Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Sharp Quantum Capacity Thresholds: Exponential Strong Converses for Degradable and Antidegradable Channels

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For every finite-dimensional degradable or antidegradable channel, every code above capacity has exponentially decaying fidelity.

desk verdict Major result if the Morgan–Winter bridge holds; the finite-block no-cloning argument is genuinely new and the supplement largely checks out, but the degradable theorem rests on an unverified external reduction and the referee must check it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01308 v1 pith:3T3MAFDV submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph

Tulja Varun Kondra , Raphael Brinster , Hermann Kampermann , Dagmar Bru{ss} , Nikolai Wyderka This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4594A40 PACS 03.67.Hk
keywords quantumcapacitystrongconverseexponentialdegradablechannelsantidegradableerasurechannelno-cloningsemidefiniteprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that quantum capacity is an exponentially sharp threshold for two fundamental channel classes: every finite-dimensional degradable channel and every finite-dimensional antidegradable channel. For antidegradable channels, any coding scheme at any positive rate has entanglement fidelity decaying as $2^{-\gamma n}$; for degradable channels, any scheme at rate at least $Q(\mathcal{N})+\Delta$ has fidelity decaying as $2^{-\gamma_\Delta n}$. The argument covers all codes, not only stabilizer or maximally entangled ones, and includes generalized Bell-target schemes, in which the sender's reference marginal need not be maximally entangled. As a direct consequence, the $d$-dimensional erasure channel satisfies an all-code exponential strong converse at its exact capacity for every erasure probability, $Q^\dagger_{\mathrm{exp}}(\mathcal{E}_{p,d})=\max\{1-2p,0\}\log d$. A closure property under receiver post-processing extends these bounds to broader channel families and yields semidefinite-programming bounds for arbitrary channels.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a quantitative no-cloning argument built on three components. First, a swap-symmetric two-output extension $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}:A'\to B_0B_1$ of an antidegradable channel, whose two marginals both equal $\mathcal{N}$, is applied to $n$ channel uses. Every binary string $x\in\{0,1\}^n$ then selects one output per use, and each of the $2^n$ resulting decoder placements succeeds with exactly the same fidelity $F_n$ as the original code. Second, a pairwise overlap bound $\|P_xP_y\|_\infty\le \min\{1,d^{s(x,y)}/M\}$ says that two placements sharing few channel outputs cannot both recover a large entangled system, where $s(x,y)$ counts shared outputs. Third, a Boolean-analysis bridge converts these pairwise facts into a global bound: a weight matrix built from the Hadamard transform of a low-degree polynomial approximation to the Boolean function $\mathrm{NOR}_n$ (the function that is 1 only at the all-zero string) selects only pairs with small overlap, and a spectral argument yields $\|A\|_\infty\le 2\exp(-at^2/n)+\bigl(\sum_{j\le t}\binom{n}{j}\bigr)^{1/4}\min\{1,d^t/M\}^{1/2}$ for the average projector $A=2^{-n}\sum_x P_x$. Since $F_n=\mathrm{Tr}[A\tilde{\omega}]\le\|A\|_\infty$, this finite-block estimate is what drives the exponential decay.

What would settle it

For the qubit erasure channel at erasure probability $p=2/3$ and block lengths $n=4,6,8,\dots$, optimize the largest entanglement fidelity achievable by any code of rate $0.1$; if the optimum stays above $n^{-3}$ along an infinite subsequence, the claimed exponential decay is false, while an observed fit to $2^{-\gamma n}$ supports it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no-cloning has a finite-block, quantitative form. For every finite-dimensional antidegradable channel $\mathcal{N}$, Theorem 1 asserts that every generalized $(n,M_n)$ Bell-target scheme with $M_n\ge 2^{nr}$ obeys $F_n\le 2^{-\gamma_r n}$ for large $n$, for every $r>0$; hence $Q^\dagger_{\mathrm{exp}}(\mathcal{N})=0$ with arbitrary encoders and arbitrary collective decoders. Feeding this into the earlier quantitative reduction cited as Ref. [11] yields Theorem 4: for every finite-dimensional degradable channel, at any rate at least $Q(\mathcal{N})+\Delta$, every scheme obeys $F_n\le 2^{-\gamma_\Delta n}$, and therefore $Q^\dagger_{\mathrm{exp}}(\mathcal{N})=Q^\dagger(\mathcal{N})=Q(\mathcal{N})=Q^{(1)}(\mathcal{N})$. Since the erasure channel is degradable below $p=1/2$ and antidegradable above it, the two theorems cover all $p\in[0,1]$ and give the first all-code exponential strong converse for the quantum erasure channel, with rate $\max\{1-2p,0\}\log d$. The proof never uses the structure of the code; it only uses that the channel admits a swap-symmetric two-output extension.

