1

A Survey on Quantum Channel Capacities

arXiv:1801.02019v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2018

Laszlo Gyongyosi,1,2,3,∗ Member, IEEE, Sandor Imre,2 Senior Member, IEEE, and Hung Viet
Nguyen,1 Member, IEEE
1 School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
2 Department of Networked Systems and Services, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest,
H-1117 Hungary
3 MTA-BME Information Systems Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, H-1051 Hungary

Abstract—Quantum information processing exploits the quantum nature of information. It offers fundamentally new solutions
in the field of computer science and extends the possibilities
to a level that cannot be imagined in classical communication systems. For quantum communication channels, many new
capacity definitions were developed in comparison to classical
counterparts. A quantum channel can be used to realize classical
information transmission or to deliver quantum information,
such as quantum entanglement. Here we review the properties
of the quantum communication channel, the various capacity
measures and the fundamental differences between the classical
and quantum channels.
Index Terms—Quantum communication, quantum channels,
quantum information, quantum entanglement, quantum Shannon
theory.

I. I NTRODUCTION
According to Moore’s Law [326], the physical limitations of
classical semiconductor-based technologies could be reached
within the next few years. We will then step into the age of
quantum information. When first quantum computers become
available on the shelf, today’s encrypted information will
not remain secure. Classical computational complexity will
no longer guard this information. Quantum communication
systems exploit the quantum nature of information offering
new possibilities and limitations for engineers when designing
protocols. Quantum communication systems face two major
challenges.
First, available point-to-point communication link should be
connected on one hand to cover large distances an on the
other hand to reach huge number of users in the form of
a network. Thus, the quantum Internet [267], [304] requires
quantum repeaters and quantum switches/routers. Because of
the so called no-cloning theorem [551], which is the simple
consequence of the postulates of the quantum mechanics, the
construction of these network entities proves to be very hard
[523].
The other challenge – this paper focuses on – is the
amount of information which can be transmitted over quantum
channels, i.e. the capacity. The capacity of a communication
This work was partially supported by the European Research Council
through the Advanced Fellow Grant, in part by the Royal Societys Wolfson
Research Merit Award, in part by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council under Grant EP/L018659/1, by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund - OTKA K-112125, and by the National Research Development
and Innovation Office of Hungary (Project No. 2017-1.2.1-NKP-2017-00001).
*Email: l.gyongyosi@soton.ac.uk

channel describes the capability of the channel for delivering
information from the sender to the receiver, in a faithful and
recoverable way. Thanks to Shannon we can calculate the
capacity of classical channels within the frames of classical
information theory1 [477]. However, the different capacities
of quantum channels have been discovered just in the ‘90s,
and there are still many open questions about the different
capacity measures.
Many new capacity definitions exist for quantum channels in
comparison to a classical communication channel. In the case
of a classical channel, we can send only classical information
while quantum channels extend the possibilities, and besides
the classical information we can deliver entanglement-assisted
classical information, private classical information, and of
course, quantum information [54], [136]. On the other hand,
the elements of classical information theory cannot be applied
in general for quantum information –in other words, they
can be used only in some special cases. There is no general
formula to describe the capacity of every quantum channel
model, but one of the main results of the recent researches
was a simplified picture in which various capacities of a
quantum channel (i.e., the classical, private, quantum) are all
non-additive [245].
In possession of admitted capacity definitions they have to
be calculated for various channel models. Channels behave in
very different ways in free-space or in optical fibers and these
two main categories divides into many subclasses and special
cases [178], [181], [567].
Since capacity shows only the theoretically achievable transmission rate and gives no construction rules how to reach or
near them, therefore quantum channel/error correction coding
has similar importance from practical implementation point of
view as in case of classical information theory [171].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, preliminaries are summarized. In Section III, we study the classical
information transmission capability of quantum channels. In
Section IV, we discuss the quantum capacity. Numerical
examples are included in Section V. Section VI focuses on
the practical implementations of quantum channels. Finally,
Section VII concludes the paper. Supplementary material is
included in the Appendix.
1 Quantum Shannon theory has deep relevance concerning the information
transmission and storage in quantum systems. It can be regarded as a natural
generalization of classical Shannon theory. Classical information theory
represents an orthogonality-restricted case of quantum information theory.

2

II. P RELIMINARIES
A. Applications and Gains of Quantum Communications
Before discussing the modeling, characteristics and capacities of quantum channels we present their potential to improve
state-of the-art communication and computing systems.
We highlight the fact that from application point of view
the concept of channel can represent any medium possessing
an input to receive information and an output to give back a
modified version of this information. This simplified definition
highlights the fact that not only an optical fiber, a copper cable
or a free-space link can be regarded as channel but a computer
memory, too.
Quantum communication systems are capable of providing
absolute randomness, absolute security, of improving transmission quality as well as of bearing much more information
in comparison to the current classical binary based systems.
Moreover, when the benefits of quantum computing power are
properly employed, the quantum based solutions are capable
of supporting the execution of tasks much faster or beyond
the capability of the current binary based systems [131]. The
appealing gains and the associated application scenarios that
we may expect from quantum communications are as follows.
The general existence of a qubit ψ in a superposition state
(see the next sub-sections of Section II) of two pure quantum
states |0i and |1i can be represented by
|ψi =

