REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references
Super-additivity of quantum capacity in simple channels
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Generalized platypus channels make quantum capacity super-additive.
desk verdict A genuine but partial generalization of the platypus-channel results: the erasure super-additivity theorem is cleanly proven, while the headline amplitude-damping super-additivity claim rests on an unexhibited 'detailed computation' and is not verifiable as written. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The carrying object is the generalized platypus isometry $V$ defined by $V|0\rangle = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\sqrt{\mu_j}\,|j\rangle\otimes|j\rangle$ and $V|i\rangle = |d\rangle\otimes|i-1\rangle$ for $i=1,\dots,d$, with $\mu$ an arbitrary probability distribution. Its coherent information is evaluated on the two-state family $\rho(u)=(1-u)|0\rangle\langle0|+u|d\rangle\langle d|$, and the tensor-product super-additivity arguments use the bipartite input state $\rho = \tfrac12 |0\rangle\langle0|\otimes(\mathbb{1}_d/d)+\tfrac12|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ with $|\psi\rangle = \sum_i \sqrt{\mu_{i-1}}\,|i\rangle\otimes|i-1\rangle$. The lower bounds on the coherent information of the tensor products are obtained by eigenvalue estimates: Weyl's inequality and weak majorization bound the eigenvalues of the output and complementary-channel states, while a transposition bound of the form $Q(\mathcal{B})\le \log\lVert\mathcal{T}\circ\mathcal{B}\rVert_{\diamond}$ supplies the matching upper bound on $Q(O_{\mu})$. For the amplitude-damping case, a majorization inequality for sums of positive semidefinite matrices bounds the eigenvalues of the relevant matrix.
What would settle it
Take a specific instance in the claimed super-additive region for amplitude damping, such as $d = 10$, $\gamma = 0.6$, and a probability vector $\mu$ with $\max_i \mu_i$ inside the plotted region, compute the exact spectrum of the matrix $A$ in the appendix, and evaluate the true coherent information $I_c(\rho, O_{\mu}\otimes A_{\gamma})$. If that value does not exceed $Q(O_{\mu}) + Q(A_{\gamma})$, the asserted lower bound is not valid in that region and the general amplitude-damping claim fails. The special case $\gamma = 1/2$ can also be checked directly by verifying whether $Q(O_{\mu}\otimes A_{1/2}) > Q(O_{\mu})$ for the uniform vector at $d = 5$.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim, stated as Theorem 3, is that the generalized platypus channel $O_{\mu}$ has strictly super-additive quantum capacity when tensored with either a qudit erasure channel $E_{\lambda,d}$ or a multilevel amplitude damping channel $A_{\gamma}$. Explicitly, if $\max_i \mu_i = \mu_{d-1} \in [1/d, 3-2\sqrt{2}]$ and $d$ is large enough, there exists an erasure probability $\lambda$ with $Q(O_{\mu}\otimes E_{\lambda,d}) > Q(O_{\mu}) + Q(E_{\lambda,d})$. Theorem 2 gives the exact private and classical capacities $P(O_{\mu})=C(O_{\mu})=1$ and the entanglement-assisted classical capacity $C_E(O_{\mu})=2$, and Theorem 1 gives the upper bound $Q(O_{\mu}) \le \log(1+\sqrt{\max_i \mu_i})$. For the amplitude damping channel, the proof is written out explicitly at $\gamma=1/2$, where the channel is self-complementary and has zero quantum capacity, and for the uniform probability vector; the general $\gamma$ case is supported by a lower bound on the coherent information that the authors state depends only on $\mu_{d-1}$ and $\gamma$ for fixed $d$.
Load-bearing premise
The general-amplitude-damping branch of the paper depends on a lower bound on the coherent information of $O_{\mu}\otimes A_{\gamma}$ that is described in the appendix but not written out; if that bound is not valid or is not tight in the claimed parameter region, that branch of Theorem 3 fails, although the $\gamma = 1/2$ and uniform-$\mu$ cases would survive.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For every probability vector $\mu$, the generalized platypus channel has $P(O_{\mu}) = C(O_{\mu}) = 1$ and $C_E(O_{\mu}) = 2$, so its private and classical capacities are weakly additive and exactly computable.
