quantum capacity [TGW14]:

Q ↔ (N ) ≤ Esq (N )

The key to obtaining a good upper bound is to make a judicious


choice of squashing channel...

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 57 / 80


Squashed entanglement upper bound for GADC

Recall the decomposition of the GADC Aγ,N in terms of amplitude


damping channels:

A
Aγ,N B = A
Aγ1,1 Aγ2,0 B

γN
γ1 = , γ2 = γ(1 − N)
1 − γ(1 − N)

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 58 / 80


Squashed entanglement upper bound for GADC (ctd.)

This means that an isometric extension of Aγ,N is

|1〉 |0〉

A B
1–γ1 1–γ2
γ1 γ2

E1 E2

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 59 / 80


Squashed entanglement upper bound for GADC (ctd.)
Inspired by [GEW16, DSW18], take squashing channel to be two 50:50
amplitude damping channels and compute 12 I (R; B|F1 F2 ) as upper bound:

|1〉 |0〉

A B
1–γ1 1–γ2
γ1 γ2

E1 E2
F1 F2
|0〉 |0〉
½ ½
½ ½

discard discard

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 60 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

↔,LB
QRCI Q1↔,UB Q2↔,UB Q3↔,UB Q4↔,UB Q5↔,UB

Squashed entanglement bounds are in blue and magenta.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 61 / 80
Teleportation-simulable channels
A channel NA→B is teleportation simulable with associated resource state
ωRB if there exists an LOCC channel LARB 0 →B such that
[BDSW96, HHH99]

Alice
Alice
A
A
N B
= R
LOCC
Bob
ω
B’ B
Bob

Then Q ↔ (N ) ≤ D(ωRB ), where D is distillable entanglement


[BDSW96, MH12]. So any bound on distillable entanglement bounds
capacity.
Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 62 / 80
Approximately teleportation-simulable channels

A channel NA→B is (ε, ωRB ) approximately teleportation simulable


[KW17] if there exists a channel MA→B that is exactly teleportation
simulable with associated resource state ωRB , such that
1
kNA→B − MA→B k ≤ ε
2
For such channels, the following bound holds [KW17]

Q ↔ (N ) ≤ R(ωRB ) + 2ε log2 |B| + g (ε),

where R(ωRB ) is the Rains relative entropy.

Covariant channels, as defined previously, are teleportation simulable


from their Choi state, i.e., ωRB = NA→B (ΦRA ) [CDP09]

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 63 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

↔,LB
QRCI Q1↔,UB Q2↔,UB Q3↔,UB Q4↔,UB Q5↔,UB

Approximately teleportation-simulable bounds are in gold.


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 64 / 80
Max Rains information

Previously, we defined Rains information of a quantum channel


[TWW17].

Max-Rains information is defined similarly, except that relative


entropy is replaced with max-relative entropy [Dat09], defined as

Dmax (ρkσ) = inf{λ : ρ ≤ 2λ σ} = 2 log2 σ −1/2 ρ1/2

Max-Rains information is defined as [WFD18] (see also [TWW17])

Rmax (N ) ≡ max min Dmax (NA0 →B (φAA0 )kσAB ),


φAA0 σAB ∈PPT0 (A:B)

where optimization over pure φAA0 , with |A| = |A0 |.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 65 / 80


Max Rains info. bounds LOCC-assisted quantum capacity

Max Rains information bounds LOCC-assisted quantum capacity


[BW18]
Q ↔ (N ) ≤ Rmax (N )

Can be computed by an SDP:

Rmax (N ) = log2 ∆(N ),



 min. kTrB [VAB + YAB ]k∞
∆(N ) = subject to YAB , VAB ≥ 0,
TB (VAB − YAB ) ≥ ΓNAB ,

where ΓN
AB is the Choi matrix of the channel N

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 66 / 80


Analytic expression for max Rains of GADC [KSW19]

Analytic expression for max Rains of GADC Aγ,N [KSW19]:


 
γ 1
q
Rmax (Aγ,N ) = log2 1 − + 2
(γ(2N − 1)) + 4(1 − γ)
2 2

if Aγ,N is not entanglement breaking, otherwise equal to zero.

Found by employing semi-definite programming duality

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 67 / 80


LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of GADC (Reminder)

N = 0.1 N = 0.2 N = 0.3


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

N = 0.4 N = 0.45 N = 0.5


1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
γ γ γ

↔,LB
QRCI Q1↔,UB Q2↔,UB Q3↔,UB Q4↔,UB Q5↔,UB

Max Rains bounds are in red. That’s all folks!!!


Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 68 / 80
All programs shared

All programs used to generate plots and calculate bounds are available for
download, including a mixture of Mathematica, Python, and Matlab codes

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 69 / 80


Conclusion

Understanding capacities of the GADC is one of the great challenges


of quantum Shannon theory

We employed a variety of techniques to narrow down the capacities.

In order to make further progress, it is certainly the case that new


techniques are necessary.

One can use the GADC to benchmark the performance of new


techniques.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 70 / 80


References I

[ADMVW02] Koenraad Audenaert, B. De Moor, Karl G. H. Vollbrecht, and Reinhard F.


Werner. Asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement for orthogonally
invariant states. Physical Review A, 66:032310, September 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0204143.

[BDSW96] Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and


William K. Wootters. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error
correction. Physical Review A, 54:3824–3851, Nov 1996.

[BSST99] Charles H. Bennett, Peter W. Shor, John A. Smolin, and Ashish V.


Thapliyal. Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of noisy quantum
channels. Physical Review Letters, 83:3081–3084, October 1999.
arXiv:quant-ph/9904023.

[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.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 71 / 80


References II

[BW18] Mario Berta and Mark M. Wilde. Amortization does not enhance the
max-Rains information of a quantum channel. New Journal of Physics,
20(5):053044, 2018. arXiv:1709.04907.

[CDP09] Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro DAriano, and Paolo Perinotti.


Realization schemes for quantum instruments in finite dimensions. Journal
of Mathematical Physics, 50(4):042101, April 2009. arXiv:0810.3211.

[CW04] Matthias Christandl and Andreas Winter. Squashed entanglement: An


additive entanglement measure. Journal of Mathematical Physics,
45(3):829–840, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0308088.

[Dat09] Nilanjana Datta. Min- and max-relative entropies and a new


entanglement monotone. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
55(6):2816–2826, June 2009. arXiv:0803.2770.

[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.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 72 / 80


References III

[DS05] Igor Devetak and Peter W. Shor. The capacity of a quantum channel for
simultaneous transmission of classical and quantum information.
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 256(2):287–303, March 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0311131.

[DSW18] Noah Davis, Maksim E. Shirokov, and Mark M. Wilde. Energy-constrained


two-way assisted private and quantum capacities of quantum channels.
Physical Review A, 97:062310, June 2018. arXiv:1801.08102.

[FF18] Hamza Fawzi and Omar Fawzi. Efficient optimization of the quantum
relative entropy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical,
51(15):154003, April 2018. arXiv:1705.06671.

[Fil18] Sergey N. Filippov. Lower and upper bounds on nonunital qubit channel
capacities. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 82(2):149–159, 2018.
arXiv:1802.00646.
[FRZ12] Sergey N. Filippov, Tomás Rybár, and Mário Ziman. Local two-qubit
entanglement-annihilating channels. Physical Review A, 85(1):012303,
January 2012. arXiv:1110.3757.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 73 / 80


References IV

[FSP18] Hamza Fawzi, James Saunderson, and Pablo A. Parrilo. Semidefinite


approximations of the matrix logarithm. Foundations of Computational
Mathematics, pages 1–38, 2018. arXiv:1705.00812.

[GEW16] Kenneth Goodenough, David Elkouss, and Stephanie Wehner. Assessing


the performance of quantum repeaters for all phase-insensitive Gaussian
bosonic channels. New Journal of Physics, 18(6):063005, June 2016.
arXiv:1511.08710.
[GF05] Vittorio Giovannetti and Rosario Fazio. Information-capacity description
of spin-chain correlations. Physical Review A, 71:032314, March 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0405110.

[Has09] Matthew B. Hastings. Superadditivity of communication capacity using


entangled inputs. Nature Physics, 5:255–257, April 2009. arXiv:0809.3972.

[HHH99] Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. General


teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation. Physical
Review A, 60(3):1888–1898, September 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9807091.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 74 / 80


References V

[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.

[Hol02a] Alexander S. Holevo. On entanglement assisted classical capacity. Journal


of Mathematical Physics, 43(9):4326–4333, September 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0106075.

[Hol02b] Alexander S. Holevo. Remarks on the classical capacity of quantum


channel. arXiv:quant-ph/0212025, December 2002.