α|0i + β|1i,

(1)

where α and β are complex number. If a qubit ψ is measured
by |0i and |1i bases, the measurement result is randomly
obtained in the state of |0i or |1i with the corresponding
probability of |α|2 or |β|2 . This random nature of quantum
measure have been favourably used for providing high quality
random number generator [249, 265], [316]. It is important
to note that along with the measurement randomness, nocloning theorem [551] of qubit says that it is not possible
to clone a qubit. This characteristics allow quantum based
solutions to support absolute security, to which there have
been abundant examples of quantum based solutions [176],
[300], [302], [569], [553] where a popular example of mature
applications is quantum key distribution (QKD) [53], [68].
Quantum entanglement is a unique characteristic of quantum mechanics, which is another valuable foundation for provisioning the absolute secure communication. Let us consider
a two qubit system σ represented by
|σi = α00 |0i|0i + α01 |0i|1i + α10 |1i|0i + α11 |1i|1i,(2)
where α00 , α01 , α10 , α11 are complex numbers having
|α00 |2 +|α01 |2 +|α10 |+|α11 |2 = 1. If the system σ is prepared
in one of the four states (see Appendix), for example
|σi =

α00 |0i|0i + α11 |1i|1i,

(3)

where |α00 |2 +|α11 |2 = 1, the measurement result of the two
qubits is in either |00i or |11i state. In this state, the two qubits
are entangled, meaning that having the measurement result
of either of the two is sufficient to know the measurement
result of the other. As a result, if the two entangled qubits are

separated in the distance, for example 144 km terrestial distance [158] or earth-station to satellite 1200 km distance [561],
information can be secretly transmitted over two locations,
where there exists entanglement between the two locations.
The entanglement based transmission can be employed for
transmitting classical bits by using the superdense coding
protocol [1], [33], [242] or for transmitting qubits using the
quantum teleportation protocol [55], [226].
Classical channels handle classical information i.e. orthogonal (distinguishable) basis states while quantum channels
may deliver superposition states (linear combination of basis
states). Of course, since quantum mechanic is more complete
than classical information theory classical information and
classical channels can be regarded as special cases of quantum
information and channels. Keeping in mind the application
scenarios, there is a major difference between classical and
quantum information. Human beings due to their limited
senses can perceive only classical information; therefore measurement is needed to perform conversion between the quantum and classical world.
From the above considerations, quantum channels can be
applied in several different ways for information transmission.
If classical information is encoded to quantum states, the
quantum channel delivers this information between its input
and output and finally a measurement device converts the
information back to the classical world. In many practical
settings, quantum channels are used to transfer classical information only.
The most discussed practical application of this approach is
QKD. Optical fiber based [243], [255], [282], [511] groundground [565] and ground-space [301] systems have already
been demonstrated. These protocols independently whether
they are first-generation single photon systems or secondgeneration multi photon solutions exchange classical sequences between Alice and Bob over the quantum channel
being encoded in non-orthogonal quantum states. Since the
no-cloning theorem [244], [551] makes no possible to copy
(to eavesdrop) the quantum states without error, symmetric
ciphering keys can be established for both parties. In this case
quantum channel is used to create a new quality instead of
improving the performance of classical communication.
Furthermore, quantum encoding can improve the transmission rates of certain channels. For example the well-known bitflip channel inverts the incoming bit value by probability p and
leaves it unchanged by (1−p). Classically this type of channel
can not transmit any information at all if p = 0.5 even if we
apply redundancy for error correction. However, if classical
bits are encoded into appropriate quantum bits one-by-one, i.e.,
no redundancy is used, the information will be delivered without error. This means that quantum communication improves
the classical information transmission capability of the bitflip channel form 0 to the maximum 1. The different models
of classical information transmission over a quantum channel
will be detailed in Section III (particulary in Section III-CSection III-G).
The second approach applies quantum channels to deliver
quantum information and this information is used to improve
the performance of classical communication systems. The

3

detailed discussion of the transmission of quantum information
is the subject of Section IV. These protocols exploit overquantum-channel-shared entangled states, i.e. entanglement
assisted communications is considered. In case of quantum
superdense coding [58], [70], [244] we assume that Alice and
Bob have already shared an entangled Bell-pair, such as |β00 i
(see Appendix), expressed as
1
| β00 i = √ (| 00i + | 11i ) .
(4)
2
When Alice wants to communicate with Bob, she encodes
two classical bits into the half pair she possesses and sends
this quantum bit to Bob over the quantum channel. Finally,
Bob leads his own qubit together the received one to a
measuring device which decodes the original two classical bits.
Practically 2 classical bits have been transferred at the expense
of 1 quantum bit, i.e., the entanglement assisted quantum
channels can outperform classical ones.
Another practical example of this approach is distributed
medium access control. In this case a classical communication
channel is supported by pre-shared entanglement. It is wellknown that WiFi and other systems can be derived from
the Slotted Aloha protocol [2] widely used as a reference.
Slotted Aloha can deliver [0.5/e, 1/e] packets in average in
each timeslot if the number of nodes is known for everyone,
and optimal access strategy is used by everyone. This is
because of collisions and unused timeslots. Practically the
size of the population can be only estimated which decreases
the efficiency. However, if special entangled |wn i states are
generated as
n
1 X (n−i)
|2
i.
(5)
|wn i = √
n i=1
and used to coordinate the channel access in a distributed way
the timeslot usage will improve to 100% and there is no need
to know the number of users.
Further important application scenarios are related to quantum computers where quantum information has to be delivered
between modules over quantum connections. Similarly quantum memories are practically quantum channels of course
with different characteristics compared to communication
channels which store and read back quantum information.
B. Privacy and Performance Gains of Quantum Channels
Due to the inherent no-cloning theory of quantum mechanics, the random nature of quantum measurement as well as
to the unique entanglement phenomenon of quantum mechanics, secure communications can be guaranteed by quantum
communications. The private classical capacity of a quantum
channel is detailed in Section III-C.
Moreover, quantum communications using quantum channels is capable of carrying much more information in comparison to the current classical binary based systems. Let us have
a closer look at Eq. (1), where obviously one qubit contains
superpositioned 21 distinct states or values, which is equivalent
to at least 2 bits. In the case of using two qubits in Eq. (3),
22 distinct states or values are simultaneously conveyed by
two qubits, meaning at least 22 × 2 bits are carried by 2