Load-bearing premise

The degradable result borrows a quantitative reduction from an earlier paper that converts any scheme for a degradable channel into a scheme for an associated zero-capacity channel with a precise bookkeeping of the allowed error; if that error bookkeeping is not exactly right, the exponential decay for degradable channels does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every finite-dimensional degradable channel, tolerating any fixed error smaller than one buys no rate: above $Q(\mathcal{N})$ the fidelity of every code decays as $2^{-\gamma n}$, so quantum capacity is a genuine sharp threshold.
  • For every finite-dimensional antidegradable channel, all positive-rate codes have exponentially vanishing fidelity, settling the strong-converse question for the entire class.
  • The $d$-dimensional erasure channel now has an all-code exponential strong converse with $Q^\dagger_{\mathrm{exp}}(\mathcal{E}_{p,d})=\max\{1-2p,0\}\log d$ for every $p\in[0,1]$, upgrading the previous almost-all-codes result.
  • Exponential strong-converse rates are inherited under receiver post-processing: if $\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{R}\circ\hat{\mathcal{N}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{N}}$ is degradable, then $Q^{(1)}(\hat{\mathcal{N}})$ is an all-code exponential strong-converse rate for $\mathcal{N}$.
  • For arbitrary channels, $Q^\dagger_{\mathrm{exp}}(\mathcal{N})\le (1-w_{\mathrm{AD}}(\mathcal{N}))\log\min\{|A'|,|B|\}$, where $w_{\mathrm{AD}}$ is the largest weight of an antidegradable component in a convex decomposition; for qubit Pauli channels this gives $U_P(p)=\max\{1-4p,0\}$ for the depolarizing channel, and for the multilevel amplitude-damping family it is exactly $\log(d-1)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decoder-placement mechanism should yield exponential strong-converse bounds for other tasks whose capacity is governed by symmetric extensions, such as private communication or entanglement distillation over channels with large antidegradable components.
  • The proofs do not identify the optimal strong-converse exponent; determining it for the erasure channel is a concrete next problem, and the $\delta^2$ constant in Proposition 2 is likely improvable.
  • Because $U_{\mathrm{AD}}$ is computable by a semidefinite program and lies strictly below $\log\min\{|A'|,|B|\}$ for full-rank channels, it can serve as a practical numerical certificate that a channel's capacity is an exponential strong-converse threshold even when the capacity itself is unknown.
  • One testable extension is to replace the largest antidegradable component with approximate or $\lambda$-degradable extensions, which may tighten the bound toward capacity for channels where the current $U_{\mathrm{AD}}$ leaves a gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves exponential strong converses for all finite-dimensional antidegradable and degradable quantum channels. For antidegradable channels, Theorem 1 shows that every positive-rate generalized Bell-target scheme has entanglement fidelity decaying as 2^{-gamma n}, giving Q_exp^†(N)=0. For degradable channels, Theorem 4 uses the Morgan-Winter reduction to show that every scheme at rate at least Q(N)+Delta has fidelity 2^{-gamma_Delta n}, yielding Q_exp^†(N)=Q^†(N)=Q(N)=Q^(1)(N). The results imply the first all-code exponential strong converse for the quantum erasure channel (Corollary 6), a post-processing inheritance lemma (Proposition 7), an efficiently computable SDP upper bound for arbitrary channels via the antidegradable weight (Theorem 8), improved Pauli-channel bounds, and an exact strong converse for a nondegradable multilevel amplitude-damping family (Theorem 11). The technical core is a quantitative no-cloning argument: a swap-symmetric extension of an antidegradable channel produces 2^n overlapping decoder placements, pairwise overlaps are bounded by the shared dimension (Lemma S4), and a weight matrix built from a low-degree approximation to the NOR function converts these pairwise bounds into a global exponential bound (Lemmas S1 and S3).

