1

Superadditivity in trade-off capacities of quantum
channels

arXiv:1708.04314v2 [quant-ph] 16 Aug 2017

Elton Yechao Zhu, Quntao Zhuang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Senior Member, IEEE, and Peter W. Shor

Abstract—In this article, we investigate the additivity phenomenon in the dynamic capacity of a quantum channel for
trading classical communication, quantum communication and
entanglement. Understanding such additivity property is important if we want to optimally use a quantum channel for general
communication purpose. However, in a lot of cases, the channel
one will be using only has an additive single or double resource
capacity, and it is largely unknown if this could lead to an
superadditive double or triple resource capacity. For example,
if a channel has an additive classical and quantum capacity, can
the classical-quantum capacity be superadditive? In this work,
we answer such questions affirmatively.
We give proof-of-principle requirements for these channels to
exist. In most cases, we can provide an explicit construction of
these quantum channels. The existence of these superadditive
phenomena is surprising in contrast to the result that the
additivity of both classical-entanglement and classical-quantum
capacity regions imply the additivity of the triple capacity region.
Index Terms—Additivity; Quantum Channel Capacity; Tradeoff Capacity Regions; Quantum Shannon theory.

I. I NTRODUCTION
N studying classical communication, Shannon developed
powerful probabilistic tools that connect the theoretic
throughput of a channel to an entropic quantity defined on
a single use of the channel [1]. Shannon’s noiseless channel
coding theorem involves a random coding strategy to prove
achievability and entropic inequalities that show optimality,
i.e., the converse. This methodology has now become standard
in proving finite or asymptotic optimal resource conversions
in information theory.
Quantum Shannon information starts by mimicking classical information theory: typical sets can be generalized to
typical subspaces to prove achievability while various entropic
inequalities, such as the quantum data processing inequality,
can be used to prove the converse. However, the differences
between quantum and classical Shannon information are also
significant. On one hand, additional resources available in the
quantum domain diversify the allowable capacities, resulting in

I

E.Y. Zhu is with the Center of Theoretical Physics and Department of
Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 USA
(e-mail: eltonzhu@mit.edu).
Q. Zhuang is with the Research Laboratory of Electronics and Department
of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139
USA (e-mail: quntao@mit.edu).
Min-Hsiu Hsieh is with the Centre of Quantum Software and Information (UTS |QSIi), University of Technology Sydney, Australia (e-mail: MinHsiu.Hsieh@uts.edu.au).
P.W. Shor is with the Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139 USA (e-mail: shor@math.mit.edu).

trade-off regions for the resources that are consumed or generated [2]–[4]. The most common, and useful, quantum resource
in communication settings is quantum entanglement. Unlike
classical shared randomness, which does not increase a classical channel’s capability to send more messages, preshared
quantum entanglement will generally increase the throughput
of a quantum channel for sending classical messages or
quantum messages or both [2], [5]–[9]. It thus makes sense
to consider the trade-off capacity regions among these three
useful resources: entanglement, classical communication, and
quantum communication, and this was done in Ref. [4]. The
result in Ref. [4] further shows that a coding strategy that
exploits the channel coding of these three resources as a whole
performs better than strategies that do not take advantage of
channel coding.
On the other hand, single-lettered channel capacity formulas in the classical regime generally become intractable
regularized capacity formulas in the quantum regime [10]–
[14]. In other words, evaluation of these capacity quantities
requires optimizing channel inputs over an arbitrary finite
number of uses of a given channel. This largely blocks our
understanding of how quantum channels behave. An extreme
example shows the existence of two quantum channels that
cannot be used to send a quantum message individually but
will have a positive channel capacity when both are used
simultaneously [15]. However, there are also several examples
showing that when additional resources are used to assist,
the corresponding assisted capacity will also become additive.
The classical capacity over quantum channels is generally
superadditive; however, when assisted by a sufficient amount
of entanglement, the entanglement-assisted capacity becomes
additive [6], [16]. The quantum capacity also exhibits similar
properties. When assisted by either entanglement [2], [3] or an
unbounded symmetric side channel [17], its assisted quantum
capacity becomes additive.
This superadditive property of quantum channel capacities
has accordingly attracted significant attention. Hastings [18]
proved that the classical capacity over quantum channels is not
additive, a result built upon earlier developments by HaydenWinter [19] and Shor [20]. Recently, three of us showed a
rather perplexing result [21]: when assisted by an insufficient
amount of entanglement, a channel’s classical capacity could
be superadditive regardless of whether the unassisted classical
capacity is additive or not. Further, the additive property of
the entanglement-assisted classical capacity shows a form of
phase transition. Even if the channel is additive when assisted
by a sufficient amount of entanglement or no entanglement at
all, it can still be superadditive when assisted with an insuf-

2

ficient amount of entanglement. This phenomenon indicates
that quantum channels behave fundamentally differently from
classical channels, and our understanding of it is still quite
limited.
This paper is inspired by, and aims to extend Ref. [21]. Will
additivity of single or double resource capacities always lead
to additivity of a general resource trade-off region? We will
study superadditi vity in a general framework that considers
the three most common resources of: entanglement, noiseless
classical communication and quantum communication. Our
results show that (i) additivity of single resource capacities
of a quantum channel does not generally imply additivity of
double resource capacities, except for the known result [2] that
an additive quantum capacity yields an additive entanglementassisted quantum capacity region (see Table I); and (ii) additive double resource capacities does not generally imply an
additive triple resource capacity, except for the known case
[8] that additive classical-entanglement and classical-quantum
capacity regions yield an additive triple dynamic capacity (see
Table II). These results again demonstrate how complex a
quantum channel can be, and further investigation is required.
The paper is structured as follows. Section II introduces the
various definitions, notations and previous results on the triple
resource quantum Shannon theory. Section III summarizes the
various superadditivity results that we establish in the paper.
Section IV establishes the switch channel that we use for all
our constructions, and how this reduces the triple resource
trade-off formula. Section V gives a detailed construction of
all the possible superadditivity phenomena.
II. P RELIMINARIES
In this section, we give definitions of basic entropic quantities used in the paper. We also describe the dynamic capacity
theorem. Special cases of this include the various single and
double resource capacities. Finally, we define the elementary
channels that will be used in our explicit constructions.
A bipartite quantum state σAB is a positive semi-definite
matrix in Hilbert space H A ⊗ H B with trace one. We define
the von Neumann entropy, conherent information and quantum
mutual information of σAB , respectively, as follows:
S(AB)σ

= −Tr [σAB log σAB ],

I(AiB)σ

=

S(B)σ − S(AB)σ,

I(A; B)σ

=

S(A)σ + I(AiB)σ,

where S(A)σ is the von Neumann entropy of the reduced state
σA = TrB [σAB ].
x }
For an ensemble {p(x), σAB
x ∈X , let
Õ
x
σX AB =
p(x)|xihx|X ⊗ σAB
,
x ∈X

where {|xi} forms a fixed orthonormal (computational) basis
in Hilbert Space HX . We need the following information
quantities as well:
Õ
I(AiBX)σ =
p(x)I(AiB)σx ,
(1)
I(A; B|X)σ

=

x
Õ

p(x)I(A; B)σx ,

(2)

I(X; B)σ + I(A; B|X)σ,

(3)

x

I(AX; B)σ

=

where I(AiBX)σ and I(A; B|X) in Eqs. (1) and (2) are the
conditional coherent information and the conditional mutual
information, respectively. I(X; B)σ in Eq. (3) is the Holevo
information of σX B = Tr A[σX AB ].
A quantum channel N is a completely positive and tracepreserving map. With it, we can transmit either classical or
quantum information or both with possible entanglement assistance between the sender and the receiver [8]. More generally,
the authors in Ref. [4] proved the following capacity theorem
that involves a noisy quantum channel N and the three
resources mentioned above; namely, classical communication
(C), quantum communication (Q) and quantum entanglement
(E).
Theorem 1 (CQE trade-off [4]): The dynamic capacity
region CCQE (N ) of a quantum channel N is equal to the
following expression:
CCQE (N ) =

∞
Ø

1 (1)
CCQE N ⊗k ,
k
k=1

where the overbar indicates the closure of a set. The region
(1)
CCQE
(N ) is equal to the union of the state-dependent regions
(1)
CCQE,σ
(N ):

(1)
CCQE
(N ) ≡

The state-dependent region
C, Q and E, such that

Ø
σ

(1)
CCQE,σ
(N ) .

(1)
CCQE,σ

(N ) is the set of all rates

C + 2Q ≤ I(AX; B)σ,

(4)

Q + E ≤ I(AiBX)σ,

(5)

C + Q + E ≤ I(X; B)σ + I(AiBX)σ .