qubits. Generally, n qubits can carry up to 2n states, which
corresponds to 2n × n bits. The superposition nature of qubits
leads to the advent of powerful quantum computing, which
is in some cases proved be 100 millions times faster than
the classical computer [131]. Moreover, in theory quantum
computer is capable of providing the computing power that is
beyond the capability of its classical counterpart. Importantly,
in order to realise such supreme computing power, the crucial
part is quantum communications, which has to be used for
transmitting qubits within the quantum processor as well as
between distributed quantum processors.
Additionally, quantum receivers [49] relying on quantum
communications principle has proved to outperform classical
homodyne or heterodyne receiver in the context of optical
communications. For the sake of brevity, please allow us to
refer interested readers to the references [49], [516].
C. Communication over a Quantum Channel
Communication through a quantum channel cannot be
described by the results of classical information theory; it
requires the generalization of classical information theory
by quantum perception of the world. In the general model
of communication over a quantum channel N , the encoder
encodes the message in some coded form, and the receiver
decodes it, however in this case, the whole communication is
realized through a quantum system.
The information sent through quantum channels is carried by quantum states, hence the encoding is fundamentally
different from any classical encoder scheme. The encoding
here means the preparation of a quantum system, according
to the probability distribution of the classical message being
encoded. Similarly, the decoding process is also different:
here it means the measurement of the received quantum state.
The properties of quantum communication channel, and the
fundamental differences between the classical and quantum
communication channel cannot be described without the elements of quantum information theory.
The model of the quantum channel represents the physically
allowed transformations which can occur on the sent quantum
system. The result of the channel transformation is another
quantum system, while the quantum states are represented
by matrices. The physically allowed channel transformations could be very different; nevertheless they are always
Completely Positive Trace Preserving (CPTP) transformations
(trace: the sum of the elements on the main diagonal of a
matrix). The trace preserving property therefore means that the
corresponding density matrices (density matrix: mathematical
description of a quantum system) at the input and output of
the channel have the same trace.
The input of a quantum channel is a quantum state, which
encodes information into a physical property. The quantum
state is sent through a quantum communication channel,
which in practice can be implemented e.g. by an optical-fiber
channel, or by a wireless quantum communication channel.
To extract any information from the quantum state, it has
to be measured at the receiver’s side. The outcome of the
measurement of the quantum state (which might be perturbed)

4

depends on the transformation of the quantum channel, since it
can be either totally probabilistic or deterministic. In contrast
to classical channels, a quantum channel transforms the information coded into quantum states, which can be e.g. the spin
state of the particle, the ground and excited state of an atom, or
several other physical approaches. The classical capacity of a
quantum channel has relevance if the goal is transmit classical
information in a quantum state, or would like to send classical
information privately via quantum systems (private classical
capacity). The quantum capacity has relevance if one would
like to transmit quantum information such as superposed
quantum states or quantum entanglement.
First, we discuss the process of transmission of information over a quantum channel. Then, the interaction between
quantum channel output and environment will be described.
1) The Quantum Channel Map: From algebraic point of
view, quantum channels are linear CPTP maps, while from a
geometrical viewpoint, the quantum channel N is an affine
transformation. While, from the algebraic view the transformations are defined on density matrices, in the geometrical
approach, the qubit transformations are also interpretable via
the Bloch sphere (a geometrical representation of the pure
state space of a qubit system) as Bloch vectors (vectors in
the Bloch sphere representation). Since, density matrices can
be expressed in terms of Bloch vectors, hence the map of a
quantum channel N also can be analyzed in the geometrical
picture.
To preserve the condition for a density matrix ρ, the noise
on the quantum channel N must be trace-preserving (TP), i.e.,
T r (ρ) =T r (N (ρ)) ,

(6)

and it must be Completely Positive (CP), i.e., for any identity
map I, the map I⊗N maps a semi-positive Hermitian matrix
to a semi-positive Hermitian matrix.

Fig. 1: Geometrical picture of a noisy qubit quantum channel
on the Bloch sphere [Imre13].
For a unital quantum channel N , the channel map transforms the I identity transformation to the I identity transformation, while this condition does not hold for a non-unital
channel. To express it, for a unital quantum channel, we have
N (I) =I,

(7)

while for a non-unital quantum channel,
N (I) 6=I.

