Strong converse for the feedback-assisted classical capacity of
entanglement-breaking channels

arXiv:1506.02228v4 [quant-ph] 3 Nov 2017

Dawei Ding∗

Mark M. Wilde†

November 7, 2017

Abstract
Quantum entanglement can be used in a communication scheme to establish a correlation
between successive channel inputs that is impossible by classical means. It is known that the
classical capacity of quantum channels can be enhanced by such entangled encoding schemes,
but this is not always the case. In this paper, we prove that a strong converse theorem holds
for the classical capacity of an entanglement-breaking channel even when it is assisted by a
classical feedback link from the receiver to the transmitter. In doing so, we identify a bound on
the strong converse exponent, which determines the exponentially decaying rate at which the
success probability tends to zero, for a sequence of codes with communication rate exceeding
capacity. Proving a strong converse, along with an achievability theorem, shows that the classical
capacity is a sharp boundary between reliable and unreliable communication regimes. One of
the main tools in our proof is the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy. The same method of proof
is used to derive an exponential bound on the success probability when communicating over an
arbitrary quantum channel assisted by classical feedback, provided that the transmitter does
not use entangled encoding schemes.

1

Introduction

The classical theory of communication is one of the modern successes of applied mathematics [CT91,
GK12]. It is arguably one of the foundations of our current information age and provides new ways
of thinking about problems in many other fields of study, such as physics and in particular quantum
mechanics. The interaction between these two fields is mutual; while some problems in quantum
mechanics can be turned into communication problems, the existence of quantum phenomena
strongly suggests that we should rethink many aspects of communication theory. Not only does
the notion of a quantum state challenge what we mean by “information,” but the possibilities due
to quantum mechanics give rise to new classes of communication protocols. With respect to this
latter consideration, some fundamental motivating questions for quantum information theory have
traditionally been and still are the following:
1. Is the theory of classical communication affected at a fundamental level by the consideration
of quantum mechanical phenomena?
∗

Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-4090, USA
Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Center for Computation and
Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
†

1

2. Does using quantum states and measurement for classical communication have practical advantages over using classical techniques?
In an attempt to answer these questions, one of the primary goals is to study the ability of a
quantum channel to communicate classical information, that is, bits. Like many communication
problems, this ability is quantified by the notion of channel capacity. The classical capacity C
of a quantum channel N is defined to be the maximum rate of communication such that the
decoding error probability can tend to zero in the limit of many channel uses. With this definition,
one natural question is to determine how to compute the classical capacity. We know that the
Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) theorem [Hol98, SW97] provides a lower bound:
CpN q ě χpN q ”

sup

IpX; Bqρ ,

(1.1)

tpX pxq,ρx u

where tpX pxq, ρx u is an ensemble of quantum states such that each ρx can be input to the channel,
and IpX; Bqρ ” HpXqρ ` HpBqρ ´ HpXBqρ is the quantum mutual information of the following
classical-quantum state:
ÿ
ρXB ”
pX pxq|xyxx|X b N pρx q,
(1.2)
x

where t|xyu is an orthonormal basis for the classical reference system and HpGqσ is the von Neumann
entropy of a quantum state σG on system G. The quantity χpN q is called the Holevo information
of the channel.
The classical capacity CpN q can actually be formally rewritten in terms of the Holevo information as well, via a procedure known as regularization. Before doing so, note that we obtain the
HSW theorem by considering only encoding procedures that do not use entangled inputs1 . That
is, each quantum system sent through the channel is not entangled with any other system that is
sent. To get the classical capacity, it is generally necessary to incorporate entangled inputs into
the calculation. The approach given by [Hol98, SW97] is to multiplex the channel such that one
use of this multiplexed channel corresponds to multiple uses of the original channel. A multipartite
entangled state describing several inputs across different uses of the original channel can now be
simulated by the corresponding single input state to the multiplexed channel. We can therefore
express the maximum rate for blocks of size n in terms of a Holevo information:
1
χpN bn q.
n

(1.3)

To obtain the classical capacity, we simply allow for inputs entangled across arbitrarily many
channel uses:
1
CpN q “ lim χpN bn q.
(1.4)
nÑ8 n
This idea put together with a converse theorem establishes the regularized expression in (1.4) as
being equal to the classical capacity.
Unfortunately, computing the classical capacity this way is clearly intractable. This prompts
us to look for special cases. We observe that the limit in (1.4) is equal to χpN q iff the Holevo
information satisfies a tensor-power additivity property (see Appendix A for a brief derivation):
@n

χpN bn q “ nχpN q.

1

(1.5)

The highest possible rate with this restriction, proven by the HSW theorem to be χpN q, is then a lower bound
on the classical capacity.

2

Another way to restate the above is that entangled inputs do not increase capacity iff (1.5) is
satisfied. However, this is not true for some channels, as was shown in [Has09]. The next question
then appears: What characterizes channels that satisfy (1.5)?
A sufficient condition for a quantum channel to satisfy tensor-power additivity is for it to be
entanglement-breaking (EB) [HSR03]. Let NAÑB denote a quantum channel, where the arrow
notation indicates that the channel maps a state of the input system A to a state in an output
system B. An EB channel is defined such that for any bipartite state ρAA1 , the output state
pNAÑB b idA1 q pρAA1 q

(1.6)

is separable. That is, the output of an EB channel can be written as a convex sum of product
states. Effectively, the channel “breaks” the entanglement between A and A1 . Previous results have
established that the Holevo information of EB channels is additive2 [Sho02]. This is intuitive since
any entanglement of the inputs is broken by the channel. Following this line of thinking, one could
consider making a stronger statement by allowing additional resources to assist the communication
but not to the point that entanglement can be established. Indeed, [BN05] proves a generalization
of tensor-power additivity for EB channels with noiseless classical feedback. Furthermore, their
results show that classical feedback does not increase the capacity of EB channels.
There are also possible stronger statements in another direction. The direct part of the original
HSW theorem states that if the rate R of communication is less than the Holevo information χ,
then there exists a sequence of protocols P n such that the probability of error for such a sequence
satisfies
lim pe pnq “ 0,
(1.7)
nÑ8

where n is the number of channel uses. A result from [Hay07] sharpens this claim by showing that
there exists a sequence P n such that
pe pnq ď 2´kn ,
(1.8)
for some k ą 0 determined by the channel. The converse part of the original HSW theorem can be
strengthened in a similar manner. It states that if R ą CpN q, for any sequence of protocols P n ,
then
lim pe pnq ą 0.
(1.9)
nÑ8

This is known as the weak converse. In contrast, a strong converse is symmetric to the achievability
result above and states that regardless of the protocols used, the success probability decreases to
zero in the asymptotic limit whenever R ą CpN q. The strong converse can be sharpened as well
whenever there is a constant separation between R and CpN q, such that the convergence of the
success probability to zero is exponential in n.
There are many reasons why we would want to prove a strong converse. First, a strong converse
enriches our understanding of the capacity. A strong converse along with an achievability theorem shows that the capacity is a sharp boundary between reliable and unreliable communication
regimes. This, amongst other results, indicates that the classical capacity of a quantum channel
is a fundamental quantity of interest. Second, a strong converse is more relevant in practice than
is the weak converse. A realistic quantum communication scheme has a finite blocklength; that is,
2
Shor proved that the Holevo information of a tensor product of an EB channel with any other channel is equal to
the sum of their respective Holevo informations. This form of additivity is stronger than (1.5) and is the one usually
found in the literature.