Significance. If the quoted Morgan-Winter reduction is correct, this is a major advance: it resolves the strong-converse conjecture for degradable channels, upgrades the erasure-channel converse from almost-all-codes to all codes, and provides the first exponential strong converses for these fundamental channel families. The proof method is novel and of independent interest: it gives a quantitative, finite-block form of no-cloning via Boolean analysis, with explicit constants and no fitted parameters. The paper also ships self-contained proofs for the antidegradable bound, the flagged-channel bound, and the amplitude-damping application, and it supplies efficiently computable SDP bounds for arbitrary channels. The claims are falsifiable and the derivations are sufficiently detailed to be checked line by line. The main caveat is that the degradable result depends on the exact quantitative statement of an external theorem, which the manuscript cites but does not reproduce.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (31)] Equation (31) is the sole bridge from the antidegradable bound (Theorem 1) to the degradable conclusion (Theorem 4), but its exact quantitative form is only cited from Theorem 19 of Ref. [11] and is not proved or reproduced in the manuscript. The proof of Theorem 4 uses the specific error conversion lambda=(1-epsilon)/5 and the specific form of delta_n(lambda) in a load-bearing way: if the conversion were instead lambda=epsilon/5, then lambda_n would not be exponentially small and the contradiction argument would fail. I therefore ask that the authors either quote Theorem 19 of Ref. [11] verbatim, including all constants, and explicitly verify that it applies to generalized Bell-target schemes with arbitrary reference marginal, or supply a self-contained proof of Eq. (31) in the Supplemental Material. This is a correctness-risk request rather than a claim that the cited theorem is misstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Appendix S6] There is a typographical error in the proof of Lemma 5: the expression 'M≤d t M' should read 'M \le d_M^t', and the argument of the min in Eq. (S46) should be d_M^t/M rather than d_t^M/M.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (33)] The function Psi(c) contains the term 10c, which is only explained after combining Eqs. (35) and (36) (8c from delta_n/n and 2c from Lemma 5). Please move this explanation before the definition or add a sentence clarifying the origin of the 10c term.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (47)-(49)] For the depolarizing channel specialization, the paper jumps from Eq. (47) to U_P(p)=max{1-4p,0} without showing the intermediate calculation. Substituting p_i=p/3 into Eq. (47) gives beta(p)=3(2*sqrt(p/3))^2=4p, so the reduction is correct; adding this one-line calculation would improve clarity.
  4. [Equations (28) and (S45)] The notation 'log e' in exponents such as 2^{-a delta^2 n log e /4} is ambiguous because the paper declares logarithms base two. Either use exp notation throughout or state explicitly that 'log e' means the conversion factor log_2(e)=1/ln 2.
  5. [Section IV, proof of Theorem 4] For the record, I checked the potential concern that the linear-in-n part of delta_n(lambda_n) at Eq. (35) might break the argument. It does not: the proof explicitly includes the resulting mu*sqrt(2c ln 2)+8c terms in Psi(c) and chooses c small enough so that Psi(c)<Delta. The sublinearity of delta_n is not actually required.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central claims reduce to external theorems and in-paper lemmas, never to their own conclusions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a prediction or claimed first-principles result is equivalent by construction to its inputs. The antidegradable bound (Theorem 1 and Proposition 2) is derived in-paper from the symmetric two-output extension property (Eq. 6), the decoder-placement overlap bound (Lemma S4), and de Wolf's low-degree approximation theorem (Ref. [21], Theorem S2). These are external or independently proved inputs with explicit universal constants; none of them presupposes the exponential fidelity decay being proved. The degradable result (Theorem 4) is carried by the Morgan-Winter reduction quoted as Eq. (31) and attributed to Theorem 19 of Ref. [11]. That reference is not authored by the present authors, so this is ordinary external support rather than self-citation. The fact that Theorem 4 depends quantitatively on that reduction is an external-validity risk, not circularity: the paper does not redefine the reduction in terms of its own target result. Lemma 5 is proved from Proposition 2 in the Supplemental Material, and the contradiction argument in Theorem 4 uses only the stated constants and the monotonicity of the binary entropy. Corollary 6 follows by applying the two theorems to the erasure channel using the known degradability/antidegradability threshold from Ref. [10]. Proposition 7, Theorem 8, Proposition 9, and the multilevel amplitude-damping example are closure properties or upper bounds with explicit proofs; they do not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The Rains-information comparison is also based on Ref. [12] and standard additivity, not on the paper's own conclusions. Section VIII explicitly names limitations (unoptimized constants and the gap in Fig. 2), which is consistent with an honest, non-circular derivation. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, or ansatz-smuggling step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters appear; all constants in the paper are universal or auxiliary proof variables chosen to satisfy inequalities. The central claim rests on standard and external theorems, especially the Morgan-Winter reduction and de Wolf's approximate-degree bound, which are cited but not reproved. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every antidegradable channel N admits a swap-symmetric two-output extension ~N with Tr_{B1}∘~N = Tr_{B0}∘~N = N (Eq. 6).
    Used as the starting point of Proposition 2 and the whole decoder-placement argument; taken from Refs. [9,19] without proof.
  • domain assumption Morgan-Winter reduction: for each degradable N, Thm. 19 of Ref. [11] supplies a finite-dimensional self-complementary channel M and constants such that log N_E(n,epsilon|N) <= nQ^(1)(N)+delta_n(lambda)+log N_E(n,1-lambda|M), lambda=(1-epsilon)/5 (Eq. 31).
    Load-bearing external theorem for Theorem 4; it is cited, not proved, and must hold for generalized Bell-target schemes with the stated error convention.
  • standard math de Wolf's approximate-degree theorem for the NOR function (Ref. [21]): for epsilon in [2^{-n},1/3] there is a multilinear polynomial of degree at most C_app(√n+√(n ln(1/epsilon))) with uniform error epsilon.
    Used in Lemma S3 to construct the weight matrix W; a standard Boolean-analysis result, not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption For degradable channels, Q(N)=Q^(1)(N), and for antidegradable channels, Q(N)=0 (Refs. [8,9]).
    Needed to close Eq. (30) and to identify the erasure capacity in Corollary 6.
  • domain assumption For qubit Pauli channels, the antidegradable weight w_AD is either 1 or equals beta(p) (Ref. [22]).
    External formula used only in Section VI to convert Theorems 1 and 8 into the explicit Pauli bound U_P(p); not needed for the main degradable and antidegradable results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp Quantum Capacity Thresholds: Exponential Strong Converses for Degradable and Antidegradable Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3T3MAFDV