(8)

Focusing on a qubit channel, the image of the quantum
channel’s linear transform is an ellipsoid on the Bloch sphere,
as it is depicted in Fig. 1. For a unital quantum channel, the
center of the geometrical interpretation of the channel ellipsoid
is equal to the center of the Bloch sphere. This means that a
unital quantum channel preserves the average of the system
states. On the other hand, for a non-unital quantum channel,
the center of the channel ellipsoid will differ from the center of
the Bloch sphere. The main difference between unital and nonunital channels is that the non-unital channels do not preserve
the average state in the center of the Bloch sphere. It follows
from this that the numerical and algebraic analysis of nonunital quantum channels is more complicated than in the case
of unital ones. While unital channels shrink the Bloch sphere
in different directions with the center preserved, non-unital
quantum channels shrink both the original Bloch sphere and
move the center from the origin of the Bloch sphere. This fact
makes our analysis more complex, however, in many cases,
the physical systems cannot be described with unital quantum
channel maps. Since the unital channel maps can be expressed
as the convex combination of the basic unitary transformations,
the unital channel maps can be represented in the Bloch
sphere as different rotations with shrinking parameters. On
the other hand, for a non-unital quantum map, the map cannot
be decomposed into a convex combination of unitary rotations
[245].
2) Steps of the Communication: The transmission of information through classical channels and quantum channels
differs in many ways. If we would like to describe the process
of information transmission through a quantum communication channel, we have to introduce the three main phases
of quantum communication. In the first phase, the sender,
Alice, has to encode her information to compensate the noise
of the channel N (i.e., for error correction), according to
properties of the physical channel - this step is called channel
coding. After the sender has encoded the information into the
appropriate form, it has to be put on the quantum channel,
which transforms it according to its channel map - this second
phase is called the channel evolution. The quantum channel
N conveys the quantum state to the receiver, Bob; however
this state is still a superposed and probably mixed (according
to the noise of the channel) quantum state. To extract the
information which is encoded in the state, the receiver has to
make a measurement - this decoding process (with the error
correction procedure) is the third phase of the communication
over a quantum channel.
The channel transformation represents the noise of the
quantum channel. Physically, the quantum channel is the
medium, which moves the particle from the sender to the
receiver. The noise disturbs the state of the particle, in the case
of a half-spin particle, it causes spin precession. The channel
evolution phase is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Finally, the measurement process responsible for the decoding and the extraction of the encoded information. The

5

If the quantum channel N is used for information transmission, then the state of the composite system changes unitarily,
as follows:
U (ρin ⊗ρE ) U † ,
(9)
where U is a unitary transformation, and U † U =I. After the
quantum state has been sent over the quantum channel N , the
ρout output state can be expressed as:


N (ρin ) =ρout =T rE U (ρin ⊗ρE ) U † ,
(10)

Fig. 2: The channel evolution phase.
previous phase determines the success probability of the
recovery of the original information. If the channel N is
completely noisy, then the receiver will get a maximally mixed
quantum state. The output of the measurement of a maximally
mixed state is completely undeterministic: it tells us nothing
about the original information encoded by the sender. On the
other hand, if the quantum channel N is completely noiseless,
then the information which was encoded by the sender can be
recovered with probability 1: the result of the measurement
will be completely deterministic and completely correlated
with the original message. In practice, a quantum channel
realizes a map which is in between these two extreme cases. A
general quantum channel transforms the original pure quantum
state into a mixed quantum state, - but not into a maximally
mixed state - which makes it possible to recover the original
message with a high - or low - probability, depending on the
level of the noise of the quantum channel N .
D. Formal Model
As shown in Fig. 3, the information transmission through
the quantum channel N is defined by the ρin input quantum
state and the initial state of the environment ρE = | 0i h 0| . In
the initial phase, the environment is assumed to be in the
pure state | 0i . The system state which consist of the input
quantum state ρin and the environment ρE = | 0i h 0| , is called
the composite state ρin ⊗ρE .

Fig. 3: The general model of transmission of information over
a noisy quantum channel.

where T rE traces out the environment E from the joint
state. Assuming the environment E in the pure state | 0i ,
ρE = | 0i h 0| , the N (ρin ) noisy evolution of the channel N
can be expressed as:
N (ρin ) =ρout =T rE U ρin ⊗ | 0i h 0| U † ,

(11)

while the post-state ρE of the environment after the transmission is
ρE =T rB U ρin ⊗ | 0i h 0| U † ,
(12)
where T rB traces out the output system B. In general, the
i-th input quantum state ρi is prepared with probability pi ,
which describes the ensemble {pi , ρi }. The average of the
input quantum system is
X
σin =
pi ρi ,
(13)
i

The average (or the mixture) of the output of the quantum
channel is denoted by
X
σout =N (σin ) =
pi N (ρi ).
(14)
i

E. Quantum Channel Capacity
The capacity of a communication channel describes the
capability of the channel for sending information from the
sender to the receiver, in a faithful and recoverable way.
The perfect ideal communication channel realizes an identity
map. For a quantum communication channel, it means that
the channel can transmit the quantum states perfectly. Clearly
speaking, the capacity of the quantum channel measures the
closeness to the ideal identity transformation I.
To describe the information transmission capability of the
quantum channel N , we have to make a distinction between
the various capacities of a quantum channel. The encoded
quantum states can carry classical messages or quantum messages. In the case of classical messages, the quantum states
encode the output from a classical information source, while
in the latter the source is a quantum information source.
On one hand for classical communication channel N, only
one type of capacity measure can be defined, on the other
hand for a quantum communication channel N a number
of different types of quantum channel capacities can be
applied, with different characteristics. There are plenty of open
questions regarding these various capacities. In general, the
single-use capacity of a quantum channel is not equal to the
asymptotic capacity of the quantum channel (As we will see
later, it also depends on the type of the quantum channel).
The asymptotic capacity gives us the amount of information