3

the encoding is across a finite number of channel uses. Although the weak converse does provide a
lower bound on the probability of error in the non-asymptotic regime, the strong converse improves
the bound considerably. It expresses a trade-off between rate, error probability, and blocklength
restrictive enough to be easily checked numerically or experimentally.
While a classical version of the strong converse is known for arbitrary discrete memoryless
classical channels [Wol78, Ari73], it is still open whether or not strong converses hold for memoryless
quantum channels. After some early work [ON99, Win99], the strong converse has been proved for
special cases, in particular for channels with certain symmetry [KW09], for EB channels [WWY14],
and for a wide class of quantum Gaussian channels [BGPWW15]. Given the strong converse
results for EB channels [WWY14] and the weak converse for EB channels with feedback [BN05],
it is natural to ask if these two statements are true at the same time. We can also ask directly for
the strong converse for unentangled inputs when a feedback link is available. These are the main
questions that we address in this paper.

2

Summary of Results

In this paper, we derive an explicit exponential bound on the success probability of a classical
communication scheme that uses an entanglement-breaking channel along with classical feedback.
The same method of proof can be used to establish a bound for arbitrary quantum channels with
classical feedback, provided that the inputs are not entangled across multiple uses of the channel.
When the communication rate exceeds the classical capacity, these exponential bounds immediately
imply strong converse theorems for these settings.
We now provide an outline of the proof:
1. First, taking as a starting point the general approach of [Nag01], relating hypothesis testing
to unassisted communication, we bound the success probability of an arbitrary feedbackassisted classical communication protocol by a sandwiched Rényi relative entropy [MLDS` 13,
WWY14].
2. Next, one of the main observations from [BN05] is that the sender and receiver’s systems
are separable at all times throughout such a protocol, whenever the communication channel
is entanglement-breaking. We use this fact and an entropy inequality from [Kin03] to split
the relative entropy into two terms. The first term is bounded by an α-information radius,
which is a measure of the range of states a channel can output. We then equate this to the
sandwiched α-Holevo information [WWY14], which is a Rényi generalization of the Holevo
information. The second term is bounded via monotonicity by another sandwiched Rényi
relative entropy, to which we recursively apply the same argument.
3. This gives the following bound on the probability of success for any finite blocklength n:
psucc ď 2´n supαą1

α´1
pR´χ
rα pN qq
α

,

(2.1)

where R is the rate of communication and N is the EB channel. It follows from previous
arguments [WWY14] that when R ą χpN q, the right hand side of (2.1) is a decaying exponential, thereby establishing the strong converse. We provide an alternate (arguably simpler)
proof of this fact (similar to those in [MH11, CMW16]) by establishing that the α-Holevo
information converges continuously to the Holevo information as α approaches 1.
Appendix B includes a brief review of the argument for the weak converse from [BN05].
4

3

Preliminaries

In this section we provide some necessary definitions, concepts, and previous results used in the
derivation of (2.1).

3.1

Quantum states, measurements, operator norms, and quantum channels

We start with definitions of relevant mathematical notions from quantum mechanics. Given a finitedimensional Hilbert space H, let BpHq denote the algebra consisting of linear operators acting on
H. A relevant measure of a operator X is its Schatten α-norm, which is defined as
}X}α ” tTr r|X|α su1{α ,

(3.1)

?
where α ě 1 and |X| ” X : X.
The set of quantum states is a convex subset of BpHq given by
SpHq “ tρ P BpHq : ρ ě 0, Tr ρ “ 1u ,

(3.2)

where the notation ρ ě 0 means that ρ is positive semidefinite. For composite states, we consider
the tensor product of two Hilbert spaces HA and HB , denoted by HA b HB . We can obtain from
the overall density operator ρAB P SpHA b HB q the reduced density operator ρA corresponding to
the quantum state on only the A system by performing a partial trace:
ρA ” TrB pρAB q.

(3.3)

TrB p|x1 yxx2 |A b |y1 yxy2 |B q ” |x1 yxx2 |A xy2 |y1 y

(3.4)

The partial trace can be defined as

for vectors |x1 y, |x2 y, |y1 y, and |y2 y, and then extended by linearity. A state ρAB is separable if it
can be written as
ÿ
ρAB “
ppxqρxA b ρxB ,
(3.5)
x

where ppxq is a probability distribution and tρxA u and tρxB u are sets of states.
A positive operator-valued measure (POVM) consists of a set tΛm u of positive semidefinite
operators
indexed by m and corresponding to different measurement results. The set satisfies
ř
m Λm “ I, which allows us to interpret the quantity
pm ” TrpρΛm q

(3.6)

as the probability of measuring m given a quantum state ρ.
We next consider maps on operators and in particular quantum states. A linear map Ψ :
BpHA q Ñ BpHB q is called positive if @τ P BpHA q, τ ě 0 implies Ψpτ q ě 0. It is called completely
positive if idR b Ψ is positive for an arbitrary auxiliary system R, where idR is the identity map on
R. A map Ψ is a quantum channel if it is linear, completely positive, and also trace-preserving.

5

M

A’0
X0

B’0

A’2

A’1

E1

A1

N

B1

E2

X1

D1

A2

B2

N

D2

B’1

E3

X2

A3

B3

N

D3

B’2

M̂

Figure 1: A general protocol for feedback-assisted classical communication. The sender manipulates
the systems labeled by A and the receiver those labeled by B. Every X system is classical and
represents noiseless classical feedback from the receiver to the sender.

3.2

Classical feedback-assisted classical communication protocols

Figure 1 depicts the most general three-round protocol for classical feedback-assisted classical communication. The generalization to n rounds is clear. The protocol begins with Alice preparing a
classical register M with the message to be sent. This is correlated with some system A10 . Bob uses
the classical feedback channel to send a classical system X0 correlated with some quantum system
B01 to Alice. The global state is then
ÿ
ÿ
ρM A10 X0 B01 ”
pM pmq |my xm|M b ρm
b
pX0 pxq |xy xx|X0 b ρxB 1 .
(3.7)
1
A
0

m

0

x

We will track the state conditioned on a particular value m of the message register M , given by
ÿ
m
ρm
pX0 pxq |xy xx|X0 b ρxB 1 .
(3.8)
A1 X0 B 1 ” ρA1 b
0

0

0

0

x

Alice performs an encoding EA1 1 X0 ÑA1 A1 . The state at this point is
0

ρm
A11 A1 B01

”

1

EA1 1 X0 ÑA1 A1
0
1
ÿ

“

´

ρm
A10 X0 B01

¯
(3.9)
´

¯

x
pX0 pxqEA1 1 X0 ÑA1 A1 ρm
A1 b |xy xx|X0 b ρB 1 ,
0

x

1

0

0

(3.10)

1
1
We note that the state ρm
A11 A1 B01 is separable with respect to the cut A1 A1 : B0 .
Next, Alice uses the EB channel NA1 ÑB1 for the first time by sending system A1 , leading to
the state
´
¯
m
.
(3.11)
ρm
”
N
ρ
1
1
1
1
A1 ÑB1
A B1 B
A A1 B
1