(6)

The above entropic quantities are with respect to a classicalquantum state (cq state) σX AB , where
Õ

σX AB ≡
p(x) |xi hx| X ⊗ NA0 →B φ xAA0 ,
(7)
x

φ xAA0

and the states
are pure.
We say that the dynamic capacity of a channel N is additive
if
(1)
CCQE (N ) = CCQE
(8)
(N ) .
The dynamic capacity region CCQE (N ) in Theorem 1
allows us to recover known capacity theorems by choosing
certain (C, Q, E) in Eqs. (4)-(6) as follows:
• the classical capacity CC (N ) when choosing Q = E = 0
[10], [11];
• the quantum capacity CQ (N ) when choosing C = E = 0
[12]–[14];
• the classical and quantum capacity CCQ (N ) when choosing E = 0 (CQ trade-off) [22];
• the entanglement assisted classical capacity CCE (N )
when choosing Q = 0 (CE trade-off) [7], [16];
• the entanglement assisted quantum capacity CQE (N )
when choosing C = 0 (QE trade-off) [2], [3];
Additivity of these special cases follows similarly from Eq. (8).
We note that the dynamic capacity region is concave, as a
convex combination of any two points in the region can be

3

achieved by a time-sharing strategy, i.e., using the channel for
a fraction of uses to achieve one point, and using it for the
other fraction to achieve the second point.
Below we will briefly describe a few channels which we
will repeatedly use.
Definition 2: A Hadamard channel is a quantum channel
whose complementary channel is entanglement breaking. Suppose Ψ A0 →B is a Hadamard channel, with the complementary
channel ΨcA0 →E . Then there is a degrading map DB→E such
that
ΨcA0 →E = DB→E ◦ Ψ A0 →B .
Moreover, D can be decomposed as
1
2
DB→E = DY→E
,
◦ DB→Y

where Y is a classical variable.
A Hadamard channel has an additive quantum dynamic capacity region, when tensored with an arbitrary quantum channel
[23]. Examples of Hadamard channels include the qubit dephasing channel, 1 → N cloning channels, and the Unruh
channel. We’ll define the qubit dephasing channel below, but
refrain from giving definitions of other Hadamard channels,
since their exact forms are not needed for understanding this
work. We refer the interested readers to Ref. [23] for more
details and properties of these channels.
dph
Definition 3: The qubit dephasing channel Ψη , with dephasing probability η, is defined as
dph

Ψη (ρ) = (1 − η)ρ + ηZ ρZ.

Imply the additivity of
CE
CQ
QE
N [21]
N [25]
N [25]
N (SecV-C)
N (SecV-C)
Y [3]
N (SecV-B)
N (SecV-D)
Y[3]
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF RESULTS FOR DOUBLE RESOURCES .“N” STANDS FOR “ DOES
NOT IMPLY ADDITIVITY ”, WHILE “Y” MEANS “ IMPLIES ADDITIVITY ”.
Additive capacities
C
Q
C,Q⇔ C,QE

Imply the additivity of
Additive capacities
CQE
QE
N (SecV-C)
CQ
N (SecV-G)
CE
N (SecV-E)
CE,Q⇔CE,QE
N (SecV-F)
CE,CQ
Y[8]
TABLE II
S UMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TRIPLE RESOURCES . “N” STANDS FOR “ DOES
NOT IMPLY ADDITIVITY ”, WHILE “Y” MEANS “ IMPLIES ADDITIVITY ”.

III. S UMMARY OF R ESULTS
We summarize all of our results here. We will denote the
single capacity region by a single letter, e.g. C for CC (N ).
We will also use short notation for double and triple tradeoff regions, e.g. CE for CCE (N ) and CQE for CCQE (N ). We
will use the arrow notation, with “→” meaning additivity of
the left-hand side capacity implies additivity of the right-hand
side capacity, and “6→” meaning additivity of the left-hand
side capacity does not imply additivity of the right-hand side
capacity.

dpo

Definition 4: The qubit depolarizing channel Ψp , with
depolarizing probability p, is defined as
I
dpo
Ψp (ρ) = (1 − p)ρ + p .
2
The qubit depolarizing channel is known to have an additive
classical capacity [24], but a superadditive quantum capacity
[25].
Definition 5: A random orthogonal channel Ψro is defined
as
D
Õ
|
Ψro (ρ) =
Pi Oi ρOi ,
i=1

where Oi are chosen from the orthogonal group and the
probabilities Pi are roughly equal.
For 1  D  N, with N the input dimension, such a channel
will have a subadditive minimum output entropy with high
probability [18].
Definition 6: Consider an arbitrary channel ΨC→B . Append
a register R to the input, with a set of orthonormal bases {| ji}
and |R| = |B| 2 . We define its unitally extended channel [20],
[26] ΦRC→B as
Õ
ΦRC→B (ρRC ) =
X( j)ΨC→B (h j | ρRC | ji R ) X( j)†, (9)

A. Double resources (see table I)
1) CE:
a) C 6→ CE [21]: There exists a quantum channel N ,
such that its classical capacity is additive, but its CE
trade-off capacity region is superadditive. We will give
a simplified construction in Sec V-A.
b) C, Q 6→ CE: There exists a quantum channel N ,
such that its classical and quantum capacities are
both additive, but its CE trade-off capacity region is
superadditive, i.e.,, ∃ a quantum channel N s.t.
CC (N ) = CC(1) (N )
and
(1)
CQ (N ) = CQ
(N )

but
(1)
CCE (N ) ) CCE
(N ) .

j

where {X( j) : j ∈ {1, . . . , |R|}} are the Heisenberg-Weyl
operators.
The unital extension of a random orthogonal channel will have
a superadditive classical capacity with high probability [20].

An explicit construction of N is given in Sec V-B.
2) Q → QE [3]: For all quantum channels N , if its quantum
capacity is additive, then its QE trade-off capacity region
is always additive.

4

3) CQ:
a) C 6→ CQ [25]: There exists a quantum channel N , such
that its classical capacity is additive, but its CQ tradeoff capacity region is superadditive. The depolarizing
channel has a superadditive quantum capacity and
hence a superadditive CQ trade-off capacity, while its
classical capacity is additive.
b) Q 6→ CQ: There exists a quantum channel N , such
that its quantum capacity is additive, but its CQ tradeoff capacity region is superadditive, i.e., ∃ a quantum
channel N s.t.
(1)
CQ (N ) = CQ
(N )

but

(1)
CCQ (N ) ) CCQ
(N ) .

A construction of this example quantum channel is
given in Sec V-C.
c) C, Q 6→ CQ: Moreover, there exists a quantum channel
N , such that its classical and quantum capacities
are additive, but its CQ trade-off capacity region is
superadditive, i.e., ∃ a quantum channel N s.t.
CC (N ) = CC(1) (N )
and
but

(1)
CQ (N ) = CQ
(N ) ,
(1)
CCQ (N ) ) CCQ
(N ) .

A construction of this example quantum channel is
given in Sec V-D.
B. Triple resources (see table II)
1) CE 6→ CQE: There exists a quantum channel N such
that its CE trade-off capacity region is additive, but
its dynamic capacity region is superadditive, i.e., ∃ a
quantum channel N s.t.
(1)
CCE (N ) = CCE
(N )

but

(1)
CCQE (N ) ) CCQE
(N ) .

An example is constructed in Sec V-E.
2) CE, Q 6→ CQE: There exists a quantum channel N such
that its quantum capacity and its CE trade-off capacity
region are additive, but its dynamic capacity region is
superadditive, i.e., ∃ a quantum channel N s.t.
(1)
CQ (N ) = CQ
(N )

and
but

(1)
CCE (N ) = CCE
(N ) ,
(1)
CCQE (N ) ) CCQE
(N ) .

An example is constructed in Sec V-F.
3) CQ 6→ CQE: There exists a quantum channel N such
that its CQ trade-off capacity region is additive, but

its dynamic capacity region is superadditive, i.e., ∃ a
quantum channel N s.t.
(1)
CCQ (N ) = CCQ
(N )

but
(1)
CCQE (N ) ) CCQE
(N ) .

An example is given in Sec V-G.
4) CE, CQ → CQE [8]: If a quantum channel N has
additive CE and CQ trade-off capacity regions, then its
dynamic capacity region is also additive. This statement
is first observed in Ref. [8], and an explicit argument can
be found in Ref. [23].
IV. F RAMEWORK
This section presents technical tools that we require for
demonstration of superadditivity in trade-off capacities. We
first define the concept of switch channels.
0
Definition 7: A switch channel NMC→B between NC→B
1
and NC→B with M being a 1-bit switch register is defined as
NMC→B (ρ MC )
0
1
=NC→B
(h0| ρ MC |0i M ) + NC→B
(h1| ρ MC |1i M ) .

In quantum information theory, switch channels were first
used in Ref. [7] to demonstrate the existence of quantum
channels such that the quantum capacity is nonzero, but for
which pre-shared entanglement does not improve the classical
capacity. Subsequently, they are used in Ref. [27] to show
the superadditivity of private information, with an alternative
definition. Recently, they are also used in Ref. [21] to show
the superadditivity of the classical capacity with limited entanglement assistance.
One immediate difficulty is that, even if N 0 and N 1 are
well-studied, the dynamic capacity region of N may not
always have a simple expression in terms of those of N 0 and
N 1 . This is due to the fact that the switch register M can be
in a superposition state. However, if N 0 and N 1 are unitally
extended channels, then the dynamic capacity region of N
does have a simple expression.
Lemma 8: Consider a switch channel NA0 →B between
0
1
NRC→B
and NRC→B
, with input partition A0 = M RC and M
0
1
being a switch register. Here NRC→B
and NRC→B
are unital
0
1
extensions of ΨC→B and ΨC→B respectively. Then

 
 
(1)
(1)
(1)
CCQE
(N ) = Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 ,
where Conv denotes the convex hull of points from the two
sets.
If the quantum dynamic capacity region for N 0 ⊗ Ψ is
additive for any Ψ, then we also have

 
 
CCQE (N ) = Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this lemma.
Firstly, we note that switch channels and unitally extended
channels fall under a broader class of channels that we call
partial classical-quantum channels (partial cq channels).