6

which can be transmitted in a reliable form using the quantum
channel infinitely many times. The encoding and the decoding
functions mathematically can be described by the operators
E and D, realized on the blocks of quantum states. These
superoperators describe unitary transformations on the input
states together with the environment of the quantum system.
The model of communication through noisy quantum channel
N with encoding, delivery and decoding phases is illustrated
in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: Communication over a noisy quantum channel.
We note, in our paper we will use the terms classical
quantity and quantum quantity with relation to the quantum
channel N as follows:
1) classical quantity: it is a measure of the classical transmission capabilities of a quantum channel. (See later:
Holevo information, quantum mutual information, etc.,
in Section III)
2) quantum quantity: it is a measure of the quantum transmission capabilities of a quantum channel (See later:
quantum coherent information,etc., in Section IV)
If we mention classical quantity we will do this with relation
to the quantum channel N , i.e., for example the Holevo
information is also not a typical’ classical quantity since it
is describes a quantum system not a classical one, but with
relation to the quantum channel we can use the classical mark.
The historical background with the description of the most
relevant works can be found in the Related Work part of each
section. For detailed information see [245].
F. Definitions
Quantum information theory also has relevance to the
discussion of the capacity of quantum channels and to information transmission and storage in quantum systems. As
we will see in this section, while the transmission of product
states can be described similar to classical information, on the
other hand, the properties of quantum entanglement cannot be
handled by the elements of classical information theory. Of
course, the elements of classical information theory can be
viewed as a subset of the larger and more complex quantum
information theory [568].
First, we summarize the basic definitions and formulas of
quantum information theory. We introduce the reader to the
description of a noisy quantum channel, purification, isometric
extension, Kraus representation and the von Neumann entropy.
Next, we describe the encoding of quantum states and the

meaning of Holevo information, the quantum mutual information and quantum conditional entropy.
1) Discussion: Before starting the discussion on various
capacities of quantum channels and the related consequences
we summarize the basic definitions and formulas of quantum
information theory intended to represent the information stored
in quantum states. Those readers who are familiar with density
matrices, entropies etc. may run through this section.
The world of quantum information processing (QIP) is
describable with the help of quantum information theory
(QIT), which is the main subject of this section. We will
provide an overview of the most important differences between
the compressibility of classical bits and quantum bits, and
between the capacities of classical and quantum communication channels. To represent classical information with quantum
states, we might use pure orthogonal states. In this case there
is no difference between the compressibility of classical and
quantum bits.
Similarly, a quantum channel can be used with pure orthogonal states to realize classical information transmission,
or it can be used to transmit non-orthogonal states or even
quantum entanglement. Information transmission also can be
approached using the question, whether the input consists of
unentangled or entangled quantum states. This leads us to say
that for quantum channels many new capacity definitions exist
in comparison to a classical communication channel.
Quantum information theory also has relevance to the
discussion of the capacity of quantum channels and to information transmission and storage in quantum systems. While
the transmission of product states can be described similar
to classical information, on the other hand, the properties of
quantum entanglement cannot be handled by the elements
of classical information theory. Of course, the elements of
classical information theory can be viewed as a subset of the
larger and more complex quantum information theory.
Before we would start to our introduction to quantum information theory, we have to make a clear distinction between
quantum information theory and quantum information processing. Quantum information theory is rather a generalization of
the elements and functions of classical information theory to
describe the properties of quantum systems, storage of information in quantum systems and the various quantum phenomena of quantum mechanics. While quantum information theory
aims to provide a stable theoretical background, quantum information processing is a more general and rather experimental
field: it answers what can be achieved in engineering with the
help of quantum information. Quantum information processing
includes the computing, error-correcting schemes, quantum
communication protocols, field of communication complexity,
etc.
The character of classical information and quantum information is significantly different. There are many phenomena in
quantum systems which cannot be described classically, such
as entanglement, which makes it possible to store quantum
information in the correlation of quantum states. Entangled
quantum states are named to EPR states after Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen, or Bell states, after J. Bell. Quantum
entanglement was discovered in the 1930s, and it may still