- The bound $Q(O_{\mu}) \le \log(1 + \sqrt{\max_i \mu_i})$ means that in sufficiently high dimension one can choose $\mu$ with quantum capacity arbitrarily small while private and classical capacity stay 1, giving a positive gap between quantum and private capacity except for the trivial probability vector.
- With qudit erasure channels, super-additivity holds for an interval of erasure probabilities rather than only the 50% erasure case; at $\lambda = 1/2$ the threshold is $\max_i \mu_i \le 3 - 2\sqrt{2}$.
- The multilevel amplitude damping channel at $\gamma = 1/2$ is self-complementary with zero quantum capacity, and the paper shows $Q(O_{\mu}\otimes A_{1/2}) \ge Q(O_{\mu}) > 0$ for suitable $\mu$ when $d \ge 6$, giving near-super-activation with a new assisting channel.
- Solving the characteristic equation for the relevant eigenvalue matrix gives existence in lower dimensions: $d \ge 4$ for erasure channels, and for the uniform case with amplitude damping, $d = 5$ for super-additive quantum capacity and $d = 2$ for super-additive coherent information.
Reading between the lines
- If the unexhibited lower bound for $I_c(\rho, O_{\mu}\otimes A_{\gamma})$ is valid as claimed, the numerical boundaries plotted for the amplitude-damping case could in principle be converted into rigorous parameter regions by writing that bound out and checking it symbolically.
- Because the proof at $\gamma = 1/2$ uses only self-complementarity and the degradability/anti-degradability structure of the damping channel, the role of the 50% erasure channel in earlier super-activation constructions may be replaceable by a broader class of self-complementary channels; whether all self-complementary channels work is a direct open question.
- The exact formulas $P(O_{\mu}) = C(O_{\mu}) = 1$ together with the upper bound on $Q(O_{\mu})$ make the generalized platypus channel a clean testbed for separations between quantum and private capacity, allowing finite-dimensional searches for the smallest dimension where the gap appears.
- The characteristic equation written down in the appendix gives a concrete numerical recipe: for any candidate $d$ and $\mu$, solving for the eigenvalues of the matrix $B$ (or the analogous matrix for amplitude damping) decides super-additivity, so the reported minimum dimensions can be independently verified without the analytical bound.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies the generalized platypus channel O_μ, defined by an arbitrary d-dimensional probability vector μ, and claims three families of results: (1) an upper bound Q(O_μ) ≤ log(1+√(max_i μ_i)); (2) exact private and classical capacities P(O_μ)=C(O_μ)=1 and entanglement-assisted classical capacity C_E(O_μ)=2; and (3) strict super-additivity of quantum capacity when O_μ is combined with qudit erasure channels E_{λ,d} and with multilevel amplitude damping channels A_γ. The erasure-channel theorem is supported by a closed-form lower bound on the coherent information of a chosen input state, together with the transposition upper bound on Q(O_μ). The amplitude-damping claims rest on a lower bound stated in the appendix but not exhibited, plus numerical solution of a characteristic equation for the relevant eigenvalues.
Significance. If all claims hold, the paper generalizes the known platypus-channel results in a meaningful way: it provides the first family of channels with computable private and classical capacities equal to 1 and a positive quantum-private gap, and it enlarges the known examples of near-super-activation beyond erasure channels. The paper has real strengths: the private/classical capacity proof uses explicit SDP feasible points, the erasure-channel lower bound is derived in closed form, and the upper bound in Theorem 1 is an explicit analytic inequality depending only on the largest probability. However, the advertised amplitude-damping super-additivity is currently not verifiable from the written proof, and the C_E(O_μ)=2 claim is justified only by a numerical solver. These gaps affect the central claims of the manuscript and must be closed before the paper can be accepted.
major comments (3)
- [Appendix, 'Super-additivity of quantum capacity of O_μ with multilevel amplitude damping channels'] The proof of the general-γ super-additivity claim is not contained in the manuscript. After displaying a lower bound for I_c(ρ, O_μ ⊗ A_γ) that depends on all μ_j and μ_0, the text asserts that 'after the detailed computation and using the simple inequality μ_{d-1} ≤ 1−(d−1)μ_0' the bound depends only on μ_{d-1} and γ, but no such computation is shown. The cited inequality alone cannot eliminate the logarithmic dependence on the other μ_j from the displayed expression, and the boundaries in Fig. 3(a,b) are therefore not verifiable from the written proof. The uniform-μ case in Fig. 3(c) is similarly unsupported: eigenvalues x± are given, but the resulting coherent information and the inequalities against Q(M_{d+1})+Q(A_γ) are not written out. This is load-bearing because the amplitude-damping super-additivity is a headline result of the abstract and introduction, not a peripheral remark.