5

Definition 9: A channel ΨRC→B is a partial cq channel if
there exists a noiseless classical channel ΠR→R with orthonormal basis {| ji R }, such that
ΨRC→B = ΨRC→B ◦ ΠR→R .

x, j

(12)

with its output state
Õ

x
p(x) |xi hx| X ⊗ ς AB
,

x


x = Ψ 0
x
where ς AB
A →B φ AA0 , there exists a corresponding state
ρX AA0 , in the form of Eq. (11), which can achieve the same
rate, if not better.
In fact, the state ρX AA0 can be obtained by applying ΠR→R
on %X AA0 and expanding its classical register X. This can be
achieved by the following quantum instrument T : R → RXR ,
Õ
T (ψR ) :=
h j | ψR | ji | ji h j | R ⊗ | ji h j | XR
so that
=
=

0)
T (%
Õ X AA
xj
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | R ⊗ φ AC (13)

x, j

where we abuse the notation X to denote X XR in Eq. (13),
p(x, j) ≡ p(x)p( j |x), and p( j |x) = Tr[| ji h j | φ xAC ].
Let σX AB = Ψ A0 →B (ρX AA0 ). Then
Õ
xj
σX AB =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ σAB
x, j

where

≥

Õ

p(x)I(AiB)ς x

x

= I(AiBX)ς ,

(15)

where the inequality is due to Eq. (14) and the convexity
of coherent information with respect to inputs.
2) Now consider I(AX; B)σ . Similarly,
I(AX; B)σ = S(B)σ + I(Bi AX)σ
≥ S(B)ς + I(Bi AX)ς
= I(AX; B)ς ,
where the inequality is due to σB = ςB and Eq. (15).
3) Finally consider I(X; B)σ . Writing |x, ji as |xi | ji, it can
be shown
I(X; B)σ ≥ I(X; B)ς

Lemma 11: The optimal trade-off surface of the 1-shot quantum dynamic capacity region of a unitally extended channel
can always be achieved with σX AB such that S(B)σ = log(|B|).
This extends similarly to higher shots.
Proof. Suppose ΦRC→B is unitally extended from ΨC→B .
Since a unitally extended channel ΦRC→B is a partial cq
channel, by Lemma 10, we can consider states of the form
Õ
xj
%X AA0 =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | R ⊗ φ AC .
x, j

xj

p( j |x)σAB .



x jk
xj
xj
xj
where ς AB = X(k)ς AB X(k)† and ς AB = ΨC→B φ AC .
We can construct another state of the form in Eq. (11):
Õ
xj
ρX 0 AA0 =
p(x, j, k) |x, j, ki hx, j, k | X 0 ⊗ |ki hk | R ⊗ φ AC ,
x, j,k

(16)
where p(x, j, k) = p(x, j)/|R|, and σX 0 AB = ΦRC→B (ρX 0 AA0 ):
Õ
x jk
σX 0 AB =
p(x, j, k) |x, j, ki hx, j, k | X 0 ⊗ σAB ,


xj
xj
xj
where
= X(k)σAB X(k)† and σAB = ΨC→B φ AC . The
state σX 0 AB satisfies
x jk
σAB

It follows that
Õ

x, j

x, j,k



xj
xj
σAB = Ψ A0 →B | ji h j | R ⊗ φ AC .
x
ς AB
=

p(x)p( j |x)I(AiB)σ x j

x, j

Let ςX AB = ΦRC→B (%X AA0 ) with A0 ≡ RC. Then
Õ
xjj
ςX AB =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ ς AB ,

j

ρX AA0

=

Õ

using the data processing inequality when we apply the
partial trace map |xi hx| ⊗ | ji h j | → |xi hx| to σX B .

x

ςX AB ≡ Ψ A0 →B (%X AA0 ) =

x, j

(10)

If there is no register C, then such channels are classicalquantum channels (cq channels).
For partial cq channels, one can always assume inputs are
cq states with respect to the input partition R and C for the
purpose of evaluating capacities, as we show in Lemma 10
below.
Lemma 10: If Ψ A0 →B is a partial cq channel with partition
A0 = RC, then the optimal trade-off surface of the 1-shot
(1)
dynamic capacity region CCQE
(Ψ) can be achieved with
respect to cq states σX AB = Ψ A0 →B (ρX AA0 ), where ρX AA0 is
of the form
Õ
xj
(11)
ρX AA0 =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | R ⊗ φ AC .
Proof. We will show that, for any input state
Õ
%X AA0 =
p(x) |xi hx| X ⊗ φ xAA0,

1) First consider I(AiBX)σ .
Õ
I(AiBX)σ =
p(x, j)I(AiB)σ x j

(14)

j

Since the dynamic capacity region is fully determined by the
three entropic quantities I(AX; B)σ , I(AiBX)σ and I(X; B)σ
in Eqs. (4)-(6), it suffices to show that all three entropic
quantities evaluated on ρX AA0 are greater than those evaluated
on %X AA0 .

©Õ
x jk ª
S(B)σ = S ­
p(x, j, k)σB ®
«x, j,k
¬
!
Õ
1 Õ x jk
σ
≥
p(x, j)S
|R| k B
x, j
= log(|B|),

6

where we’ve used the qudit twirl formula [28]
1 Õ x jk
1 Õ
1
xj
σB =
X(k)σB X(k)† =
IB .
|R| k
|R| k
|B|

Likewise,
(17)

x, j,k

=

p(x, j)I(AiB)ς x j j = I(AiBX)ς

=

1
Õ

p(x, m, k)I(Bi A)σ x mk

pm I(AX; B)σ m

m=0

and
I(X; B)σ =

(18)

x, j

1
Õ

pm I(X; B)σ m .

m=0

I(AX 0; B)σ = S(B)σ +

Õ

p(x, j, k)I(Bi A)σ x j k

x, j,k

= log(|B|) +

Õ

p(x, j)I(Bi A)ς x j j ≥ I(AX; B)ς

x, j

I(X 0; B)σ

1 Õ
Õ
m=0 x,k

One can verify that the dynamic capacity region with σX 0 AB
is larger than that with ςX AB as follows:
Õ
I(AiBX 0)σ =
p(x, j, k)I(AiB)σ x j k
Õ

I(AX; B)σ = log(|B|) +

= S(B)σ −

Õ

p(x, j, k)S(B)σ x j k

(19)

x, j,k

= log(|B|) −

Õ

p(x, j)S(B)ς x j j ≥ I(X; B)ς .

This means if we consider inputs of the form (21), the
triple rate for using N can always be expressed as a linear
combination of the triple rates of N 0 and N 1 . It is also clear
that any linear combination is achievable by the time-sharing
principle. Since using states of the form (21) is optimal, we
have
 
 
Ø
(1)
(1)
(1)
CCQE
pCCQE
N 0 + (1 − p)CCQE
N1
(N ) =
0≤p ≤1

x, j


 
 
(1)
(1)
= Conv CCQE
N 0 , CCQE
N1 .

(20)
The key property used in the above equations is, for any
Heisenberg-Weyl operator X(k),
S(σB ) = S(X(k)σB X(k)† ).
Proof of lemma 2. Following from Lemma 11 and Eq. (16),
we only need to consider states of the form
ρX AA0 =

1
Õ

pm |mi hm| M ⊗ ρm
X ARC

(21)

m=0

Here, addition means Minkowski sum1 . Similarly, we have



(1)
(1)
CCQE (N ⊗ N ) =Conv CCQE
N0 ⊗ N0 ,




(1)
(1)
CCQE
N 0 ⊗ N 1 , CCQE
N1 ⊗ N1 .
If the quantum dynamic capacity region is additive for N 0 ⊗Ψ,
for any Ψ, then


 
 
(1)
(1)
(1)
CCQE
N 0 ⊗ N 1 = CCQE
N 0 + CCQE
N1 .
(24)

Í
where pm = x,k p(x, m, k) and
Õ p(x, m, k)
=
ρm
|x, m, ki hx, m, k | X ⊗ |ki hk | R ⊗ φ xm
X ARC
AC ,
p
m
x,k

In this case the 1-shot quantum dynamic capacity region for
N ⊗ N can be greatly simplified to

 


(1)
(1)
CCQE
(N ⊗ N ) = Conv 2CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 ⊗ N 1 .

with p(x, m, k) = p(x, m, k 0) for all k, k 0 and m ∈ {0, 1}.
The corresponding channel output is

Similarly,

σX AB =

1
Õ

pm σXmAB

(22)

m=0

where
σXmAB =

Õ p(x, m, k)
xmk
|x, m, ki hx, m, k | X ⊗ σAB
p
m
x,k

(23)

and

xmk
m
†
σAB
= X(k)ΨC→B
φ xm
AC X(k) .
Then all three of the entropic quantities evaluated on σX AB
in Eq. (22) can be decomposed to the corresponding ones
evaluated on σXmAB given in Eq. (23):
I(AiBX)σ =

1 Õ
Õ

p(x, m, k)I(AiB)σ x mk

m=0 x,k

=

1
Õ
m=0

pm I(AiBX)σ m .