7

yield many surprises in the future. Currently it is clear that entanglement has many classically indescribable properties and
many new communication approaches based on it. Quantum
entanglement plays a fundamental role in advanced quantum
communications, such as teleportation, quantum cryptography
etc.
The elements of quantum information theory are based on
the laws of quantum mechanics. The main results of quantum
information processing were laid down during the end of the
twentieth century, the most important results being stated by
Feynman, Bennett, DiVincenzo, Devetak, Deutsch, Holevo,
Lloyd, Schumacher, Shor and many more. After the basic
concepts of quantum information processing had been stated,
researchers started to look for efficient quantum error correction schemes and codes, and started to develop the theoretical
background of fault-tolerant quantum computation. The main
results from this field were presented by Bennett, Schumacher,
Gottesman, Calderbank, Preskill, Knill, and Kerckhoff. On the
other hand, there are still many open questions about quantum
computation. The theoretical limits of quantum computers
were discovered by Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard and Vazirani:
quantum computers can provide at best a quadratic reduction
in the complexity of search-based problems, hence if we
give an NP-complete problem to quantum computer, it still
cannot solve it. Recently, the complexity classes of quantum
information processing have been investigated, and many new
classes and lower bounds have been found.
By the end of the twentieth century, many advanced and
interesting properties of quantum information theory had been
discovered, and many possible applications of these results in
future communication had been developed. One of the most
interesting revealed connections was that between quantum
information theory and the elements of geometry. The space
of quantum states can be modeled as a convex set which
contains points with different probability distributions, and the
geometrical distance between these probability distributions
can be measured by the elementary functions of quantum
information theory, such as the von Neumann entropy or the
quantum relative entropy function. The connection between the
elements of quantum information theory and geometry leads
us to the application of advanced computational geometrical
algorithms to quantum space, to reveal the still undiscovered
properties of quantum information processing, such as the
open questions on the capacities of the quantum channels or
their additivity properties. The connection between the Hilbert
space of quantum states and the geometrical distance can
help us to reveal the fantastic properties of quantum bits and
quantum state space.
Several functions have been defined in quantum information
theory to describe the statistical distances between the states
in the quantum space: one of the most important is the
quantum relative entropy function which plays a key role
in the description of entanglement, too. This function has
many different applications, and maybe this function plays the
most important role in the questions regarding the capacity of
quantum channels. The possible applications of the quantum
relative entropy function have been studied by Schumacher
and Westmoreland and by Vedral.

Quantum information theory plays fundamental role in the
description of the data transmission through quantum communication channels. At the dawn of this millennium new
problems have arisen, whose solutions are still not known,
and which have opened the door to many new promising
results such as the superactivation of zero-capacity quantum
channels in 2008, and then the superactivation of the zeroerror capacities of the quantum channels in 2009 and 2010.
One of the earliest works on the capacities of quantum
communication channels was published in the early 1970s.
Along with other researchers, Holevo was showed that there
are many differences between the properties of classical and
quantum communication channels, and illustrated this with
the benefits of using entangled input states. Later, he also
stated that quantum communication channels can be used to
transmit both classical and quantum information. Next, many
new quantum protocols were developed, such as teleportation
or superdense coding. After Alexander Holevo published his
work, about thirty years later, he, with Benjamin Schumacher
and Michael Westmoreland presented one of the most important result in quantum information theory, called the HolevoSchumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) theorem [233], [469]. The
HSW-theorem is a generalization of the classical noisy channel coding theorem from classical information theory to a
noisy quantum channel. The HSW theorem is also called the
product-state classical channel capacity theorem of a noisy
quantum channel. The understanding of the classical capacity
of a quantum channel was completed by 1997 by Schumacher
and Westmoreland, and by 1998 by Holevo, and it has tremendous relevance in quantum information theory, since it was the
first to give a mathematical proof that a noisy quantum channel
can be used to transmit classical information in a reliable form.
The HSW theorem was a very important result in the history of
quantum information theory, on the other hand it raised a lot of
questions regarding the transmission of classical information
over general quantum channels.
The quantum capacity of a quantum channel was firstly
formulated by Seth Lloyd in 1996, then by Peter Shor in 2002,
finally it was completed by Igor Devetak in 2003, - the result is
known as the LSD channel capacity [134], [303], [487]. While
the classical capacity of a quantum channel is described by
the maximum of quantum mutual information and the Holevo
information, the quantum capacity of the quantum channels
is described by a completely different correlation measure:
called the quantum coherent information. The concept of
quantum coherent information plays a fundamental role in
the computation of the quantum capacity which measures
the asymptotic quantum capacity of the quantum capacity
in general. For the complete historical background with the
references see the Related Works.
2) Density Matrix and Trace Operator: In this section
we introduce a basic concept of quantum information theory,
called the density matrix.
Before we start to discuss the density matrix, we introduce
some terms. An n×n square matrix A is called positivesemidefinite if hψ| A| ψi is a non-negative real number for
every vector | ψi . If A=A† , i.e., A has Hermitian matrix and
the {λ1 , λ2 , . . .λn } eigenvalues of A are all non-negative real

8

numbers then it is positive-semidefinite. This definition has
important role in quantum information theory, since every
density matrix is positive-semidefinite. It means, for any vector
| ϕi the positive-semidefinite property says that
h ϕ| ρ | ϕi =

n
X

pi hϕ | ψi i hψi | ϕi=

i=1

n
X

2

pi |hϕ | ψi i| ≥0.

i=1

(15)
In (15) we used, the density matrix is denoted by ρ, and it
describes the system by the classical probability weighted sum
of possible states
X
ρ=
pi | ψi i h ψi | ,
(16)
i

where | ψi i is the i-th system state occurring with classical
probability pi . As can be seen, this density matrix describes
the system as a probabilistic mixture of the possible known
states the so called pure states. For pure state | ψi the
density matrix is ρ= | ψi h ψ| and the rank of the matrix is
equal to one. Trivially, classical states e.g. | 0i and | 1i are
pure, however, if we know that our system is prepared to
the superposition √12 (| 0i + | 1i ) then this state is pure, too.
Clearly speaking, while superposition is a quantum linear combination of orthonormal basis states weighted by probability
amplitudes, mixed states are classical linear combination of
pure superpositions (quantum states) weighted by classical
probabilities.
The density matrix contains all the possible information that
can be extracted from the quantum system. It is possible that
two quantum systems possess the same density matrices: in
this case, these quantum systems are called indistinguishable,
since it is not possible to construct a measurement setting,
which can distinguish between the two systems.
The density matrix ρ of a simple pure quantum system which can be given in the state vector representation
| ψi =α | 0i +β | 1i can be expressed as the outer product of
the ket and bra vectors, where brais the transposed complex