- [Appendix, 'Proof of Theorem 2'] The claim C_E(O_μ)=2 is supported only by the statement that the optimality of |ψ⟩ 'can be verified by the convex optimization software like CVX and Mosek'. Numerical verification is not a proof, and no analytic optimality or concavity argument is supplied. Since Theorem 2 advertises exact computable capacities, either provide a complete proof of C_E(O_μ)≤2 (e.g., by exhibiting a valid SDP dual or an analytic inequality) or state C_E=2 as a numerical conjecture.
- [Section 'Super-additivity of quantum capacity of O_μ combined with the multilevel amplitude damping channel', γ=1/2…] In the γ=1/2 special case, Eq. (20) and the following inequalities establish only Q(O_μ ⊗ A_{1/2}) ≥ Q(O_μ), whereas super-additivity requires a strict inequality. The text should either prove strictness in the stated parameter region or explicitly choose parameters for which the chain of inequalities is strict.
minor comments (4)
- [Eq. (11)] Equation (11) is typeset ambiguously: '1 − λ + d − (2d − μ_{d−1})λ 2d log d' should be parenthesized as 1−λ + [d−(2d−μ_{d-1})λ]/(2d) log d; as printed it cannot be parsed.
- [Appendix, 'The upper bounds of quantum capacity of O_μ'] The equations defining the Schur-complement conditions (15) contain garbled or missing symbols (e.g., '√μ_{i−1} √s ≤ s_i'); the chosen s_i and the verification of the third condition should be rewritten cleanly so that the proof of Theorem 1 can be followed without reconstruction.
- [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Without loss of generalized' should be 'Without loss of generality'; 'We now proof the Theorem 1' should be 'We now prove Theorem 1'; and 'Dγ' in the amplitude-damping degradability discussion should be 'Aγ'.
- [Appendix, 'The upper bounds of quantum capacity of O_μ'] The notation [s]=|s⟩⟨s| is inconsistent with expressions such as [i,d], [0,d], and [ψ]; the ordered-basis convention should be defined explicitly.
Circularity Check
No circular derivation: the capacity bounds and super-additivity witnesses are built on explicit SDP feasible points and external results; the only flagged weakness is an unexhibited appendix bound, which is a proof gap, not a circularity.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained against external results and does not reduce any prediction to its inputs. Theorem 1 is proven by constructing an explicit feasible point for the transposition SDP from [42], giving the norm bound and hence Q(O_mu) <= log(1 + sqrt(max_i mu_i)); this is an output of the SDP, not a restatement of the definition of O_mu. Theorem 2 uses the external SDP bound [38] with explicit R_ab and S_b, and a witness ensemble with P^(1) >= 1; the value 1 is not fed into the computation. Theorem 3 for E_lambda,d is supported by the explicit lower bound in Eq. (11), obtained from the displayed eigenvalue structure and Weyl/majorization inequalities, and then compared with the independently derived capacities of O_mu and E_lambda,d; the comparison is arithmetic, not a tautology. The amplitude-damping superadditivity section does contain a gap: the lower bound on Ic(rho, O_mu ⊗ A_gamma) is asserted to reduce to a function of mu_{d-1} and gamma 'after detailed computation', and that computation is not displayed, so the general claim is not fully verifiable from the paper. This is a missing proof, however, not circularity: the bound is a candidate witness inequality, and the paper does not define the channel or the capacity in terms of that inequality. There are no load-bearing self-citations: [37]-[39], [42], [53], and [56,57] are all external prior works, and the spin-alignment conjecture is explicitly flagged as unused. Accordingly, score 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- probability vector mu = (mu_0, ..., mu_{d-1})
- erasure probability lambda
- amplitude damping rate gamma
assumptions (5)
- standard math Standard quantum information framework: Stinespring representation, coherent information, capacity regularization, degradability and anti-degradability definitions.