0

1

0

Since the channel is entanglement-breaking and the state before the channel was already separable
with respect to the A11 A1 : B01 cut, the state after the channel is fully separable, that is, it is
separable across all possible partitions. Now, consider instead that Alice uses an arbitrary channel

6

NA1 ÑB1 but with an input separable across the A11 : A1 cut (such that ρm
A11 A1 B01 is fully separable).
m
Then, the state ρA1 B1 B 1 is again fully separable. We write it in the form
1

0

ρm
A1 B1 B 1 “
1

ÿ

0

y,m
pY pyqρy,m
b ρy,m
B1 b ρB 1 .
A1
1

y

(3.12)

0

1
Bob now applies the decoding map DB
1
1 , where X1 is the classical system that is sent
1 B0 ÑX1 B1
back to Alice. The state at this point is
´
¯
1
m
ρm
(3.13)
A11 X1 B11 ” DB1 B01 ÑX1 B11 ρA11 B1 B01
ÿ
ÿ
“
pX1 px1 q |x1 y xx1 |X1 b pZ1 |X1 pz1 |x1 qρxA11 ,z1 b ρxB11,z1 .
(3.14)
x1

z1

1

1

which is fully separable. Hence, after Alice applies the second encoder E 2 and then sends it through
the channel, the state will still be fully separable. The key observation here is that if we use an EB
channel or an arbitrary channel with separable inputs, the state is always separable across a cut
that divides Alice and Bob’s systems.
The only difference in subsequent rounds is the final measurement. Say there are n rounds in
1
using a POVM given by tDm u
the protocol. At the last round, Bob measures the state ρBn Bn´1
with elements corresponding to different possible messages that Alice sent.

3.3

Rényi relative entropies and bounds on success probability

An important classical information theoretic quantity is the Rényi relative entropy, which can be
generalized to the quantum case in a number of ways. In this paper, we use the sandwiched quantum
Rényi relative entropy [MLDS` 13, WWY14] which is given by
” ´`
#
˘ ¯ı
1
p1´αq{p2αq ρσ p1´αq{p2αq α
log
Tr
σ
: ρ M σ ^ psupppρq Ď supppσq _ α P p0, 1qq
α´1
r α pρ}σq ”
D
`8
: otherwise
(3.15)
where α P p0, 1q Y p1, 8q and ρ M σ means ρ, σ are non-orthogonal quantum states. Note that all
logarithms in this paper are taken base two.
We now recall some properties of the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy. For fixed ρ and σ, the
r α pρ}σq is monotone non-decreasing [MLDS` 13]. It also converges to the quantum
function α ÞÑ D
relative entropy Dpρ}σq [Ume62] in the limit as α Ñ 1 [MLDS` 13, WWY14]:
r α pρ}σq “ Dpρ}σq,
lim D

αÑ1

where

"
Dpρ}σq ”

Tr rρ plog ρ ´ log σqs : supppρq Ď supppσq
.
`8
: otherwise

(3.16)

(3.17)

Furthermore, it satisfies the data-processing inequality for α P r1{2, 1q Y p1, 8q [FL13, Bei13]; that
is, for all quantum channels N ,
r α pN pρq}N pσqq ď D
r α pρ}σq.
D

7

(3.18)

In particular, consider the following replacement channel which simply replaces the input with some
state ω:
Rω pρq ” Trpρqω.
(3.19)
r α pω}ωq “ 0, implying that
It is easy to see that for all ω, D
r α pρ}σq ě D
r α pRω pρq}Rω pσqq “ 0,
D

(3.20)

which shows that the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is non-negative whenever its arguments
are quantum states ρ and σ.
Using the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy, we can define the sandwiched α-Holevo information [WWY14] of an ensemble, that is, a classical probability distribution of quantum states,
tpX pxq, ρx u as
r α pρXR }ρX b σR q
rα ptpX pxq, ρx uq ”
χ
inf
D
(3.21)
σR PSpHR q

where
ρXR ”

ÿ

pX pxq|xyxx|X b pρx qR

(3.22)

x

and ρx are states of a system R. With this, we define the α-Holevo information of a quantum
channel N as
χ
rα pN q ” sup χ
rα ptpX pxq, N pρx quq .
(3.23)
tpX pxq,ρx u

We also define the α-information radius of a channel N : SpHA q ÞÑ SpHB q as
r α pN q ”
K

inf

r α pN pρq}σq.
sup D

(3.24)

σPSpHB q ρPSpHA q

r α is monotonically non-decreasing in α, so are χ
rα.
We note that since D
rα and K

4

Strong converse

This section is dedicated to proving the main theorem of this paper. We will need the following
lemmas. The first is proven using an inequality from [Nag01] in Lemma 5 of [CMW16] via monor α . The second will be used to take advantage of the separability of the quantum state
tonicity of D
observed in Section 3.2. The third is an equality between α-Holevo information and α-information
radius. The fourth states that α-Holevo information and α-information radius respectively tend to
the conventional Holevo information and information radius in the limit α Ñ 1, which we prove in
Appendix C. Note that this establishes Lemma 3 as a generalization of the equality χpN q “ KpN q
[OPW97, SW01, SW02].
Lemma 1. Let α ą 1, ρ, σ P SpHq, and Λ be such that 0 ď Λ ď I. Let
p ” Tr rΛρs , q ” Tr rΛσs .
Then
r α pρ}σq ě
D

“
‰
1
log pα q 1´α .
α´1

8

(4.1)

(4.2)

Lemma 2 ([Kin03, Hol06]). Let PAB be a positive semidefinite separable operator. Such an
operator can be written in the following form:
ÿ j
j
CA b DB
,
(4.3)
PAB “
j
j
j
where CA
, DB
ě 0 for all j. Let PB “ TrA tPAB u and let MA be a completely positive linear map
acting on the A system. Then, for all α ě 1,

}pMA b idB q pPAB q}α ď να pMA q ¨ }PB }α ,

(4.4)

where να pMA q is the 1 Ñ α norm of MA , defined as
να pMA q ”

}MA pXq}α
.
}X}1
X‰0,XPBpHA q
sup

(4.5)

Lemma 3 ([WWY14]). For α ą 1, the α-Holevo information and the α-information radius are
the same:
r α pN q.
rα pN q “ K
χ
(4.6)
Proof. This statement was essentially proved as Lemma 14 of [WWY14], but only for the interval
α P p1, 2s. To get the statement for all α ą 1, we actually need to extend Lemma 14 in [WWY14]
slightly. This follows from the proof given there and the observations that for all α ą 1, xp1´αq{α
r α is jointly quasi-convex.
is operator convex, Trtxα u is convex, and D
For completeness and convenience, we also give a full proof here, following the steps in the
r α pN q ď χ
rα pN q for α ą 1.
proof of Lemma 14 in [WWY14] closely. We first prove the inequality K
p1´αq{2α
p1´αq{2α
α
r α pρ}σq ” Trppσ
Defining Q
ρσ
q q, consider that
r α pN q “ inf sup D
r α pN pρq}σq
K
σ

1
r α pN pρq}σq
log Q
α´1

(4.8)

1
r α pN pρq}σq
log inf sup Q
σ
α´1
ρ

(4.9)

“ inf sup
σ

“

(4.7)