α
conjugate of ket, hence for | ψi =
, h ψ| = α∗ β ∗
β
the density matrix is



α  ∗
α β∗
ρ= | ψi h ψ| =
β

 

(17)
2
αα∗ αβ ∗
|α|
αβ ∗
=
=
.
2
α∗ β ββ ∗
α∗ β |β|
Pn
The density matrix ρ= i=1 pi | ψi i h ψi | contains the probabilistic mixture of different pure states, which representation
is based on the fact that the mixed states can be decomposed
into weighted sum of pure states [530].
To reveal important properties of the density matrix, we
introduce the concept of the trace operation. The trace of a
density matrix is equal to the sum of its diagonal entries. For
an n×n square matrix A, the T r trace operator is defined as
T r (A) =a11 +a22 + · · · +ann =

n
X

aii ,

(18)

i=1

where aii are the elements of the main diagonal. The trace
of the matrix A is also equal to the sum of the eigenvalues

of its matrix. The eigenvalue is the factor by which the
eigenvector changes if it is multiplied by the matrix A, for
each eigenvectors. The eigenvectors of the square matrix A
are those non-zero vectors, whose direction remain the same
to the original vector after multiplied by the matrix A. It means,
the eigenvectors remain proportional to the original vector. For
square matrix A, the non-zero vector v is called eigenvector
of A, if there is a scalar λ for which
Av=λv,

(19)

where λ is the eigenvalue of A corresponding to the eigenvector v.
The trace operation gives us the sum of the eigenvalues of positive-semidefinite
A, forP
each eigenvectors, hence
Pn
n
T r (A) = i=1 λi , and T r Ak = i=1 λki . Using the eigenvalues, the spectral decomposition of density matrix ρ can be
expressed as
X
λi | ϕi i h ϕi | ,
(20)
ρ=
i

where | ϕi i are orthonormal vectors.
The trace is a linear map, hence for square matrices A and
B
T r (A+B) =T r (A) +T r (B) ,
(21)
and
T r (sA) =sT r (A) ,

(22)

where s is a scalar. Another useful formula, that for m×n
matrix A and n×m matrix B,
T r (AB) =T r (BA) ,

(23)

which holds for any matrices A and B for which the product
matrix AB is a square matrix, since
T r (AB) =

n
m X
X

Aij Bji =T r (BA) .

(24)

i=1 j=1

Finally, we mention that the trace of a matrix A and the trace
of its transpose AT are equal, hence

T r (A) =T r AT .
(25)
If we take the conjugate transpose A∗ of the m×n matrix A,
then we will find that
T r (A∗ A) ≥0,

(26)

which will be denoted by hA, Ai and it is called the
inner product. For matrices A and B, the inner product
hA, Bi =T r (B ∗ A), which can be used to define the angle
between the two vectors. The inner product of two vectors
will be zero if and only if the vectors are orthogonal.
As we have seen, the trace operation gives the sum of the
eigenvalues of matrix A, this property can be extended to
the density matrix, hence for each eigenvectors λi of density
matrix ρ
n
X
T r (ρ) =
λi .
(27)
i=1

9

Now, having introduced the trace operation, we apply it to a
density
Pn matrix. If we have an n-qubit system being in the state
ρ= i=1 pi | ψi i h ψi | , then
!
n
n
X
X
Tr
pi |ψi i hψi | =
pi T r (|ψi i hψi |)
i=1

i=1

=

n
X

(28)
pi (hψi |ψi i) = 1,

3) Quantum Measurement: Now, let us turn to measurements and their relation to density matrices. Assuming a projective measurement device, defined by measurement operators
- i.e., projectors {Pj }. The projector Pj is a Hermitian matrix,
for which Pj =Pj† and Pj2 =Pj . According to the 3rd Postulate
of Quantum Mechanics the trace operator can be used to give
the probability of outcome j belonging to the operator Pj in
the following way

i=1

where we exploited the relation for unit-length vectors | ψi i
hψi |ψi i ≡ 1.

(29)
After the measurement, the measurement operator Pj leaves
the system in a post measurement state

Thus the trace of any density matrix is equal to one
T r (ρ) = 1.