(1)
CCQE
N ⊗k

  

  ⊗k−1 
⊗k
(1)
(1)
=Conv CCQE
N1
, CCQE
N0 ⊗ N1
,

  
 
⊗k
⊗k−1
(1)
(1)
.
· · · , CCQE
N0
⊗ N 1 , CCQE
N0

 ⊗m
 ⊗k−m 
(1)
N0
⊗ N1
, 0 ≤ m ≤ k, can be
Each term CCQE
upper bounded as
 
  ⊗k−m 
⊗m
(1)
0
⊗ N1
CCQE N
 

 
⊗k−m
(1)
=mCCQE N 0 + CCQE
N1
 
 
⊆mCCQE N 0 + (k − m)CCQE N 1

 
 
⊆kConv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .
1 For two sets of position vectors A and B in Euclidean space, their
Minkowski sum A + B is obtained by adding each vector in A to each vector
in B, i.e., A + B = {a + b |a ∈ A, b ∈ B } [29].

7

Here the second line follows from the addivity of the dynamic
capacity region of N 0 . The third line follows from the definition of CCQE . The fourth line follows from the definition of

(1)
convex hull. Thus CCQE
N ⊗k can also be upper bounded as



 
 
(1)
CCQE
N ⊗k ⊆ kConv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .
and
∞
Ø

1 (1)
CCQE N ⊗k
CCQE (N ) =
k
k=1


⊆Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1

 
 
=Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .

The last equality follows because of the topology of the
dynamic capacity region, as we show in Appendix D.
By a time-sharing protocol, it is obvious that

 
 
CCQE (N ) ⊇ Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .

In each construction, we first state the properties that N 0
and N 1 need to satisfy, in addition to Property (U). We then
show how the desired superadditivity of the switch channel
N follows from these properties. In the end, we explicitly
construct channels that satisfy the properties we required.
Before we start, we first propose two families of unital
extended channels that satisfy (U). Many of our explicit
constructions of N 0 will be chosen from these candidates. The
first family comes from unital extensions of Hadamard channels. The following lemma shows that the dynamic capacity
of the unitally extended Hadamard channels is also additive.
Lemma 12: The dynamic capacity region is additive for Φ0
and any other channel Ψ1 , if Φ0 is a unital extension of a
Hadamard channel Ψ0 .
The second family is unital extensions of classical channels.
Lemma 13: If Ψ0 is a classical channel, then the dynamic
capacity region is additive for Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 , for arbitrary Ψ1 . The
same holds for a unital extension of a classical channel.
The proofs of the above lemmas are left to the Appendices,
as they are not essential in understanding the construction.

Hence

 
 
CCQE (N ) = Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .
Note that unital extensions are not unique, and we only
used the unitarity of Heisenberg-Weyl operators and the twirl
formula Eq. (17) in proving the above lemmas. Hence, as long
as we have K unitaries {Uk } ∈ U(d) that satisfy the twirl
formula
I
1 Õ
Uk AUk† = Tr(A)
(25)
K k
d
for any d × d matrix A, one has a valid unital extension, and
lemmas 8 and 11 will hold. 2
Moreover, unital extensions are preserved under tensor
product of channels: if Φ1 is a unital extension of Ψ1 , and Φ2 is
a unital extension of Ψ2 , then Φ1 ⊗Φ2 is also a unital extension
of Ψ1 ⊗Ψ2 . This follows from the fact that if {U j } ∈ U(d1 ) and
{Vk } ∈ U(d2 ) both satisfy Eq. (25), then {U j ⊗ Vk } ∈ U(d1 d2 )
also satisfies Eq. (25).
V. E XPLICIT C ONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS
S UPERADDITIVITY P HENOMENA
With the tools developed in Sec IV, we can now explicitly
construct channels that satisfy the superadditivity properties
stated in Sec III. All our constructions utilize the switch
channel idea. We always assume that N is a switch channel
of two unitally extended channels N 0 and N 1 . Further, we
assume that
(U) N 0 has an additive dynamic capacity region, when tensored with another arbitrary channel.
In this setting, we can use Lemma 8 and its reduction to
various single-resource and two-resource capacities.
2 Note that we do not even require N 0 and N 1 to have the same unital
extension. However, to ensure the input dimensions of N 0 and N 1 are the
same, their unital extensions must involve the same number of unitaries. For
this reason, we stick with the Heisenberg-Weyl operators most of the time.

A. Additive C, Superadditive CE
Here we review the original argument in [21] and recast it
in the current framework.
We use CP (N ) when we view C (N ) as a function of the
amount of entanglement assistance P, where (C (N ) , P) are
points on the CE trade-off curve of N . When P = 0, we
return to the classical capacity CC (N ). When P is maximal,
we arrive at the classical capacity with unlimited entanglement
assistance CE (N ). CP(1) (N ) denotes the 1-shot case.
We require N 0 and N 1 to have the following properties:


(A1) CC N 0 = CC N 1 .
(A2) N 1 has a superadditive CE trade-off capacity region, i.e.,,
 
 
(1)
CCE N 1 ) CCE
N1 ,

and CCE N 1 is strictly concave and superadditive at a
boundary point of the trade-off region with entanglement
consumption
 P̄.

(A3) CCE N 0 ( CCE N 1 in the sense the CE trade-off
capacity region of N 0 is strictly smaller than that of N 1
when entanglement consumption is at P̄.
In the
property (A2) means at P = P̄,
 CP notation,

CP N 1 > CP(1) N 1 and CP N 1 is strictly  concave3 in P
at P = P̄ . Property (A3) implies that CP N 0 < CP N 1 at
P = P̄.
Note that these properties are weaker than the ones required
in Ref. [21].
These three properties (A1)-(A3), together with (U), will
guarantee that (i) the classical capacity of N is additive; and
(ii) the CE trade-off capacity region of N is superadditive at
entanglement consumption rate P̄.
3 Here by saying a function f is strictly concave at y, we mean f (y) >
(1 − p) f (v) + p f (w) for all v < y < w satisfying (1 − p)v + pw = y, with
p ∈ (0, 1).

8

Combining property (A1) with (U) yields statement (i):
n
 
 o
 
CC (N ) = max CC N 0 , CC N 1 = CC N 0
n
 
 o
= max CC(1) N 0 , CC(1) N 1 = CC(1) (N ) ,
where Lemma 8 is used in the first equality.
Property (A3) ensures that

 
 
CCE (N ) = Conv CCE N 0 , CCE N 1
 
= CCE N 1 .





(N ) = Conv CCE N

0



(1)
, CCE



N

1



CP(1) (Φro ) ≤ CC(1) (Φro ) + P,

(28)

CE (Φro ) ≤ CC (Φro ) + log(N) −  .
This implies dCP (Φro ) /dP cannot always be 1. Thus there
exists P̄ ∈ [0, log(N)) such that
dCP (Φro ) /dP = 1, ∀ 0 ≤ P ≤ P̄
and

(26)

Since
(1)
CCE

Since

,

there exists P0, P1 ≥ 0 and p ∈ [0, 1] such that pP0 +(1−p)P1 =
P̄ and
 
 
CP̄(1) (N ) = pCP0 N 0 + (1 − p)CP(1)1 N 1 .
Statement (ii) follows after considering three different cases.
1) p = 0.
 
 
CP̄(1) (N ) = CP̄(1) N 1 < CP̄ N 1 = CP̄ (N ) ,
where the inequality follows from the superadditivity part
of property (A2). The second equality follows from Eq.
(26).
2) 0 < p < 1.
 
 
CP̄(1) (N ) = pCP(1)0 N 0 + (1 − p)CP(1)1 N 1
 
 
≤ pCP0 N 1 + (1 − p)CP1 N 1
 
< CP̄ N 1 = CP̄ (N )
where the first inequality follows from Property (A3). The
second inequality follows from the strict concavity part
of property (A2). The last equality follows from Eq. (26).
3) p = 1. Then
 
 
CP̄(1) (N ) = CP̄ N 0 < CP̄ N 1 = CP̄ (N ) .

dCP (Φro ) /dP < 1, ∀P > P̄.
Next we discuss different cases of P̄.
1) P̄ > 0. Then CP (Φro ) is strictly concave at P̄. Furthermore, CP̄ (Φro ) − CP̄(1) (Φro ) ≥  since CP̄ (Φro ) =
CC (Φro ) + P̄ but CP̄(1) (Φro ) ≤ CC(1) (Φro ) + P̄. Thus
N 1 = Φro satisfies (A2).
dph
dph
2) P̄ = 0. Let N 1 = Φro ⊗ Φη , where Φη is the unital
extension of the qubit dephasing channel.
Since dCP (Φro ) /dP|0+ < 1, choose η > 0 small such that
dph
dCP Φη /dP|1− > dCP (Φro ) /dP|0+ . This is possible,






dph
dph
dph
as CP Φη
= CP Ψη
and dCP Ψη /dP|1− → 1
as η → 0. This ensures that when 0 < P ≤ 1,

 

dph
(29)
CP N 1 = CC (Φro ) + CP Φη ,
where we’ve also used Lemma 12.


dph
dph
For Φη , it can be shown that CP Φη
is strictly
concave in P when η < 1/2 (see Appendix C). Hence
CP N 1 is also strictly concave with respect to P, for
0 < P ≤ 1. Also, when P < ,

 

dph
CP N 1 > CC (Φro ) + CC Φη


 
dph
> CC(1) (Φro ) + CC Φη + P ≥ CP(1) N 1 .
Here the first inequality

 comes from Eq. (29) and
dph
dph
CP Φη
> CC Φη
when P > 0. The second
inequality comes from our assumption P <  and Eq.
(27). The last inequality comes
from Eq. (28).