ρ

ρ

r α quantity and find that
So now we focus on the Q
ż
r
r α pN pρq }σq
inf sup Qα pN pρq }σq ď inf sup dµpρq Q
σ
σ µ
ρ
ż
r α pN pρq}σq
“ sup inf dµpρq Q
µ σ
ÿ
r α pN pρx q }σq
“ sup inf
pX pxqQ
tpX pxq,ρx u σ

“

sup

(4.11)
(4.12)

x

r α pρXB }ρX b σB q
inf Q

tpX pxq,ρx u σB

(4.10)

(4.13)

The first inequality follows by taking a supremum over all probability measures µ on the set of all
states ρ. The first equality is a result of applying the Sion minimax theorem [Sio58]—we can do
9

ş
r α pN pρq }σq is linear in the probability measure µ and convex in
so because the function dµpρq Q
r
states σ. Convexity of Qα pN pρq}σq in σ follows because
!´
¯α )
r α pN pρq}σq “ Tr rN pρqs1{2 σ p1´αq{α rN pρqs1{2
Q
,
(4.14)
xp1´αq{α is operator convex for α ą 1 and Trpxα q is convex for α ą 1. The second equality follows
by an application of the Fenchel-Eggleston-Caratheodory theorem (see [EGK12], for example): the
r α pN pρq}σq is continuous in ρ, which is a density operator acting on a d-dimensional
function Q
Hilbert space, so that for each µ, there exists a probability distribution pX pxq on no more than d2
letters such that
ż
ÿ
r α pN pρq}σq “
r α pN pρx q }σq .
(4.15)
dµpρq Q
pX pxqQ
x

r α and by defining
The last equality in (4.13) follows from the properties of Q
ÿ
ρXB ”
pX pxq |xy xx|X b rN pρx qsB .

(4.16)

x

So we can then conclude that
r α pN q ď
K
“

1
r α pρXB }ρX b σB q
log sup inf Q
α´1
tpX pxq,ρx u σB

(4.17)

1
r α pρXB }ρX b σB q
log Q
α´1

(4.18)

sup

inf

tpX pxq,ρx u σB

“χ
rα pN q .

(4.19)

r α pN q ě χ
rα pN q is simpler. Consider that
The proof of the other inequality K
χ
rα pN q “

sup

r α pρXB }ρX b σB q
inf D

(4.20)

sup

r α pρXB }ρX b σq
D

(4.21)

r α p|xy xx| b N pρx q } |xy xx| b σq
sup D

(4.22)

r α pN pρx q }σq
sup D

(4.23)

tpX pxq,ρx u σB

ď

tpX pxq,ρx u

sup

ď

tpX pxq,ρx u x

sup

“

tpX pxq,ρx u x

r α pN pρq }σq .
ď sup D

(4.24)

ρ

r α for α ą 1 [FL13, Bei13], where a
The second inequality follows from joint quasi-convexity of D
function f is jointly quasi-convex if
f pλx1 ` p1 ´ λqx2 , λy1 ` p1 ´ λqy2 q ď max tf px1 , y1 q, f px2 , y2 qu .

(4.25)

r α pN q ě χ
rα pN q.
Since the above inequality holds for all states σ, we can conclude that K
Lemma 4. For a quantum channel N , the following limits hold:
rα pN q “ χpN q
lim χ

αÑ1

10

(4.26)

and
r α pN q “ KpN q,
lim K

(4.27)

αÑ1

where
KpN q ”

inf

sup DpN pρq}σq

(4.28)

σPSpHq ρPSpHq

is the information radius.
We now state the theorem.
Theorem 5. Given any n-round protocol for classical feedback-assisted classical communication
over an entanglement-breaking channel N with rate R, the average probability of success is bounded
from above by an exponential in n:
psucc ď 2´n supαą1

α´1
pR´χ
rα pN qq
α

,

(4.29)

rα is the α-Holevo information. The same bound holds for an arbitrary channel N given
where χ
that the encoder does not entangle inputs across different uses of the channel.
Proof. We take as a starting point the approach of Nagaoka [Nag01], connecting hypothesis testing
with data processing of a Rényi information quantity. Let Pn be such a protocol. We are bounding
the average probability of success, so we assume Alice chooses her messages uniformly at random.
Using the notation of Section 3.2, the state we have at the final round of the protocol Pn is
1
“
ρM Bn Bn´1

L
1 ÿ
|myxm|M b ρm
,
1
Bn Bn´1
L m“1

(4.30)

where L is the number of possible messages.
Following the argument in [CMW16], we can write the success probability as
psucc

ı
ı
”
1ÿ ” m
m
1
1
“
Tr DBn B 1 ρBn B 1
“ Tr TM Bn Bn´1 ρM Bn Bn´1 ,
n´1
n´1
L m

(4.31)

where
1
TM Bn Bn´1
”

ÿ

m
|myxm|M b DB
1
nB

n´1

m

.

(4.32)

Note that 0 ď T ď I, so that tT, I ´ T u is a POVM.
1
We now consider the state τM Bn Bn´1
defined to be the final state if we had implemented Pn
using a replacement channel Rσ instead of the original channel (see Figure 2). The overall state in
this alternate scenario has a simple expression since Bob’s states are now independent of m:
1
1
τM Bn Bn´1
“ τM b σBn b τBn´1
,

(4.33)

where τM “ IM {L. In the above, we remind that Bn is a label for the output system of the nth
replacement channel Rσ , and the state of this system is equal to σ. We can then compute the
following:
”
ı
ı
1ÿ ” m
1
1
1
1
Tr TM Bn Bn´1
τM Bn Bn´1
“
Tr DBn B 1 σBn b τBn´1
“ ,
(4.34)
n´1
L m
L
11

M

A’0
X0

B’0

A’2

A’1

E1

A1

σ

B1

X1

D1

E2

A2

σ

X2

B2

D2

B’1

E3

A3

σ

B3

B’2

D3

M̂

Figure 2: A protocol for feedback-assisted classical communication when using the replacement
channel. Notice that the communication line between A1 and M̂ is broken.

ř
1
where the last equality follows because m Dm “ I and TrrσBn b τBn´1
s “ 1. This equality is
intuitive, since for a replacement channel, the receiver Bob cannot do any better than to guess the
input message m at random. Letting T be the operator Λ in Lemma 1, we conclude that for α ą 1,
„

1
1
α
r
1
1
qě
}τM Bn Bn´1
Dα pρM Bn Bn´1
log psucc 1´α ,
(4.35)
α´1
L
which can be re-written as follows:
α
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q.
logppsucc q ` log L ď D
n n´1
n n´1
α´1

(4.36)

We note that if the support of the state σ does not contain the support of the image of the channel
r α upper bound is trivially equal to `8. So, in what follows, we choose σ such
NAÑB , then the D
that its support contains the support of the image of the channel in order to guarantee that all
quantities involved in the forthcoming proof are finite.
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q. To do so, consider that
We would therefore like to bound D
n n´1
n n´1
r α pNAn ÑBn pρM A B 1 q}τM B 1 b σBn q
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q “ D
D
n n´1
n n´1
n n´1
n´1
›˜
›
¸
›
´
¯›
α
›
p1´αq{p2αq
p1´αq{p2αq ›
1
“
τM B 1
log › Θ 1´α
˝ NAn ÑBn
ρM An Bn´1
τM B 1
› , (4.37)
α
n´1
n´1
›
›
α´1
σBn
α

where ˝ denotes function composition and in the last equality, we define Θ by
Θσ pρq ” σ 1{2 ρσ 1{2 ,