@misc{pith2026260801308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp Quantum Capacity Thresholds: Exponential Strong Converses for Degradable and Antidegradable Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3T3MAFDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01308}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum capacity of a noisy channel quantifies the maximum rate at which quantum information can be transmitted reliably. For general channels, its evaluation requires an optimization over arbitrarily many channel uses. Degradable channels form a central exception: their capacity is given by the single-letter coherent information, while antidegradable channels have zero capacity. Nevertheless, even for these fundamental classes, it has remained open whether communication above capacity becomes possible when a fixed non-maximal error is tolerated. Here we resolve this problem by proving an exponential strong converse for every finite-dimensional degradable and antidegradable channel: at any rate above capacity, the fidelity of every coding scheme decays exponentially with the number of channel uses. As an immediate consequence, we establish the first all-code exponential strong converse for the quantum erasure channel throughout its full parameter range, strengthening previous results that applied only to almost all codes. We also show that exponential strong-converse bounds are preserved under receiver post-processing. This yields efficiently computable semidefinite-programming bounds for arbitrary finite-dimensional channels, improved bounds for Pauli channels, and an exact exponential strong converse for a nondegradable multilevel amplitude-damping family.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01308 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    "Pretty strong" converse for the quantum capacity of degradable channels

    C. Morgan and A. Winter, “Pretty Strong” Converse for the Quantum Capacity of Degradable Channels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 317 (2014), arXiv:1301.4927 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen channels, Physical Review Letters70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [2]

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Distributed quantum computation over noisy chan- nels, Physical Review A59, 4249 (1999), arXiv:quant- ph/9803017