This ensures that CP N 1 is superadditive.
Thus when

0 < P < min{1,  }, CP N 1 is strictly concave and
superadditive.
For N 0 , as long as
extension of a classical
 it is a unital

channel with CC N 0 = CC N 1 , it will automatically satisfy
property (A3).

Here the first equality follows from additivity of the CE
trade-off capacity region for N 0 . The inequality follows
from property (A3). The last equality follows from Eq.
(26).
Explicit Construction of N : We quote the following property about concave functions [30]: A concave function u(y)
is continuous, differentiable from the left and from the right.
The derivative is decreasing, i.e., for x < y we have u 0(x−) ≥
B. Additive C and Q, Superadditive CE
u 0(x+) ≥ u 0(y−) ≥ u 0(y+). We use “±” to denote the right and
In Section V-A, we constructed a channel N with an
left derivatives when needed.
1
ro
additive
classical capacity, but a superadditive CE trade-off
We first construct N . Choose Ψ to be a random orthogcapacity
region. It’s unclear if our construction N has an
onal channel with a subadditive minimum output entropy, and
ro
ro
additive
quantum
capacity. To extend the argument, we need
Ψ has input dimension N. This is unitally extended to Φ .
to
make
some
modifications
to the original construction.
Due to Lemma 10, the useful entanglement assistance is at
In
addition
to
properties
(A1)-(A3),
the channels N 0 and
most log(N). Thus we restrict to 0 ≤ P ≤ log(N).
1
N need to satisfy
Let


(1)
ro
ro
 = CC (Φ ) − CC (Φ ) > 0.
(27) (B1) CQ N 0 ≥ CQ N 1 .

9

then (B1) is automatically satisfied. Hence we will focus on
the case where
 
 
CQ N 0 < CQ N 1 .
In this case, we call these two channels Φ0 and Φ1 respectively.
We will construct two new channels N 0 and N 1 that satisfy
properties (A1)-(A3) and (B1).
We will use the qubit dephasing channel and 1 → N cloning
channel. To make the argument work, we will modify them in
the following manner.
For the 1 → N cloning channel Ψ1→N , we always tensor an
appropriate classical channel, such that the resulting channel
has its classical capacity equal to 1, and the output dimension
is the same as the input dimension. We denote the resulting
channel Ψ N .
For the dephasing channel, we will tensor a complete
depolarizing channel, so that its input and output dimensions
match those of Ψ N . Since tensoring a complete depolarizing
channel does not modify the dynamic capacity region of the
dph
qubit dephasing channel, we will continue using Ψη to
denote it.
Based on results in Ref. [23], we can obtain the trade-off
dph
capacities of the qubit dephasing channel Ψη and modified
N
1 → N cloning channel Ψ . We observe that for η = 0.2
and N = 15, their trade-off capacities satisfy the following
properties (see Fig. 1)




dph
CQ Ψη
> CQ Ψ N .
and





dph
CCE Ψη
( CCE Ψ N ,

(30)

in the sense that Ψ N achieves a strictly better classical comdph
munication rate than Ψη , if we have any non-zero amount
of entanglement
assistance. In the CP notation, it means



dph
CP Ψη
< CP Ψ N for all P > 0.
Since unital extensions do not change the CE and CQ tradeoff capacity regions of these two channels (see Appendix C),
dph
the above properties hold if we replace Ψη and Ψ N by their
dph
N
unital extensions Φη and Φ respectively.
Since




dph
CQ Φη > CQ Φ N ,
let n be large enough so that


 


 
dph
nCQ Φη + CQ Φ0 ≥ nCQ Φ N + CQ Φ1 .

0.8

2.0
Ψ N,

N = 15

Ψ ηdph , η = 0.2

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Classical Communication Rate

Classical Communication Rate

Explicit Construction of N : We take the channels N 0 and
1
N that were constructed in Sec  V-A, and compare their
quantum capacities. Since CQ N 0 = 0, we can only have
CQ N 0 ≤ CQ N 1 . If
 
 
CQ N 0 = CQ N 1 ,

1.0
Quantum Communication Rate

This ensures that the quantum capacity of N is also additive:
n
 
 o
 
CQ (N ) = max CQ N 0 , CQ N 1 = CQ N 0
n
 
 o
(1)
(1)
= max CQ
N 0 , CQ
N 1 = CQ (N ) .

1.8

Ψ N,

N = 15

Ψ ηdph , η = 0.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Entanglement Consumption Rate

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Comparison of trade-off curves between qubit dephasing channel
dph
Ψη and modified 1 → N cloning channel Ψ N , when η = 0.2 and N = 15.
(a) CQ trade-off. (b) CE trade-off.

Define
and


 ⊗n
dph
N 0 = Φη
⊗ Φ0

 ⊗n
N 1 = ΦN
⊗ Φ1 .

Our choice of n ensures that
 
 
CQ N 0 ≥ CQ N 1 .
We also need to ensure our newly constructed N 0 and N 1
still satisfy properties (A1)-(A3).
As




dph
CC Φη = CC Φ N = 1
and

 
 
CC Φ0 = CC Φ1 ,

we immediately have
 
 
CC N 0 = CC N 1
and property (A1) is satisfied.
The CE trade-off curve of Ψ1→N is strictly concave for
N , 1 [23], hence property (A2) is also satisfied for N 1 .
Property (A3) is satisfied due to Eq. (30).
C. Additive Q, Superadditive CQ
We require N 0 and N 1 to have the following properties:


(C1) CQ N 0 ≥ CQ N 1 .


(1)
(C2) CC N 1  > CC N 1 .
(C3) CC N 0 < CC N 1 .
These properties (C1)-(C3) will allow us to show that (i)
(1)
(1)
CQ (N ) = CQ
(N ); and (ii) CCQ (N ) ) CCQ (N ) .
Statement (i) follows from property (C1) and (U) that N 0
has an additive quantum capacity:
n
 
 o
 
CQ (N ) = max CQ N 0 , CQ N 1 = CQ N 0
n
 
 o
(1)
(1)
(1)
= max CQ
N 0 , CQ
N 1 = CQ
(N ) .
Properties (C2) and (C3) together ensure
n
 
 o
 
CC (N ) = max CC N 0 , CC N 1 = CC N 1
n
 
 o
> max CC(1) N 0 , CC(1) N 1 = CC(1) (N ) ,

10

i.e., the classical capacity of N is superadditive; hence statement (ii) follows.
Explicit Construction of N : Next we construct N 0 and N 1
that satisfy the above properties.
Let Ψro be a random orthogonal channel, such that its
unital extension has a superadditive classical capacity. For
convenience, we also assume Ψro has the input dimension
dph
N = 2n . Choose η for
 the qubit dephasing channel Ψη such
dph

that CQ (Ψro ) + CQ Ψη = m for some integer m.
Define
dph
N 1 = Φro ⊗ Φη ,
dph

where Φro is a unital extension of Ψro and Φη is a unital
dph
extension of Ψη .  N 1 has the property that its quantum
capacity is CQ N 1 = m, whereas its classical capacity is
superadditive, and greater than m.
Define
  ⊗m 
 ⊗n+1−m
dpo
N 0 = ΦI
⊗ Φ1
,
where Φ I is a unital extension of the noiseless qubit channel,
dpo
and Φ1 is a unital extension of the complete qubit depolarizing channel.
0
It’s clear
 that N 0 has its classical and quantum capacity as
0
CC N = CQ N = m, thus fulfiling the properties (C1)
and (C3) above.
D. Additive C and Q, Superadditive CQ
We require N 0 and N 1 to satisfy the following properties:




(D1) CC N 0  ≤ CC N 1 = CC(1) N 1 and CQ N 0 =
CQ N 1 .
(D2) N 1 has a superadditive CQ trade-off capacity region,
meaning
 
 
(1)
CCQ N 1 ) CCQ
N1 .

CCQ N 1 is strictly concave and superadditive at a
boundary point with classical
communication rate C̄.

(D3) CCQ N 0 ( CCQ N 1 in the sense the CQ trade-off
capacity region of N 0 is strictly smaller than that of N 1
when classical communication rate is at C̄.
With these properties, we can show that (i) CC (N ) =
(1)
CC(1) (N ); (ii) CQ (N ) = CQ
(N ); and (iii) CCQ (N ) )
(1)
CCQ
(N ) .
We’ll focus on the CQ trade-off curve. Same as in Section
V-A, we use a simplified notation QC (N ) when we view
Q (N ) as a function of C (N ). In the 1-shot scenario, it is
(1)
denoted by QC
(N ). We’ll show there exists C̄ , 0 such that
(1)
QC̄ (N ) > QC̄ (N ).
In the QC notation,
means at C = C̄,
 property (D2)

(1)
QC N 1 > QC
N 1 and QC N 1 is strictly concave in C
at C = C̄. Property (D3) implies that QC N 0 < QC N 1 at
C = C̄.
Property (D1) and (U) that N 0 has an additive quantum
capacity ensure that
n
 
 o
 
CC (N ) = max CC N 0 , CC N 1 = CC N 1
n
 
 o
= max CC(1) N 0 , CC(1) N 1 = CC(1) (N )

and
n
 
 o
 
CQ (N ) = max CQ N 0 , CQ N 1 = CQ N 0
n
 
 o
(1)
(1)
(1)
= max CQ
N 0 , CQ
N 1 = CQ
(N ) ,
i.e., N has an additive classical and quantum capacity.
By property (D3), we have

 
 
CCQ (N ) = Conv CCQ N 0 , CCQ N 1
 
= CCQ N 1 .