(4.38)

and the identity operation on the other systems is implied. We now use the key observation from
Section 3.2 (and used in [BN05]) that if N is EB or if Alice uses separable inputs, throughout Pn ,
1
Alice and Bob’s systems are always separable. Furthermore, the M system is classical, so ρM An Bn´1
1
is separable with respect to the An : M Bn´1 cut. This implies that
p1´αq{p2αq

τM B 1

n´1

p1´αq{p2αq

1
ρM An Bn´1
τM B 1

n´1

12

(4.39)

is a positive semidefinite separable operator:
p1´αq{p2αq
p1´αq{p2αq
1
τM B 1
ρM An Bn´1
τM B 1
n´1
n´1

“

p1´αq{p2αq
τM B 1
n´1

ÿ
“

˜
ÿ

¸
ppjqρjAn b ρjM B 1

n´1

j

´
p1´αq{p2αq j
ppjqρjAn b τM B 1
ρM B 1
n´1

j

p1´αq{p2αq

n´1

τM B 1

(4.40)

n´1

p1´αq{p2αq

¯

τM B 1

.

(4.41)

n´1

Since conjugation by a positive semidefinite operator is clearly a completely positive map, we can
apply Lemma 2 to conclude that
›
›˜
¸
›
´
¯›
›
p1´αq{p2αq
p1´αq{p2αq ›
1
τM B 1
τM B 1
˝ NAn ÑBn
ρM An Bn´1
›
› Θ 1´α
α
n´1
n´1
›
›
σBn
˜
¸ α
›
›
› p1´αq{p2αq
p1´αq{p2αq ›
1
ď να Θ 1´α
˝
N
¨
τ
ρ
τ
›
› . (4.42)
1
1
A
ÑB
M
B
n
n
MB
n´1 M B
α
n´1

σBn

n´1

α

We then have the following chain of inequalities:
´
¯
r α pρM B 1 }τM B 1 q
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q ď α log να Θ 1´α ˝ N ` D
D
n n´1
n n´1
n´1
n´1
σ α
α´1
¯
´
α
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q
ď
log να Θ 1´α
˝N `D
n´1 n´2
n´1 n´2
σ α
α´1
´
¯
α
r α pρM B 1 }τM B 1 q
ďn
log να Θ 1´α
˝N `D
0
0
σ α
α´1
¯
´
α
“n
log να Θ 1´α
˝N
σ α
α´1
›ˆ
›
˙
›
›
α
›
“n
log sup › Θ 1´α
˝ NAÑB pρA q›› .
α
α´1
σB
ρA PSpHA q
α

(4.43)
(4.44)
(4.45)
(4.46)
(4.47)

The first inequality follows by combining (4.37) and (4.42). The second inequality follows from
monotonicity of the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy under the partial trace channel. The third
r α pρM B B 1 }τM B B 1 q is the relative entropy at round
inequality follows by recognizing that D
n´1 n´2
n´1 n´2
n ´ 1 of Pn , which allows us to apply the above argument inductively. This is a crucial step of the
argument and proves a form of additivity similar to that of (1.5). The first equality is a consequence
of the fact that ρM B01 “ τM B01 , since no channels have been applied at that point in the protocol.
The last equality follows from the main result of [Aud09] which allows us to take the supremum
over quantum states instead of all operators (furthermore from the fact that quantum states have
trace equal to one). Hence, we have that
›ˆ
›
˙
›
›
α
α
›
› .
pρ
q
(4.48)
log psucc pPn q ` log L ď n
log sup › Θ 1´α
˝
N
AÑB
A
›
α´1
α´1
σB α
ρA PSpHA q
α
Hence, we have proven that the upper bound holds for all states σB , so we can conclude that
›ˆ
›
˙
›
›
α
α
›
log psucc pPn q ` log L ď n inf
sup
log › Θ 1´α
˝ NAÑB pρA q››
(4.49)
α
α´1
σB PSpHB q ρA PSpHA q α ´ 1
σB
α
r α pN q
“ nK

(4.50)

“ nr
χα pN q.

(4.51)
13

The first equality comes from the definition of the α-information radius, and the second equality
is due to Lemma 3.
Now, the protocol uses the channel n times and the rate R of Pn is defined to be the number
of bits per channel use, so that R ď logn L . This allows us to introduce R into the inequality:
1
α´1
rα pN qq.
log psucc pPn q ď ´
pR ´ χ
n
α

(4.52)

Since this is true for all α ą 1, we can take a supremum over α ą 1 and arrive at the bound stated
in (4.29).
The strong converse itself now follows from Theorem 5 and Lemma 4.
Corollary 6 (Strong Converse). The probability of success of any sequence of protocols which
use an entanglement-breaking channel with classical feedback at a rate greater than the classical
capacity is bounded from above by a decaying exponential. The same is true for arbitrary channels
with separable inputs.
r α is monotonically increasing in α, so is χ
Proof. Recall that since D
rα . This along with Lemma 4
implies
rα pN q “ lim χ
rα pN q “ χpN q.
inf χ

αą1

αŒ1

(4.53)

rα pN q as α Œ 1, there exists a value of α ą 1 such
Hence, if R ą χpN q, by the continuity of χ
pR
´
χ
r
that α´1
pN
qq
ą
0.
Then
the
bound
in (4.29) implies an exponential decay of the success
α
α
probability.

5

Conclusion

By studying the classical capacity of a quantum channel, quantum information theorists found
that an implication of quantum mechanics for classical communication is the possibility of superior
encoding schemes that use entanglement, a uniquely quantum phenomenon [Has09]. However, entanglement does not give an advantage for every channel. The results in this and previous papers
show that for entanglement-breaking channels, no communication protocols, even with classical
feedback, can take advantage of this extra resource. They cannot use it to increase their capacity, nor, as proved in this paper, to even lift the exponentially decaying ceiling on their success
probabilities. We perhaps expect this since by definition EB channels destroy entanglement, and
classical feedback channels cannot create entanglement. This is the guiding principle behind our
proof, in particular the key fact that the transmitter and receiver states are separable throughout
the protocol.
More generally, it is known that classical feedback can give a large boost to the classical capacity
of channels which are not entanglement-breaking in at least two different ways: first, there exist
channels for which the Holevo information is small but the classical capacity with feedback included
can be quite large [BDSS06]. Similarly, there exist channels for which the classical capacity is small
but becomes large when classical feedback is available [SS09]. Thus, showing that the Holevo
information is a strong-converse bound suggests that for feedback not to help, we require special
channels, such as the entanglement-breaking ones.
14