- domain assumption Capacity formulas for qudit erasure channels and multilevel amplitude damping channels do not exceed those cited from [53] and [56, 57].
- domain assumption The transposition bound and the SDP bound for classical capacity from [38] and [42] are valid upper bounds.
- standard math Weyl eigenvalue interlacing and weak majorization inequalities for singular values.
- domain assumption Spin-alignment conjecture is true, but only for the optional statement Q(O_mu) = Q^(1)(O_mu).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Super-additivity of quantum capacity in simple channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUSUD23U
@misc{pith2026250524661,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Super-additivity of quantum capacity in simple channels},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUSUD23U}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24661}
}
abstract
The super-additivity of quantum channel capacity is an important feature of quantum information theory different from classical theory, which has been attracting attention. Recently a special channel called ``platypus channel'' exhibits super-additive quantum capacity when combined with qudit erasure channels. Here we consider the ``generalized platypus channel'', prove that it has computable channel capacities, such as both private and classical capacity equal to $1$, and in particular, the generalized platypus channel still displays the super-additivity of quantum capacity when combined with qudit erasure channels and multilevel amplitude damping channels respectively.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[39]
F. Leditzky, D. Leung, V. Siddhu, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Generic nonadditivity of quantum capacity in simple channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200801 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[1]
C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communica- tion, The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)
work page 1948
-
[2]
M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2017)
work page 2017
-
[3]
Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)
J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)
work page 2018
-
[4]
Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Phys
S. Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1613 (1997)
1997
-
[5]
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 Physics 256, 287 (2005)
2005
-
[6]
I. Devetak, The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum channel, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 51, 44 (2005)
work page 2005
- [7]
Show all 69 references
-
[8]
Elkouss and S
D. Elkouss and S. Strelchuk, Superadditivity of private information for any number of uses of the channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 040501 (2015)
2015
-
[9]
A. S. Holevo, Bounds for the quantity of informa- tion transmitted by a quantum communication channel, Probl. Peredachi Inf. 9, 3 (1973)
1973
-
[10]
Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 44, 269 (1998)
A. Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 44, 269 (1998)
1998
-
[11]
Schumacher and M
B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Sending classi- cal information via noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 56, 131 (1997)
1997
-
[12]
N. Cai, A. Winter, and R. W. Yeung, Quantum privacy and quantum wiretap channels, Problems of Information Transmission 40, 318 (2004)
2004
-
[13]
C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theo- retical Computer Science 560, 7 (2014), theoretical As- pects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84
2014
-
[14]
Fern and K
J. Fern and K. B. Whaley, Lower bounds on the nonzero capacity of pauli channels, Phys. Rev. A 78, 062335 (2008)
2008
-
[15]
Smith and J
G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, Degenerate quantum codes for pauli channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030501 (2007)
2007
-
[16]
Leditzky, D
F. Leditzky, D. Leung, and G. Smith, Dephrasure channel and superadditivity of coherent information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 160501 (2018)
2018
-
[17]
Bausch and F
J. Bausch and F. Leditzky, Error thresholds for arbi- trary pauli noise, SIAM Journal on Computing 50, 1410 (2021)
2021
-
[18]
Koudia, A
S. Koudia, A. S. Cacciapuoti, K. Simonov, and M. Cal- effi, How deep the theory of quantum communications goes: Superadditivity, superactivation and causal acti- vation, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 24, 1926 (2022)
2022
-
[19]
G. L. Sidhardh, M. Alimuddin, and M. Banik, Exploring superadditivity of coherent information of noisy quantum channels through genetic algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012432 (2022)