(31)

Since

 
 
(1)
(1)
CCQ
(N ) = Conv CCQ N 0 , CCQ N 1 ,
there exists C0, C1 and p ∈ [0, 1] such that pC0 + (1 − p)C1 = C̄
and
 
 
(1)
(1)
QC̄
(N ) = pQC0 N 0 + (1 − p)QC1 N 1 .
Now consider three different cases.
1) p = 0.
 
 
(1)
(1)
QC̄
(N ) = QC̄ N 1 < QC̄ N 1 = QC̄ (N ) ,
where the inequality follows from property (D2). The
second equality follows from Eq. (31).
2) 0 < p < 1.
 
 
(1)
(1)
QC̄
(N ) =pQC0 N 0 + (1 − p)QC1 N 1
 
 
≤pQC0 N 1 + (1 − p)QC1 N 1
 
<QC̄ N 1 = QC̄ (N ) .
Here the first inequality follows from the definition of
CCQ and property (D3). The second inequality follows
from the strict concavity part of property (D2). The last
equality follows from Eq. (31).
3) p = 1. Then
 
 
(1)
QC̄
(N ) = QC̄ N 0 < QC̄ N 1 = QC̄ (N ) .
Here the inequality follows from property (D3). The last
equality follows from Eq. (31).
Hence statement (iii) follows.
Explicit Construction: Now we explicitly construct N 0 and
N 1.
dpo
Choose p such that the qubit depolarizing channel Ψp is
known to have a superadditive quantum capacity. Consider

 its
dpo
dpo
unital extension Φ p . Note that the gradient dQC Φ p /dC
of the CQ trade-off curve cannot always stay at 0 for the choice
dpo
of Ψp with a positive
quantum capacity. It means there exists

dpo

0 ≤ C̄ < CC Φ p

such that



dpo
dQC Φ p /dC = 0, ∀0 ≤ C ≤ C̄−
and




dpo
dpo
dQC Φ p /dC < 0, ∀C̄+ ≤ C ≤ CC Φ p .

(32)

11



dpo
1) C̄ > 0. In this case, we know QC Φ p
is strictly
concave at C̄. Also








dpo
dpo
dpo
dpo
(1)
QC̄ Φ p = Q0 Φ p > Q(1)
Φ p ≥ QC̄
Φp .
0
Here the equality follows from Eq. (32). The first inequaldpo
ity follows because Ψp has a superadditive quantum
(1)
capacity, as both CQ and CQ
remain unchanged after a
unital extension, and QC reduces to the quantum capacity
at C = 0. The second inequality follows as the rate of
quantum communication along the CQ trade-off curve
must not exceed the quantum capacity.
Choose the noise parameter η for the qubit dephasing
dph
channel Ψη appropriately such that




dph
dpo
CQ Ψη = 1 − CQ Ψp .

Here we construct a channel that has an additive CE tradeoff capacity region, but a superadditive quantum capacity,
hence a superadditive quantum dynamic capacity region.
Let Ψ0 be a classical channel and Ψ1 be the depolarizing
dpo
dpo
channel Ψp . p is chosen such that Ψp has a superadditive
quantum capacity. Also, we require
 
 
CC Ψ0 > CE Ψ1 .
(33)
Now consider the switch channel N , consisting of N 0 and
which are unital extensions of Ψ0 and Ψ1 . It can be
easily shown that unital extension does not change the classical
capacity with umlimited entanglement assistance of the qubit
depolarizing channel. Thus Eq. (33) implies
 
 
 
(1)
CCE N 0 ⊇ CCE N 1 ⊇ CCE
N1 .
(34)

N 1,

Hence

Define
N =
1

It’s clear that

E. Additive CE, Superadditive Q and CQE

dpo
Φp

⊗

dph
Φη .
dpo
Ψp ⊗

N1

is a unitally extended channel
of


dpo
dph
1
and has CQ N = CQ Ψp ⊗ Ψη = 1. The CQ
trade-off curve is strictly concave and superadditive at C̄.
The corresponding Ψ0 is
dph
Ψη

dpo

Ψ0 = I ⊗ Ψ1 ,
i.e., a noiseless channel tensor a complete qubit depolarizing channel. N 0 is a unital extension of Ψ0 .
2) C̄ = 0. Choose η1 close to 1/2 such that




dpo
dph
dQC Φ p
dQC Φη1
.
 >

dph
dC
dC
CC Ψη
0+
1

−

Let
dph

dpo

dph

N 1 = Φη1 ⊗ Φ p ⊗ Φη2 ,
where η2 is chosen such that
 


dph
dpo
dph
CQ N 1 = CQ Ψη1 ⊗ Ψp ⊗ Ψη2






dph
dpo
dph
=CQ Ψη1 + CQ Ψp + CQ Ψη2 = 1.


dph
dpo
By our choice of η1 , QC Φη1 ⊗ Φ p is strictly concave


dph
in C for 0 < C < 1. QC Φη2 is also strictly concave in

C. Thus QC N 1 is strictly concave in C, for 0 < C < 1.
In this case, the corresponding Ψ0 is


dpo

Ψ0 = I ⊗ Ψ1

 ⊗2

,

i.e., a noiseless channel tensor two copies of the complete
qubit depolarizing channel. N 0 is a unital extension of
Ψ0 .


CCE (N ) = Conv CCE

= Conv CCE




N 0 , CCE
 
(1)
N 0 , CCE



N1



 
= CCE N 0



N1



(1)
= CCE
(N ) ,

i.e., its CE trade-off
capacity region is additive.

Since CQ N 0 = 0, it is clear that the quantum capacity of
N is the same as that of N 1 , which is superadditive.
Note that N is a unitally extended channel. This fact will
be implicitly used in Section V-F.
F. Additive CE and Q, Superadditive CQE
Previously in Section V-D, we give an example of a channel
with an additive classical and quantum capacity, but whose CQ
trade-off curve is superadditive. It is unclear if the channel has
an additive CE trade-off capacity region, because the CE tradeoff capacity region of the depolarizing channel has not been
shown to be additive. This is itself an interesting question but
we’ll not explore it here.
dpo
We replace Ψp in the original argument of Section V-D by
the channel constructed in Section V-E. It’s clear that the rest
of the argument is not changed and N still has a superadditive
CQ trade-off capacity region.
Now both N 0 and N 1 have an additive CE trade-off capacity
region. It’s clear that

 
 
CCE (N ) = Conv CCE N 0 , CCE N 1

 
 
(1)
(1)
(1)
= Conv CCE
N 0 , CCE
N 1 = CCE
(N ) ,
i.e., the CE trade-off capacity region of N is additive.
G. Additive CQ, Superadditive CQE
Our construction in Section V-A has a superadditive CE
trade-off capacity region. But most likely its CQ trade-off
capacity region is also superadditive. This is because in
Section V-A, N 0 is the unital extension of a classical channel,
and its CQ trade-off capacity region is trivial. Hence the CQ
trade-off capacity region of N is given by that of N 1 , which
is most likely superadditive as well.

12

To achieve an additive CQ trade-off capacity region, we
have to substitute N 0 with a channel that has a non-trivial CQ
trade-off capacity region.
Recall that our construction in Section V-A requires N 0
and N 1 to have properties (A1)-(A3). These three properties
ensure that N will have a superadditive CE trade-off capacity
region, while its classical capacity is still additive.
In extending to a channel with an additive CQ trade-off
capacity region, the additional properties we need are


(G1) CCQ N 0 ⊇ CCQ N 1 .
Property (G1) and (U) ensure the CQ trade-off capacity
region of N is additive, as

 
 
 
CCQ (N ) = Conv CCQ N 0 , CCQ N 1 = CCQ N 0
 

 
 
(1)
(1)
(1)
= CCQ
N 0 = Conv CCQ
N 0 , CCQ
N1
(1)
= CCQ
(N ) .

Unfortunately, we cannot find quantum channels N 0 and
that satisfy all the properties. Hence we do not have an
explicit construction in this case. This is because there are
very few channels that we understand their dynamic capacity
regions. This leaves us with a limited choice of candidates
for N 0 . However, in principle there is no obstacle and the
construction will be readily available once we have a better
understanding of quantum channels.
N1

VI. C ONCLUSION
Unlike previous studies on additivity of single resource
channel capacity, our work aimed to understand how additivity of single or double resource capacity regions will
effect additivity of a general resource trade-off capacity. In
contrast to the two known results in the literature; namely,
(i) additivity of the quantum capacity implies additivity of
the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity region and (ii)
additivity of classical-quantum and classical-entanglement capacity regions implies additivity of the three resource capacity
region, the additivity of all the remaining situations does not
hold. In this work, we identified all possible occurrences where
superadditivity could occur in the trade-off quantum dynamic
capacity. Furthermore, we provided an explicit construction of
quantum channels for most instances. Our main technical tool
combines properties of switch channels and unital extension
of known quantum channels.
An obvious open question is an explicit construction of
a quantum channel whose classical-quantum capacity region
is additive, but its triple trade-off capacity is superadditive.
Moreover, there are other triple resource trade-off capacity
regions [4], [31]. Could similar statements made in this work
hold in these scenarios as well?
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
EYZ and PWS are supported by the National Science
Foundation under grant Contract Number CCF-1525130. QZ
is supported by the Claude E. Shannon Research Assistantship.
MH is supported by an ARC Future Fellowship under Grant
FT140100574. PWS is supported by the NSF through the STC
for Science of Information under grant number CCF0-939370.