[HSR03] Michael Horodecki, Peter W. Shor, and Mary Beth Ruskai. Entanglement
breaking channels. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 15(6):629–641, May
2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0302031.

[Kin02] Christopher King. Additivity for unital qubit channels. Journal of


Mathematical Physics, 43(10):4641–4653, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0103156.

[Kit97] Alexei Kitaev. Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction.


Russian Mathematical Surveys, 52:1191–1249, December 1997.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 75 / 80


References VI

[KSW19] Sumeet Khatri, Kunal Sharma, and Mark M. Wilde. Information-theoretic


aspects of the generalized amplitude damping channel. March 2019.
arXiv:1903.07747.
[KW17] Eneet Kaur and Mark M. Wilde. Amortized entanglement of a quantum
channel and approximately teleportation-simulable channels. Journal of
Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(3):035303, December 2017.
arXiv:1707.07721.
[LDS18] Felix Leditzky, Nilanjana Datta, and Graeme Smith. Useful states and
entanglement distillation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
64(7):4689–4708, July 2018. arXiv:1701.03081.

[LG15] Ludovico Lami and Vittorio Giovannetti. Entanglementbreaking indices.


Journal of Mathematical Physics, 56(9):092201, 2015. arXiv:1411.2517.

[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, 97:012332, January 2018.
arXiv:1709.01111.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 76 / 80


References VII

[Llo97] Seth Lloyd. Capacity of the noisy quantum channel. Physical Review A,
55:1613–1622, March 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9604015.

[LLS18] Felix Leditzky, Debbie Leung, and Graeme Smith. Quantum and private
capacities of low-noise channels. Physical Review Letters, 120:160503,
April 2018. arXiv:1705.04335.

[MH12] Alexander Müller-Hermes. Transposition in quantum information theory.


Master’s thesis, Technical University of Munich, September 2012.

[Rai01] Eric M. Rains. A semidefinite program for distillable entanglement. IEEE


Transactions on Information Theory, 47(7):2921–2933, November 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0008047.

[Sho02a] Peter W. Shor. Additivity of the classical capacity of


entanglement-breaking quantum channels. Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 43(9):4334–4340, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0201149.

[Sho02b] Peter W. Shor. The quantum channel capacity and coherent information.
In Lecture Notes, MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computation, 2002.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 77 / 80


References VIII

[SS08] Graeme Smith and John A. Smolin. Additive extensions of a quantum


channel. In 2008 IEEE Information Theory Workshop, pages 368–372,
May 2008.

[SSWR17] David Sutter, Volkher B. Scholz, Andreas Winter, and Renato Renner.
Approximate degradable quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 63(12):7832–7844, December 2017. arXiv:1412.0980.

[SW97] Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D. Westmoreland. Sending classical


information via noisy quantum channels. Physical Review A,
56(1):131–138, July 1997.

[TGW14] Masahiro Takeoka, Saikat Guha, and Mark M. Wilde. The squashed
entanglement of a quantum channel. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 60(8):4987–4998, August 2014. arXiv:1310.0129.

[TWW17] Marco Tomamichel, Mark M. Wilde, and Andreas Winter. Strong


converse rates for quantum communication. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, 63(1):715–727, January 2017. arXiv:1406.2946.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 78 / 80


References IX

[Wat13] John Watrous. Simpler semidefinite programs for completely bounded


norms. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 2013(8), July
2013. arXiv:1207.5726.
[WFD18] Xin Wang, Kun Fang, and Runyao Duan. Semidefinite programming
converse bounds for quantum communication. arXiv:1709.00200, 2018.

[Wil16] Mark M. Wilde. Squashed entanglement and approximate private states.


Quantum Information Processing, 15(11):4563–4580, November 2016.
arXiv:1606.08028.
[WPG07] Michael M. Wolf and David Pérez-Garcı́a. Quantum capacities of
channels with small environment. Physical Review A, 75(1):012303,
January 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0607070.

[WXD18] Xin Wang, Wei Xie, and Runyao Duan. Semidefinite programming strong
converse bounds for classical capacity. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 64(1):640–653, January 2018. arXiv:1610.06381.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 79 / 80


References X

[YHD08] J. Yard, P. Hayden, and I. Devetak. Capacity theorems for quantum


multiple-access channels: classical-quantum and quantum-quantum
capacity regions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
54(7):3091–3113, July 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0501045.

Mark M. Wilde (LSU) 80 / 80

Você também pode gostar