2022
-
[20]
Siddhu and R
V. Siddhu and R. B. Griffiths, Positivity and nonadditiv- ity of quantum capacities using generalized erasure chan- nels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 4533 (2021)
2021
-
[21]
S. N. Filippov, Capacity of trace decreasing quantum op- erations and superadditivity of coherent information for a generalized erasure channel, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 54, 255301 (2021)
2021
-
[22]
Siddhu, Entropic singularities give rise to quantum transmission, Nature Communications 12, 5750 (2021)
V. Siddhu, Entropic singularities give rise to quantum transmission, Nature Communications 12, 5750 (2021)
2021
-
[23]
Smith, J
G. Smith, J. M. Renes, and J. A. Smolin, Structured codes improve the bennett-brassard-84 quantum key rate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 170502 (2008)
2008
-
[24]
Smith and J
G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, Can nonprivate channels transmit quantum information?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010501 (2009). 8
2009
-
[25]
M. B. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capac- ity using entangled inputs, Nature Physics 5, 255 (2009)
2009
-
[26]
Smith and J
G. Smith and J. Yard, Quantum communication with zero-capacity channels, Science 321, 1812 (2008)
2008
-
[27]
F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, J. Oppenheim, and S. Strelchuk, When does noise increase the quantum capacity?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 040501 (2012)
2012
-
[28]
K. Li, A. Winter, X. Zou, and G. Guo, Private capacity of quantum channels is not additive, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 120501 (2009)
2009
-
[29]
Smith and J
G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, Extensive nonadditivity of privacy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 120503 (2009)
2009
-
[30]
M. M. Wolf and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Quantum capacities of channels with small environment, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012303 (2007)
2007
-
[31]
T. S. Cubitt, M. B. Ruskai, and G. Smith, The structure of degradable quantum channels, Journal of Mathemati- cal Physics 49, 102104 (2008)
2008
-
[32]
Smith and J
G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, Additive extensions of a quantum channel, in 2008 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (2008) pp. 368–372
2008
-
[33]
King, Additivity for unital qubit channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4641 (2002)
C. King, Additivity for unital qubit channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4641 (2002)
2002
-
[34]
P. W. Shor, Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking quantum channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4334 (2002)
2002
-
[35]
King, The capacity of the quantum depolarizing chan- nel, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 49, 221 (2003)
C. King, The capacity of the quantum depolarizing chan- nel, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 49, 221 (2003)
2003
-
[36]
Wang and R
X. Wang and R. Duan, Separation between quantum lov´ asz number and entanglement-assisted zero-error clas- sical capacity, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 64, 1454 (2018)
2018
-
[37]
Leditzky, D
F. Leditzky, D. Leung, V. Siddhu, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, The platypus of the quantum channel zoo, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 69, 3825 (2023)
2023
-
[38]
X. Wang, W. Xie, and R. Duan, Semidefinite program- ming strong converse bounds for classical capacity, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 64, 640 (2018)
2018
-
[40]
Singh and N
S. Singh and N. Datta, Detecting positive quantum ca- pacities of quantum channels, npj Quantum Information 8, 50 (2022)
2022
-
[41]
M. A. Alhejji and E. Knill, Towards a resolution of the spin alignment problem, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics 405, 119 (2024)
2024
-
[42]
A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, Evaluating capacities of bosonic gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032312 (2001)
2001
-
[43]
Fang and H
K. Fang and H. Fawzi, Geometric r´ enyi divergence and its applications in quantum channel capacities, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 384, 1615 (2021)
2021
-
[44]
C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thap- liyal, Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3081 (1999)
1999
-
[45]
Watanabe, Private and quantum capacities of more capable and less noisy quantum channels, Phys
S. Watanabe, Private and quantum capacities of more capable and less noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 85, 012326 (2012)
2012
-
[46]