A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF L EMMA 12
Proof. Consider Φ0RC→B0 and Ψ1A1 →B1 , where Φ0 is a unital
0
1 is an
extension of a Hadamard channel ΨC→B
0 , and Ψ
arbitrary channel.
The result follows if both the CQ and CE trade-off capacity
regions of Φ0 are additive [4]. To show that the CQ trade-off
capacity region is additive for Φ0 , it was shown in Ref. [23]
it suffices to prove that


 
 
fλ Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 = fλ Φ0 + fλ Ψ1
(35)
for any channel Ψ1 , where
fλ (N ) = max I(X; B)σ + λI(AiBX)σ .

(36)

ρ

The state σ is the channel output state with ρ being the input
state (see, e.g., Theorem
we will only
 1). In the following,

show that fλ Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 ≤ fλ Φ0 + fλ Ψ1 because the other
direction is trivial from its definition.
Since Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 : CRA1 → B0 B1 is a partial cq channel, then
by the same argument as that in Lemma 10, fλ Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 can
be achieved with input states of the following form
Õ p(x)
|x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | R ⊗ φ xAC A1 ,
ρX R AC A1 =
|R|
x, j
with output states
σX AB0 B1 =
where

Õ p(x)
xj
|x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ σAB0 B1 ,
|R|
x, j

(37)



xj
σAB0 B1 = Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 | ji h j | R ⊗ φ xAC A1 .

0
1
Let UC→B
0 E 0 and U A1 →B 1 E 1 be the isometric extensions of
1
and Ψ , and let
Õ
%X AC A1 =
p(x) |xi hx| X ⊗ φ xAC A1

Ψ0

x

ωX AA1 B0 E 0
ςX AB0 B1 E 0 E 1




†
= U 0 ⊗ I %X AC A1 U 0 ⊗ I



†
= U 0 ⊗ U 1 %X AC A1 U 0 ⊗ U 1 .

Moreover, let
θ XY AB1 E 0 E 1 = DB1 0 →Y (ςX AB0 B1 E 0 E 1 ) ,
2
1
where DY→E
0 ◦ D B 0 →Y = D B 0 →E 0 is a degrading map for the
Hadamard channel Ψ0 .
For any state σX AB0 B1 in Eq. (37), we have


fλ Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1




=I X; B0 B1 + λI AiB0 B1 X
σ

 σh


 i
=S B0 B1 + (λ − 1)S B0 B1 |X − λS AB0 B1 |X
σ
σ
σ






 
=S B0 B1 + (λ − 1)S B0 B1 |X − λS AB0 B1 |X
,
ς

ς

ς

13

where the last equality follows from the same argument used
in Eqs. (18) and (20). Then subadditivity of the von Neumann
entropy and chain rule yield
 




≤S B0 + (λ − 1)S B0 |X − λS E 0 |X
ς
ς
 ς




1
1 0
1 0
+S B
+ (λ − 1)S B |B X − λS E |E X
ς
 ς

 ς 

0
0
0
≤S B
+ (λ − 1)S B |X − λS E |X
ς
ς
 ς




1
1
1
+S B
+ (λ − 1)S B |XY − λS E |XY
θ
θ
θ

1
where the last inequality uses the fact that S B |B0 X ς ≤


S B1 |Y X θ due to the existence of D 1 and S E 1 |E 0 X ς ≥

S E 1 |Y X θ due to the existence of D 2 . Finally,
 


 
= I X; B0 + λI AA1 iB0 X
ω
ω 
 


1
0
1
+ I XY ; B
+ λI AE iB XY
θ
θ
 

0
1
≤ fλ Φ + fλ Ψ

because S(E 0|X)ς = S(AA1 B0 |X)ω and S E 1 |XY θ =
S AB1 E 0 |XY θ .
To prove that the CE trade-off capacity region of the channel
Φ0 is additive is equivalent to showing that [23]:


 
 
gλ Φ0 ⊗ Ψ1 = gλ Φ0 + gλ Ψ1 ,
(38)
where 0 ≤ λ < 1,
gλ (N ) = max I(AX; B)σ − λS(A|X)σ
σ

(39)

and σ is of the form given in Eq. (7).
However this proof proceeds similarly; hence, we will omit
it.

where

is now a product state with respect to A0 and B0 .
The three entropic quantities of interest can be simplied
when evaluated with respect to σX A0 B0 , as


 
 
 
Õ
I A0 X; B0 = S B0 −
p(x, j)S B0 x j ≤ CC Ψ0 ,
σ



I A0 iB0 X

 
C + Q + E ≤ CC Ψ0 ,

where CC Ψ0 is the classical capacity of Ψ0 .
The same holds for a unital extension of a classical channel.
Proof. Consider the 1-shot dynamic
 capacity region of
(1)
Ψ0A00 →B0 . By Lemma 10, CCQE
Ψ0 can be achieved with

respect to cq states σX A0 B0 = Ψ0 ρX A0 A00 , where ρX A0 A00 is
of the form
Õ
xj
ρX A0 A00 =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | A00 ⊗ φ A0 .
x, j

Thus
σX A0 B0 =

Õ
x, j

xj

p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ σA0 B0 ,

σ

σ

σ

=−

Õ

σ

x, j



p(x, j)S A0

x, j


σx j

≤ 0,

 
≤ CC Ψ0 .

It’s also clear
that those inequalities can be achieved. Thus

(1)
CCQE
Ψ0 is described by
 
C + 2Q ≤ CC Ψ0 ,
Q + E ≤ 0,
 
C + Q + E ≤ CC Ψ0 .
Since the classical capacity of a classical channel is additive,
the dynamic capacity region of Ψ0 is additive and is described
by the same set of inequalities.
Next we show that the dynamic capacity region is additive
for Ψ0 and Ψ1 , with Ψ1 arbitrary.
Since Ψ0A00 →B0 ⊗ Ψ1A10 →B1 is a partial cq channel, its

(1)
Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 can be
1-shot dynamic capacity region CCQE
achieved with respect to cq states σX AB0 B1 = Ψ0A00 →B0 ⊗

Ψ1A10 →B1 ρX AA00 A10 , where ρX AA00 A10 is of the form
Õ
xj
ρX AA00 A10 =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ | ji h j | A00 ⊗ φ AA10 .
x, j

For ρ

Q + E ≤ 0,





I X; B0

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF L EMMA 13
Lemma 6: If Ψ0 is a classical channel, then the dynamic
capacity region is additive for Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 , for arbitrary Ψ1 .
Moreover, the dynamic capacity region of Ψ0 is described by
the following relation
 
C + 2Q ≤ CC Ψ0 ,



xj
xj
σA0 B0 = Ψ0A00 →B0 | ji h j | A00 ⊗ φ A0

of this form, σX AB0 B1 is of the form
Õ
xj
σX AB0 B1 =
p(x, j) |x, ji hx, j | X ⊗ σAB0 B1 ,

0
0
X AA0 A1

x, j

with


xj
xj
σAB0 B1 = Ψ0A00 →B0 ⊗ Ψ1A10 →B1 | ji h j | A00 ⊗ φ AA10 .
For such σX AB0 B1 , each of the three entropic quantities have
simple upper bounds,






I AX; B0 B1 ≤ I X; B0 + I AX; B1 ,
σ
σ

σ


1
0 1
I AiB B X = I AiB X ,

σ

 σ 

I X; B0 B1 ≤ I X; B0 + I X; B1 ,
σ

σ

σ

where we’ve used subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy.
Thus the 1-shot dynamic capacity region of Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 has a
simple upper bound


 
 
(1)
(1)
(1)
CCQE
Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 ⊆ CCQE
Ψ0 + CCQE
Ψ1 .
It’s trivial to extend it to the dynamic capacity region of Ψ0 ⊗
Ψ1


 
 
CCQE Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 ⊆ CCQE Ψ0 + CCQE Ψ1 .

14

Since the other direction of inclusion is obvious, we have


 
 
CCQE Ψ0 ⊗ Ψ1 = CCQE Ψ0 + CCQE Ψ1 .

A PPENDIX D
C ONVEX HULL
Here we show that4

For unital extensions of a classical channel, we observe that,
if the Heisenberg-Weyl operators are defined on the standard
basis for the output of the channel, then the resulting channel
is also a classical channel. Hence the above result applies.
A PPENDIX C
UNITAL EXTENSION OF THE QUBIT DEPHASING CHANNEL
AND 1 → N CLONING CHANNEL

Lemma 14: The CE and CQ trade-off curve of the qubit
dephasing channel and 1 → N cloning channels are unchanged
after a unital extension.
dph
Proof. Consider the qubit dephasing channel Ψη and a 1 →
dph
1→N
N cloning channel Ψ
, and their unital extensions Φη and
1→N
Φ
. The statement of this lemma is equivalent to showing
that

for

fλ (Ψ) = fλ (Φ)

∀λ ≥ 1,

gλ (Ψ) = gλ (Φ)

∀0 ≤ λ < 1.