Going in the opposite direction, it is known that EB channels form a proper superset of classical
channels [KHH12]. We thus obtain the result of [PV10] as a direct corollary. Furthermore, since the
original posting of our paper as arXiv:1506.02228, an open question that we posed has now been
answered — the strong converse exponent from Theorem 5 is tight, due to the results in [MO17].
Hence, we obtain as a special case from this and our result the classical results of [Aug78, DK79,
CK82] as well.
A possible direction for future research is to ask the same question for Hadamard channels,
which are defined to be complements of EB channels. To define the complementary channel, we
first explain the interpretation of channel as a model for open quantum dynamics. That is, a
channel from system A to system B can be interpreted as the restriction of a unitary interaction
with larger system BR, where R is referred to as the “environment.” The complementary channel
is the map from A to BR tracing out the B system instead and is itself a channel from A to R.
Hence, Hadamard channels break any entanglement with the environment system that is traced
out and is thus related to our guiding principle. The strong converse has already been proved for
Hadamard channels [WWY14], but with the addition of classical feedback, even a weak converse
has yet to be proved. Examples of Hadamard channels include generalized dephasing channels,
cloning channels, and the Unruh channel [BHTW10].
Finally, we remark here that it should be possible to use the methods given here and in [CMW16]
in order to characterize a particular adaptive hypothesis testing scenario. Suppose that the goal is
to distinguish an entanglement-breaking channel from a replacement channel by means of adaptive,
separability-preserving channels. Then the optimal strong converse exponent should be given in
terms of a quantity similar to that in (4.29). However, we leave the details for future work.
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Patrick Hayden, Milan Mosonyi, and Graeme Smith
for insightful discussions about the topic of this paper. We also thank an anonymous referee for
many helpful suggestions for improving the paper. MMW acknowledges support from startup funds
from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at LSU, the NSF under Award No. CCF-1350397,
and the DARPA Quiness Program through US Army Research Office award W31P4Q-12-1-0019.
DD acknowledges support from a Stanford Graduate Fellowship.

A

Additivity

Here we justify the statement in (1.5). The backward implication is trivial. As for the forward
implication, we first note that given n, for all k P Z` ,
1
1
χpN bn q ď
χpN bkn q,
n
kn

(A.1)

because we can split the kn channels into k blocks of n channels and encode each block independently. In particular, n1 χpN bn q ě χpN q. To show the opposite inequality, we assume the
contrapositive: n1 χpN bn q ą χpN q for some n. However, this means
1
1
χpN bkn q ´ χpN q ě χpN bn q ´ χpN q ą 0,
kn
n
for all k P Z` and thus the limit in (1.4) does not converge to χpN q.

15

(A.2)

B

Weak converse and finite bounds

We recall for motivation and the reader’s convenience the argument for the weak converse from
[BN05].
Theorem 7. Let Pn be a protocol for classical feedback-assisted classical communication over an
entanglement-breaking channel N such that it uses the channel n times, has communication rate
R, and has average probability of decoding error ε. Then, it satisfies the following inequality:
R ď χpN q ` gpn, εq,

(B.1)

where χpN q is the Holevo information of the channel and gpn, εq is a real valued function such that
lim lim gpn, εq “ 0.

(B.2)

εŒ0 nÑ8

The same is true for a protocol for communication over an arbitrary channel given that the encoder
does not entangle inputs across different uses of the channel.
Proof. We use the notation in Section 3.2 and take a general approach that is, for instance, presented
in Section 21.5.1 of [Wil16]. Let Φ denote the following “shared randomness” state:
1 ÿ
|my xm|M b |my xm|M̂ ,
ΦM M̂ “
(B.3)
|M| m
where |M| is the size of the message set M. Now, suppose the information processing task is
common randomness generation instead of classical communication. If we require the state ρ at
the end of the protocol to be ε1 -close to Φ
kΦ ´ ρk1 ď ε1 ,

(B.4)

the Fannes-Audenaert inequality for mutual information [Fan73, Aud07] gives
(B.5)

nR “ IpM ; M̂ qΦ
1

ď IpM ; M̂ qρ ` f pn, ε q,

(B.6)

where f pn, ε1 q is some continuous function of n and ε1 with the property: limε1 Œ0 limnÑ8 n1 f pn, ε1 q “
0. Continuing, we have
1
IpM ; M̂ qρ ď IpM ; Bn Bn´1
qρ

“

1
IpM ; Bn´1
qρ

`

(B.7)

1
IpM ; Bn |Bn´1
qρ ,

(B.8)

where we applied the data processing inequality and the chain rule for conditional quantum mutual
information. We use the chain rule again to get
1
1
IpM ; Bn |Bn´1
qρ ď IpM Bn´1
; Bn qρ .

(B.9)

From Section 3.2, if N is entanglement-breaking or if Alice uses separable inputs, Alice and Bob’s
systems are always separable. Hence, the global state before the nth channel use can be written as
ÿ
1
ρM A1n An Bn´1
“
pM pmq|myxm|M b ρm
(B.10)
A1n An B 1
n´1

m

ÿ
“

pM pmq |my xm|M b

m

ÿ
y

16

m,y
pY |M py|mqρm,y
.
A1 An b ρB 1
n

n´1

(B.11)

Hence, the state after the channel is given by
¯
´
ÿ
ÿ
m,y
1
.
“
pM pmq |my xm|M b pY |M py|mqNAn ÑBn ρm,y
ρM A1n Bn Bn´1
1
A An b ρB 1
n

y

m

(B.12)

n´1

We introduce an auxiliary system Y that labels the separable sum over the index y. That is, Y is
chosen such that the global state is
´
¯
ÿ
m,y
1
”
pM pmq pY |M py|mq |my xm|M b |yy xy|Y b NAn ÑBn ρm,y
. (B.13)
ρM Y A1n Bn Bn´1
1
A An b ρB 1
n

m,y

n´1

We trace over A1n to get
1
ρM Y Bn Bn´1
“

ÿ

m,y
pM pmq pY |M py|mq |my xm|M b |yy xy|Y b ρm,y
,
Bn b ρB 1

where

(B.14)

n´1

m,y

´
´
¯¯
`
˘
m,y
1
ρm,y
”
Tr
N
ρ
“ NAn ÑBn ρm,y
An ÑBn
An
An .
Bn
A1 An
n

(B.15)

This allows us to argue
1
1
IpM Bn´1
; Bn qρ ď IpM Y Bn´1
; Bn qρ

“ IpM Y ; Bn qρ `

1
IpBn´1
; Bn |M Y qρ

(B.16)
(B.17)

“ IpM Y ; Bn qρ

(B.18)

ď χpN q,

(B.19)

where the first inequality is from data processing, the first equality from the chain rule, and the
1
second equality because the Bn´1
Bn system is in a product state when conditioning on M and Y .
Finally, given equation (B.15), the state ρM Y Bn is a classical-quantum state of the form:
´
¯
1
1
ρM Y Bn “ TrBn´1
ρM Y Bn Bn´1
(B.20)
ÿ
`
˘
“
pM pmq pY |M py|mq |my xm|M b |yy xy|Y b NAn ÑBn ρm,y
(B.21)
An .
m,y

Hence, the definition of the Holevo information of the channel N gives us final inequality. Putting
things together, we find that
1
IpM ; M̂ qρ ď χpN q ` IpM ; Bn´1
qρ

ď χpN q `

1
IpM ; Bn´1 Bn´2
qρ ,

(B.22)
(B.23)

where the last inequality follows from the data processing inequality. But now, we recognize the
1
1
quantity IpM ; Bn´1 Bn´2
qρ is of the same form as IpM ; Bn Bn´1
qρ in (B.7), so that we can iterate
through the same sequence of arguments to get
1
IpM ; M̂ qρ ď 2χpN q ` IpM ; Bn´2 Bn´3
qρ .