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, The Bell System Technical Journal27, 379 (1948)

    1948

  6. [5]

    Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Physical Review A55, 1613 (1997)

    S. Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Physical Review A55, 1613 (1997)

    1997

  7. [6]

    Devetak, The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum channel, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory51, 44 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0304127

    I. Devetak, The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum channel, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory51, 44 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0304127

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    Tema Con Variazioni: Quantum Channel Capacity

    D. Kretschmann and R. F. Werner, Tema con variazioni: Quantum channel capacity, New Journal of Physics6, 26 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0311037

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Devetak and P

    I. Devetak and P. W. Shor, The capacity of a quantum channel for simultaneous transmission of classical and quantum information, Communications in Mathematical Physics256, 287 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0311131

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. M. Wolf and D. Pérez-García, Quantum capacities of channels with small environment, Physical Review A75, 012303 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0607070

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, Ca- pacities of quantum erasure channels, Physical Review Letters78, 3217 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9701015

    1997 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Tomamichel, M

    M. Tomamichel, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, Strong converse rates for quantum communication, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory63, 715 (2017), arXiv:1406.2946 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sharma and N

    N. Sharma and N. A. Warsi, Fundamental bound on the reliability of quantum information transmission, Physical Review Letters110, 080501 (2013), arXiv:1205.1712

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. M. Wilde and A. Winter, Strong converse for the quantum capacity of the erasure channel for almost all codes, inProceedings of the 9th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptog- raphy, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 2...

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    E. Kaur, S. Das, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, Re- source theory of unextendibility and non-asymptotic quan- tum capacity, Physical Review A104, 022401 (2021), arXiv:1803.10710

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Baghali Khanian and C

    Z. Baghali Khanian and C. Hirche, On strong converse bounds for the private and quantum capacities of an- tidegradable channels, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15661 (2025), arXiv:2507.15661 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tomamichel, A strong converse for stabilizer codes over Pauli channels via the blowing-up lemma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23450 (2026), arXiv:2607.23450 [quant-ph]

    M. Tomamichel, A strong converse for stabilizer codes over Pauli channels via the blowing-up lemma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23450 (2026), arXiv:2607.23450 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. F. Stinespring, Positive functions onC∗-algebras, Pro- ceedings of the American Mathematical Society6, 211 (1955)

    1955

  11. [19]

    G. O. Myhr and N. Lütkenhaus, Spectrum conditions for symmetric extendible states, Physical Review A79, 062307 (2009), arXiv:0812.3667 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Barnum, E

    H. Barnum, E. Knill, and M. A. Nielsen, On quan- tum fidelities and channel capacities, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory46, 1317 (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/9809010

    2000

  13. [21]

    de Wolf, A note on quantum algorithms and the mini- mal degree ofϵ-error polynomials for symmetric functions, Quantum Information & Computation8, 943 (2008)

    R. de Wolf, A note on quantum algorithms and the mini- mal degree ofϵ-error polynomials for symmetric functions, Quantum Information & Computation8, 943 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    C. Zhu, C. Zhu, and X. Wang, Estimate distillable en- tanglement and quantum capacity by squeezing useless entanglement, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Commu- nications42, 1850 (2024), arXiv:2303.07228 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    E. M. Rains, Bound on distillable entanglement, Physical Review A60, 179 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9809082 [quant- ph]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. P. W. Cope, L. Hetzel, L. Banchi, and S. Pirandola, Simulation of non-Pauli channels, Physical Review A96, 022323 (2017), arXiv:1706.05384 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chessa and V

    S. Chessa and V. Giovannetti, Quantum capacity analysis of multi-level amplitude damping channels, Communica- tions Physics4, 22 (2021), arXiv:2008.00477 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cocciaretto and V

    S. Cocciaretto and V. Giovannetti, Quantum capac- ity analysis of finite-dimensional lossy channels, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18960 (2026), arXiv:2601.18960 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    T. S. Cubitt, M. B. Ruskai, and G. Smith, The structure of degradable quantum channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics49, 102104 (2008). 11 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL This appendix proves, in order: the finite-block bound for antidegradable channels (Proposition 2 of the main text...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.