4.6 Article

Amortization does not enhance the max-Rains information of a quantum channel

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aac153

关键词

max-Rains information; LOCC-assisted quantum capacity; semi-definite programming

资金

  1. SNSF
  2. National Science Foundation [1350397]
  3. Office of Naval Research
  4. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  5. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1350397] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given an entanglement measure E, the entanglement of a quantum channel is defined as the largest amount of entanglement E that can be generated from the channel, if the sender and receiver are not allowed to share a quantum state before using the channel. The amortized entanglement of a quantum channel is defined as the largest net amount of entanglement E. that can be generated from the channel, if the sender and receiver are allowed to share an arbitrary state before using the channel. Our main technical result is that amortization does not enhance the entanglement of an arbitrary quantum channel, when entanglement is quantified by the max-Rains relative entropy. We prove this statement by employing semi-definite programming (SDP). duality and SDP. formulations for the max-Rains relative entropy and a channel's max-Rains information, found recently in Wang et al (arXiv: 1709. 00200). The main application of our result is a single-letter, strong converse, and efficiently computable upper bound on the capacity of a quantum channel for transmitting qubits when assisted by positive-partial-transpose preserving (PPT-P) channels between every use of the channel. As the class of local operations and classical communication (LOCC) is contained in PPT-P, our result establishes a benchmark for the LOCC-assisted quantum capacity of an arbitrary quantum channel, which is relevant in the context of distributed quantum computation and quantum key distribution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据