(B.24)

Continuing all the way back to the first channel use, we find
IpM ; M̂ qρ ď nχpN q
17

(B.25)

since IpM ; B01 q “ 0 (see (3.7)). Thus, we conclude
R ď χpN q `

1
f pn, ε1 q.
n

(B.26)

Now, the rate for classical communication with n channel uses and error ε is at most that of
randomness generation with n uses and error ε1 , where ε1 is some function of ε such that limεŒ0 ε1 “
0. Hence, gpn, εq ” n1 f pn, ε1 q is what we need.
Corollary 8 (Weak Converse). The classical capacity of entanglement-breaking channels with
classical feedback is given by the Holevo information. The same is true for arbitrary channels with
separable inputs.
Proof. This is immediate.

C

Limit value of the α-Holevo information

The arguments here are essentially the same as those in [MH11, CMW16], along with an additional
insight from [TWW17, Appendix A]. We first recall a minimax result due to [MH11, Corollary A2].
s where X is a compact topological space, Y is a
Lemma 9. Suppose a function f : X ˆ Y Ñ R,
s
subset of R, and R is the extended real numbers, satisfies
1. @y P Y , f p¨, yq is lower semicontinuous.
2. @x P X, f px, ¨q is monotonic.
Then,
inf sup f px, yq “ sup inf f px, yq.

xPX yPY

yPY xPX

(C.1)

If the first condition was instead
1. @y P Y , f p¨, yq is upper semicontinuous,
then
inf sup f px, yq “ sup inf f px, yq.

yPY xPX

xPX yPY

(C.2)

We now prove Lemma 4.
r α pρXR1 , ρX bσR1 q is lower semicontinuous (see, e.g., [CMW16,
Proof. For fixed ρXR1 and α, σR1 ÞÑ D
r α pρXR1 , ρX b σR1 q is monotone nonAppendix A]). Furthermore, for fixed ρXR1 and σR1 , α ÞÑ D
decreasing. We can therefore invoke Lemma 9 with X “ SpHR1 q and Y “ p0, 1q. We use this, the
definition of the Holevo information, and properties of the quantum relative entropy to find the

18

following one-sided limit of the α-Holevo information of a quantum channel N : BpHR q Ñ BpHR1 q:
rα pN q “ sup χ
rα pN q
lim χ

αÕ1

(C.3)

αPp0,1q

“ sup

sup

αPp0,1q tpX pxq,ρx u

“
“
“
“

sup

rα ptpX pxq, N pρx quq
χ

sup

inf

r α pρXR1 }ρX b σR1 q
D

(C.5)

r α pρXR1 }ρX b σR1 q
sup D

(C.6)

tpX pxq,ρx u αPp0,1q σR1 PSpHR1 q

sup

inf

(C.4)

tpX pxq,ρx u σR1 PSpHR1 q αPp0,1q

sup

inf

tpX pxq,ρx u σR1 PSpHR1 q

DpρXR1 }ρX b σR1 q

IpX : R1 qρ

sup

(C.7)
(C.8)

tpX pxq,ρx u

“ χpN q,

(C.9)

where
ρXR1 ”

ÿ

pX pxq|xyxx|X b rN pρx qsR1 .

(C.10)

x

The fourth equality follows from applying Lemma 9. The fifth follows from (3.16) and the fact that
the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is monotone non-decreasing in α.
r α pN pρR q}σR1 q is monotone
To find the other limit, we note that for fixed ρR and σR1 , α ÞÑ D
non-decreasing. We then use an idea from [TWW17, Appendix A]. Note that for fixed α and
r α pN pρR q}σR1 q is continuous (and thus upper semicontinuous). Let
positive definite σR1 , ρR ÞÑ D
ε P p0, 1q and define σ pεq ” p1 ´ εq σ ` επ, where π is the maximally mixed state. Thus σpεq is
positive definite for σ positive semidefinite. Consider that
σpεq ě p1 ´ εq σ,

(C.11)

Dpρ}σpεqq ď Dpρ} p1 ´ εq σq “ Dpρ}σq ´ log p1 ´ εq .

(C.12)

which implies that

(This is because of the well known fact that σ ď σ 1 implies that Dpρ}σq ě Dpρ}σ 1 q.) Hence, using
Lemma 9, Lemma 3, and the identification of the Holevo information as an information radius

19

[OPW97, SW01], we can conclude the following chain of equalities:
rα pN q
rα pN q “ inf χ
lim χ

(C.13)

r α pN q
“ inf K

(C.14)

αą1

αŒ1

αą1

“ inf

inf

sup

r α pN pρR q}σR1 q
D

(C.15)

ď inf

inf

sup

r α pN pρR q}σpεqR1 q
D

(C.16)

sup

r α pN pρR q}σpεqR1 q
D

(C.17)

αą1 σR1 PSpHR1 q ρ PSpH q
R
R
αą1 σR1 PSpHR1 q ρ PSpH q
R
R

“
“
“
ď

inf

inf

σR1 PSpHR1 q αą1 ρR PSpHR q

inf

sup

r α pN pρR q}σpεqR1 q
inf D

(C.18)

inf

sup

DpN pρR q}σpεqR1 q

(C.19)

DpN pρR q}σR1 q ´ logp1 ´ εq

(C.20)

σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q αą1
σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q

inf

sup

σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q

“ χpN q ´ log p1 ´ εq .

(C.21)

The first inequality follows because there is an infimum with respect to σR1 , such that replacing σR1
with σpεqR1 can never decrease the quantity. The fifth equality follows from applying Lemma 9.
The sixth equality follows from (3.16) and the fact that the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is
monotone non-decreasing in α. The last inequality follows from (C.12). The last equality uses
χpN q “ KpN q.
rα pN q ď χpN q. Combined with
Given that ε ą 0 was arbitrary, we can conclude that limαŒ1 χ
rα pN q ě χpN q for all α ě 1, we conclude that
the fact that χ
rα pN q “ χpN q.
lim χ

(C.22)

r α pN q “ KpN q.
lim K

(C.23)

αŒ1

This also implies that
αŒ1

r α pN q “ KpN q, which follows from a similar line of reasoning:
We now show that limαÕ1 K
r α pN q “ sup K
r α pN q
lim K

αÕ1

(C.24)

αPp0,1q

“ sup

inf

sup

r α pN pρR q}σR1 q
D

(C.25)

r α pN pρR q}σR1 q
D

(C.26)

r α pN pρR q}σR1 q
sup D

(C.27)

αPp0,1q σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q

“
“
“

inf

sup

sup

σR1 PSpHR1 q αPp0,1q ρR PSpHR q

inf

sup

σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q αPp0,1q

inf

sup

σR1 PSpHR1 q ρR PSpHR q

“ KpN q,

DpN pρR q}σR1 q

(C.28)
(C.29)

20

where the third equality follows from Lemma 9 and the fact that for fixed α and ρR , σR1 ÞÑ
r α pN pρR q}σR1 q is lower semicontinuous and that the pointwise supremum of lower semicontinuous
D
functions is lower semicontinuous.

References
[Ari73]

Suguru Arimoto. On the converse to the coding theorem for discrete memoryless
channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 19(3):357–359, May 1973.

[Aud07]

Koenraad M. R. Audenaert. A sharp continuity estimate for the von Neumann
entropy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(28):8127, July
2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0610146.