Hirche, C
C. Hirche, C. Rouz´ e, and D. Stilck Fran¸ ca, On contrac- tion coefficients, partial orders and approximation of ca- pacities for quantum channels, Quantum 6, 862 (2022)
2022
-
[47]
Hirche and F
C. Hirche and F. Leditzky, Bounding quantum capacities via partial orders and complementarity, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory 69, 283 (2023)
2023
-
[48]
Horodecki, L
K. Horodecki, L. Pankowski, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Low-dimensional bound entanglement with one-way distillable cryptographic key, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54, 2621 (2008)
2008
-
[49]
Horodecki, M
K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Op- penheim, Secure key from bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160502 (2005)
2005
-
[50]
Horodecki, M
K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Op- penheim, General paradigm for distilling classical key from quantum states, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55, 1898 (2009)
2009
-
[51]
Ozols, G
M. Ozols, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Bound entangled states with a private key and their classical counterpart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 110502 (2014)
2014
-
[52]
Leung, K
D. Leung, K. Li, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Maximal privacy without coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 030502 (2014)
2014
-
[53]
C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, Ca- pacities of quantum erasure channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3217 (1997)
1997
-
[54]
H. Weyl, Das asymptotische verteilungsgesetz der eigen- werte linearer partieller differentialgleichungen (mit einer anwendung auf die theorie der hohlraumstrahlung), Mathematische Annalen 71, 441 – 479 (1912)
1912
-
[55]
R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012) p. 239
2012
-
[56]
Khatri, K
S. Khatri, K. Sharma, and M. M. Wilde, Information- theoretic aspects of the generalized amplitude-damping channel, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012401 (2020)
2020
-
[57]
Chessa and V
S. Chessa and V. Giovannetti, Quantum capacity analy- sis of multi-level amplitude damping channels, Commu- nications Physics 4, 22 (2021)
2021
-
[58]
Smaczy´ nski, W
M. Smaczy´ nski, W. Roga, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Selfcom- plementary quantum channels, Open Systems & Infor- mation Dynamics 23, 1650014 (2016)
2016
-
[59]
Fukuda and M
M. Fukuda and M. M. Wolf, Simplifying additivity prob- lems using direct sum constructions, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 48, 072101 (2007)
2007
-
[60]
Leung and G
D. Leung and G. Smith, Continuity of quantum chan- nel capacities, Communications in Mathematical Physics 292, 201 (2009)
2009
-
[61]
Fawzi and O
H. Fawzi and O. Fawzi, Efficient optimization of the quantum relative entropy, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 51, 154003 (2018)
2018
-
[62]
S. Y. Rotfel’d, The singular numbers of the sum of com- pletely continuous operators, in Spectral Theory, edited by M. S. Birman (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1969) pp. 73–78
1969
-
[63]
R. C. Thompson, Singular values, diagonal elements, and convexity, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics32, 39 (1977)
1977
-
[64]
A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications (Springer New York, NY, 2010) Chap. 9, p. 330. The upper bounds of quantum capacity ofO⃗ µ Here we prove the upper bound of quantum capacity for the generalized platypus chann...
2010
-
[65]
Thus P (1)(O⃗ µ) ≥ 1
+Pd i=1 µi−1[i] , and Ic(ρ, O⃗ µ) = X i µi−1 2 log µi−1 + 1 , 10 while Ic(ρ0, O⃗ µ) = 0 , I c(ρ1, O⃗ µ) = X i µi−1 log µi−1 . Thus P (1)(O⃗ µ) ≥ 1 . We then use the upper bound of classical capacity for any quantum channel B [38], which is given by C(B) ≤ log β(B) , where β(B)...
-
[66]
Therefore CE(O⃗ µ) = max ρ I(ρ, O⃗ µ) ≥ 2
+ Pd i=1 µi−1[i] whose purification is |ψ⟩ = |00⟩√ 2 + 1√ 2 (Pd i=1 µi−1|ii⟩). Therefore CE(O⃗ µ) = max ρ I(ρ, O⃗ µ) ≥ 2. Since the mu- tual information I(ρ, O⃗ µ) is concave on ρ, the optimality of |ψ⟩ can be verified by the convex optimization software like CVX and Mosek [61...
-
[67]
+ (1 − γ) d−1X i=1 [i] + 1 2 [d] ⊗ µ0 + γ(1 − µ0)
-
[68]
+ (1 − γ) d−1X i=1 µi[i] , Oc ⃗ µ⊗ Ac γ(ρ) = 1 2 d−1X j=0 µj[j] ⊗ 1 d 1 + (d − 1)(1 − γ)
-
[69]
Since the eigenvalues of O⃗ µ⊗ Aγ(ρ) is simple, its entropy can be evaluated directly
+ γ d−1X i=1 [i] + 1 2 (1 − γ) d−1X i=1 µi[i, 0] + [ψ] , where ψ = √µ0|00⟩ + Pd−1 i=1 √µiγ|ii⟩ is a non-normalized quantum state. Since the eigenvalues of O⃗ µ⊗ Aγ(ρ) is simple, its entropy can be evaluated directly. While the eigenvalues of Oc ⃗ µ⊗ Ac γ(ρ) are µ0γ 2d with mul...
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.