 


dph
dph
(Ψ, Φ) = Ψη , Φη , Ψ1→N , Φ1→N .

In Lemma 11, we have argued that the 1-shot dynamic
capacity region of a unitally extended channel can be achieved
with input of the form in Eq. (16). Evaluating fλ (Φ) on such
states, one obtains



Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1

 
 
=Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1 .
We quote a few properties about convex hull and Minkowski
addition that we will use [29]: (i) For two closed sets A and
B in Rk , if A is bounded, then A + B is closed. (ii) For two
sets A and B in Rk , Conv(A + B) = Conv(A) + Conv(B) . (iii)
The convex hull of a bounded set in Rk is also bounded.
First, we note that, by Ref. [4], all points in the 1-shot
dynamic capacity region can be achieved by the classically
enhanced father protocol, combined with unit protocols, i.e.,
Ø
(1)
(1)
CCQE
CCQE,CEF
(N ) =
(N )σ + CCQE,unit,
σ

where
1
1
(1)
CCQE,CEF
(N )σ = {I(X; B)σ, I(A; B|X)σ, − I(A; E |X)σ }
2
2
is the rate achieved using the classically enhanced father
protocol, and σ is of the form in Eq. (7). CCQE,unit are all
the rates achieved by the unit protocols. Clearly CCQE,unit is
convex and closed. Define
Ø
(1)
(1)
CCQE,CEF
CCQE,CEF
(N )σ .
(N ) =
σ

(1)
CCQE,CEF
(N )

Clearly
fλ (Φ) = log(|B|) + (λ − 1)S (B|X 0)σ − λS (AB|X 0)σ
dimensions
of N .
Õ
= log(|B|) +
p(x, j, k) [(λ − 1)S(B)σ x j k − λS(AB)σ x j k ] Then
x, j,k

= log(|B|) +

Õ

CCQE (N ) =

p(x, j) [(λ − 1)S(B)σ x j − λS(AB)σ x j ]

x, j

≤ log(|B|) + max [(λ − 1)S (B)σ − λS (AB)σ ] ,
σ

where
σAB = ΨC→B (φ AC ) .

(41)

For such a σAB = Ψ (φ AC ) that achieves Eq. (40), one can
construct
1
|ki hk | X ⊗ |ki hk | R ⊗ φ AC .
(42)
ρX AA0 =
|R|
This state will saturate the above inequality.
dph
For Ψη and Ψ1→N , it can be verified [23] that their fλ
have the same form, i.e.,
fλ (Ψ) = log(|B|) + max [(λ − 1)S (B)σ − λS (AB)σ ] ,
σ

=

(40)

(43)

with σ of the form given in Eq. (41).
The same argument also applies to gλ .
The CQ trade-off curve of the qubit dephasing channel
was computed in Ref. [22], and the CE trade-off curve was
computed in Ref. [8]. The CE and CQ trade-off curves of the
1 → N cloning channel were given in Ref. [23]. Other than
the special cases (η = 0, 1/2 for the dephasing channel, N = 1
for the 1 → N cloning channel), it can be verified that their
CE and CQ trade-off curves are strictly concave at every point.
By Lemma 14, this property is true for their unital extensions.

is bounded by the input and output


Ø1

(1)
CCQE,CEF
N ⊗k + CCQE,unit
k
k=1
Ø1

(1)
N ⊗k + CCQE,unit .
CCQE,CEF
k
k=1

Denote
A=



Ø1
(1)
CCQE,CEF
N ⊗k ,
k
k=1

B = CCQE,unit .
Since A is bounded, B is closed, by (i) and (iii), A + B is also
closed.
Since A + B ⊆ A + B, and A + B is closed, we have
A + B ⊆ A + B.
It is also obvious that
A + B ⊇ A + B,
hence
A + B = A + B.
Denote
CCQE,CEF (N ) =
4 N0

Ø1

(1)
CCQE,CEF
N ⊗k .
k
k=1

and N 1 are assumed to be finite-dimensional.

15

Then by the above arguments,
CCQE (N ) = CCQE,CEF (N ) + CCQE,unit .
Now we apply the above result to N 0 and N 1 .

 
 
Conv CCQE N 0 , CCQE N 1

 
 
=Conv CCQE N 0 ∪ CCQE N 1

 
 

=Conv CCQE,CEF N 0 ∪ CCQE,CEF N 1 + CCQE,unit

 
 
=Conv CCQE,CEF N 0 ∪ CCQE,CEF N 1 + CCQE,unit .
In the last line, we used (ii).
Since CCQE,CEF (N ) is closed and bounded for any
finite dimensional quantum channel N , the same
must

0
1 . Hence
be true for CCQE,CEF
N
∪
C
N
CQE,CEF


Conv CCQE,CEF N 0 ∪ CCQE,CEF N 1
is closed  and
bounded. Thus Conv CCQE,CEF N 0 ∪ CCQE,CEF N 1 +
CCQE,unit is also closed.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” The Bell
System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, July 1948.
[2] I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, and A. Winter, “A family of quantum
protocols,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 93, p. 230504, Dec 2004.
[3] I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, and A. J. Winter, “A resource framework for
quantum shannon theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 4587–4618, Oct 2008.
[4] M.-H. Hsieh and M. M. Wilde, “Trading classical communication,
quantum communication, and entanglement in quantum shannon theory,”
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4705–
4730, Sept 2010.
[5] C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one- and
two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,” Phys. Rev.
Lett., vol. 69, pp. 2881–2884, Nov 1992.
[6] C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thapliyal,
“Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of noisy quantum channels,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, pp. 3081–3084, Oct 1999.
[7] C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thapliyal,
“Entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel and the reverse
shannon theorem,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48,
no. 10, pp. 2637–2655, Oct 2002.
[8] M.-H. Hsieh and M. M. Wilde, “Entanglement-assisted communication
of classical and quantum information,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4682–4704, Sept 2010.
[9] N. Datta and M. H. Hsieh, “One-shot entanglement-assisted quantum
and classical communication,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1929–1939, March 2013.
[10] A. S. Holevo, “The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal
states,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 1, pp.
269–273, Jan 1998.
[11] B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, “Sending classical information
via noisy quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 56, pp. 131–138, Jul
1997.
[12] S. Lloyd, “Capacity of the noisy quantum channel,” Phys. Rev. A,
vol. 55, pp. 1613–1622, Mar 1997.
[13] P. W. Shor, “The quantum channel capacity and coherent information,”
MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computation, 2002.
[14] I. Devetak, “The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a
quantum channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 51,
no. 1, pp. 44–55, Jan 2005.
[15] G. Smith and J. Yard, “Quantum communication with zero-capacity
channels,” Science, vol. 321, no. 5897, pp. 1812–1815, 2008.
[16] P. W. Shor, “The classical capacity achievable by a quantum
channel assisted by a limited entanglement.” Quantum Information and
Computation, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 537 – 545, 2004.
[17] G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and A. Winter, “The quantum capacity with
symmetric side channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 4208–4217, Sept 2008.

[18] M. B. Hastings, “Superadditivity of communication capacity using
entangled inputs,” Nat Phys, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 255–257, 04 2009.
[19] P. Hayden and A. Winter, “Counterexamples to the maximal pnorm multiplicativity conjecture for all p > 1,” Communications in
Mathematical Physics, vol. 284, no. 1, pp. 263–280, 2008.
[20] P. W. Shor, “Equivalence of additivity questions in quantum information
theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 246, no. 3, pp.
453–472, 2004.
[21] E. Y. Zhu, Q. Zhuang, and P. W. Shor, “Superadditivity of the classical
capacity with limited entanglement assistance,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol.
119, p. 040503, Jul 2017.
[22] I. Devetak and P. W. Shor, “The capacity of a quantum channel
for simultaneous transmission of classical and quantum information,”
Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 256, no. 2, pp. 287–303,
2005.
[23] K. Brádler, P. Hayden, D. Touchette, and M. M. Wilde, “Trade-off
capacities of the quantum hadamard channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 81,
p. 062312, Jun 2010.
[24] C. King, “Additivity for unital qubit channels,” Journal of Mathematical
Physics, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 4641–4653, 2002.
[25] D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, and J. A. Smolin, “Quantum-channel
capacity of very noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 57, pp. 830–839,
Feb 1998.
[26] M. Fukuda, “Simplification of additivity conjecture in quantum
information theory,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 179–186, 2007.
[27] D. Elkouss and S. Strelchuk, “Superadditivity of private information
for any number of uses of the channel,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 115, p.
040501, Jul 2015.
[28] M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory. Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
[29] R. Schneider, Convex Bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski Theory (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications). Cambridge University Press,
1993.
[30] W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis. McGraw-Hill
Education, 1976.
[31] M. M. Wilde and M.-H. Hsieh, “The quantum dynamic capacity
formula of a quantum channel,” Quantum Information Processing,
vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1431–1463, 2012.