[Aud09]

Koenraad M. R. Audenaert. A note on the p Ñ q norms of 2-positive maps. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 430(1):1436–1440, February 2009. arXiv:mathph/0505085.

[Aug78]

Udo Augustin. Noisy channels. Habilitation thesis, Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg,
West Germany, September 1978.

[BDSS06]

Charles H. Bennett, Igor Devetak, Peter W. Shor, and John A. Smolin. Inequalities
and separations among assisted capacities of quantum channels. Physical Review
Letters, 96(15):150502, April 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0406086.

[Bei13]

Salman Beigi. Sandwiched Rényi divergence satisfies data processing inequality.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(12):122202, December 2013. arXiv:1306.5920.

[BGPWW15] Bhaskar Roy Bardhan, Raul Garcia-Patron, Mark M. Wilde, and Andreas Winter.
Strong converse for the classical capacity of all phase-insensitive bosonic Gaussian
channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 61(4):1842–1850, April 2015.
arXiv:1401.4161.
[BHTW10]

Kamil Brádler, Patrick Hayden, Dave Touchette, and Mark M. Wilde. Trade-off
capacities of the quantum Hadamard channels. Physical Review A, 81(6):062312,
June 2010. arXiv:1001.1732.

[BN05]

Garry Bowen and Rajagopal Nagarajan. On feedback and the classical capacity of a
noisy quantum channel. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(1):320–324,
2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0305176.

[CK82]

Imre Csiszar and Janos Korner. Feedback does not affect the reliability function of a
DMC at rates above capacity. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28(1):92–
93, January 1982.

[CMW16]

Tom Cooney, Milan Mosonyi, and Mark M. Wilde. Strong converse exponents for a
quantum channel discrimination problem and quantum-feedback-assisted communication. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 344(3):797–829, June 2016.
arXiv:1408.3373.

21

[CT91]

Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory. WileyInterscience, August 1991.

[DK79]

Gunther Dueck and Janos Korner. Reliability function of a discrete memoryless channel at rates above capacity. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 25(1):82–85,
January 1979.

[EGK12]

Abbas El Gamal and Young-Han Kim. Network information theory. Cambridge
University Press, January 2012.

[Fan73]

Mark Fannes. A continuity property of the entropy density for spin lattice systems.
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 31(4):291–294, December 1973.

[FL13]

Rupert L. Frank and Elliott H. Lieb. Monotonicity of a relative Rényi entropy.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(12):122201, December 2013. arXiv:1306.5358.

[GK12]

Abbas El Gamal and Young-Han Kim. Network information theory. Cambridge
University Press, January 2012. arXiv:1001.3404.

[Has09]

Matthew B. Hastings. Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled
inputs. Nature Physics, 5:255–257, April 2009. arXiv:0809.3972.

[Hay07]

Masahito Hayashi. Error exponent in asymmetric quantum hypothesis testing and its
application to classical-quantum channel coding. Physical Review A, 76(6):062301,
December 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0611013.

[Hol98]

Alexander S. Holevo. The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal
states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 44(1):269–273, January 1998.
arXiv:quant-ph/9611023.

[Hol06]

Alexander S. Holevo. Multiplicativity of p-norms of completely positive maps and the
additivity problem in quantum information theory. Russian Mathematical Surveys,
61(2):301–339, 2006.

[HSR03]

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

[KHH12]

J. K. Korbicz, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. Quantum-correlation breaking
channels, broadcasting scenarios, and finite Markov chains. Physical Review A,
86(4):042319, October 2012. arXiv:1208.2162.

[Kin03]

Christopher King. Maximal p-norms of entanglement breaking channels. Quantum
Information and Computation, 3(2):186–190, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0212057.

[KW09]

Robert Koenig and Stephanie Wehner. A strong converse for classical channel coding using entangled inputs. Physical Review Letters, 103(7):070504, August 2009.
arXiv:0903.2838.

22

[MH11]

Milán Mosonyi and Fumio Hiai. On the quantum Rényi relative entropies and related
capacity formulas. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4):2474–2487,
April 2011. arXiv:0912.1286.

[MLDS` 13]

Martin Müller-Lennert, Frédéric Dupuis, Oleg Szehr, Serge Fehr, and Marco
Tomamichel. On quantum Rényi entropies: A new generalization and some
properties. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(12):122203, December 2013.
arXiv:1306.3142.

[MO17]

Milán Mosonyi and Tomohiro Ogawa. Strong converse exponent for classicalquantum channel coding. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 355(1):373–426,
October 2017. arXiv:1409.3562v7.

[Nag01]

Hiroshi Nagaoka. Strong converse theorems in quantum information theory. Proceedings of ERATO Workshop on Quantum Information Science, page 33, 2001. Also
appeared in Asymptotic Theory of Quantum Statistical Inference, ed. M. Hayashi,
World Scientific, 2005.

[ON99]

Tomohiro Ogawa and Hiroshi Nagaoka. Strong converse to the quantum channel coding theorem. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(7):2486–2489, November
1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9808063.

[OPW97]

Masanori Ohya, Denes Petz, and Noburu Watanabe. On capacities of quantum
channels. Probability and Mathematical Statistics-Wroclaw University, 17:179–196,
1997.

[PV10]

Yury Polyanskiy and Sergio Verdú. Arimoto channel coding converse and Rényi
divergence. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication,
Control, and Computation, pages 1327–1333, September 2010.

[Sho02]

Peter W. Shor. Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking quantum channels. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43(9):4334–4340, October 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0201149.

[Sio58]

Maurice Sion. On general minimax theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics,
8(1):171–176, 1958.

[SS09]

Graeme Smith and John A. Smolin. Extensive nonadditivity of privacy. Physical
Review Letters, 103(12):120503, September 2009. arXiv:0904.4050.

[SW97]

Benjamin Schumacher and Michael Westmoreland. Sending classical information via
noisy quantum channels. Physical Review A, 56(1):131–138, July 1997.

[SW01]

Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D Westmoreland. Optimal signal ensembles.
Physical Review A, 63(2):022308, January 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/9912122.

[SW02]

Benjamin Schumacher and Michael D Westmoreland. Relative entropy in quantum
information theory. Contemporary Mathematics, 305:265–290, 2002. arXiv:quantph/0004045.

23

[TWW17]

Marco Tomamichel, Mark M. Wilde, and Andreas Winter. Strong converse rates for
quantum communication. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 63(1):715–727,
January 2017. arXiv:1406.2946.

[Ume62]

Hisaharu Umegaki. Conditional expectation in an operator algebra. Kodai Mathematical Seminar Reports, 14(2):59–85, 1962.

[Wil16]

Mark M. Wilde. From classical to quantum Shannon theory.
arXiv:1106.1445v7.

[Win99]

Andreas Winter. Coding theorem and strong converse for quantum channels. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 45(7):2481–2485, 1999. arXiv:1409.2536.

[Wol78]

Jacob Wolfowitz. Coding Theorems of Information Theory. Springer-Verlag New
York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 3rd edition, 1978.

[WWY14]

Mark M. Wilde, Andreas Winter, and Dong Yang. Strong converse for the classical
capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched Rényi
relative entropy. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 331(2):593–622, October
2014. arXiv:1306.1586.

24

March 2016.