(30)

The trace operation can help to distinguish pure and mixed
states since for a given pure state ρ

T r ρ2 = 1,
(31)
while for a mixed state σ,

T r σ 2 < 1.
2



Pn

2
i=1 λi

2

(32)


Pn

2
i=1 ωi ,

where T r ρ =
and T r σ =
are the eigenvalues of density matrix σ.
Similarly, for a pure entangled system ρEP R

T r ρ2EP R = 1,

(35)
If the applied transformation is not unitary, a more general
operator denoted by G is introduced, and with the help of this
operator the transform can be written as
n
n
X
X
G (ρ) =
Ai ρA†i =
Ai (pi | ψi i h ψi | ) A†i ,
(36)
†
i=1 Ai Ai =I,

= h0 | ψi T r (| 0i h ψ| ) = h0 | ψi hψ | 0i
∗
2
= h0 | ψi (h0 | ψi) =α·α∗ =|α| ,

(33)

i=1

i=1

Pr [ j= 0| ψ] =T r (Pj ρ) =T r( | 0i h 0| | ψi h ψ| )
| {z }
h0|ψi

The density matrix also can be used to describe the effect
of a unitary transform on the probability distribution of the
system. The probability that the whole quantum system is in
| ψi i can be calculated by the trace operation.
If we apply
Pn
unitary transform U to the state ρ= i=1 pi | ψi i h ψi | , the
effect can be expressed as follows:
!
n
n
X
X

†
pi (U | ψi i ) h ψi | U =U
pi | ψi i h ψi | U † =U ρU † .

Pn

Pn
Pj [ i=1 pi | ψi i h ψi | ] Pj
Pj ρPj
Pj ρPj
Pn
=
=
.
ρj =
T r (Pj [ i=1 pi | ψi i h ψi | ] Pj ) T r (Pj ρPj ) T r (Pj ρ)
(38)
If we have a pure quantum state | ψi =α | 0i +β | 1i , where
α= h0 | ψi and β= h1 | ψi. Using the trace operator, the
measurement probabilities of | 0i and | 1i can be expressed
as

where ωi

while for any mixed subsystem σEP R of the entangled state
(i.e., for a half-pair of the entangled state), we will have

2
T r σEP
(34)
R < 1.

i=1





Pr [ j| Pj ρ] =T r Pj ρPj† =T r Pj† Pj ρ =T r (Pj ρ) . (37)

i=1

where
for every matrices Ai . In this sense,
operator G describes the physically admissible or Completely
Positive Trace Preserving (CPTP) operations. The application
of a CPTP operator G on density matrix ρ will result in a
matrix G (ρ), which in this case is still a density matrix.
Now we can summarize the two most important properties
of density matrices:
1) The density matrix ρ is a positive-semidefinite matrix, see
(15).
2) The trace of any density matrix ρ is equal to 1, see (28).
The properties of a quantum measurement are as follows.

(39)

and
Pr [ j= 1| ψ] =T r (Pj ρ) =T r( | 1i h 1| | ψi h ψ| )
| {z }
h1|ψi

= h1 | ψi T r (| 1i h ψ| ) = h1 | ψi hψ | 1i
∗
2
= h1 | ψi (h1 | ψi) =β·β ∗ =|β| ,

(40)

in accordance with our expectations. Let us assume we have
an orthonormal basis M = {| x1 i h x1 | , . . . , | xn i h xn | } and
an arbitrary (i.e., non-diagonal) density matrix ρ. The set of
Hermitian operators Pi = {| xi i h xi | } satisfies the completeness relation, where Pi = | xi i h xi | is the projector over | xi i ,
i.e., quantum measurement operator Mi = | xi i h xi | is a valid
measurement operator. The measurement operator Mi projects
the input quantum system | ψi to the pure state | xi i from the
orthonormal basis M = {| x1 i h x1 | , . . . , | xn i h xn | }. Now, the
probability that the quantum state | ψi is after the measurement
in basis state | xi i can be expressed as
D

E
ψ| Mi† Mi ψ = h ψ| Pi | ψi


!
n
n
X
X
2
∗
=
xj h xj |  | xi i h xi |
| xl i xl =|xi | .
j=1

(41)

l=1

In the computational basis {| x1 i , . . . , | xn i }, the state of the
quantum system after the measurement can be expressed as
ρ0 =

n
X
i=1

p i | xi i h xi | ,

(42)

10

and the matrix of the quantum state ρ0 will be diagonal in the
computational basis {| xi i }, and can be given by



ρ =


0

p1

0

...

0
..
.

p2
..
.

0
..
.

0

0

0



0
..
.



.



0
pn

(43)

a) Orthonormal Basis Decomposition: Let assume we
have orthonormal basis {| b1 i , | b2 i , . . . , | bn i }, which basis
can be used to rewrite the quantum system | ψi in a unique
decomposition
| ψi =b1 | b1 i +b2 | b2 i + · · · +bn | bn i =

2

αβ ∗
2
|β|

|α|
α∗ β

(50)

with complex bi . Since hψ | ψi = 1, we can express it in the
form
hψ | ψi =

n X
n
X

b∗i bj hbi | bj i=

n
X

i=1 j=1



bi | bi i ,

i=1

To illustrate it, let assume we have an initial (not diagonal)
density matrix in the computational basis {| 0i , | 1i } e.g.
2
2
| ψi =α | 0i +β | 1i with p=|α| and 1−p=|β| as
ρ= | ψi h ψ| =

n
X


,

(44)

2

|bi | =1,

(51)

i=1

where b∗i is the complex conjugate of probability amplitude
2
bi , thus |bi | is the probability pi of measuring the quantum
system | ψi in the given basis state | bi i , i.e.,

and we have orthonormal basis M = {| 0i h 0| , | 1i h 1| }. In this
case, the after-measurement state can be expressed as

2

pi =|bi | .

(52)

 Using (16), (50) and (51) the density matrix of quantum
p 0
.system | ψi can be expressed as
0 1−p
2
2
2
(45)
ρ=|b1 | | b1 i h b1 | +|b2 | | b2 i h b2 | + . . .+|bn | | bn i h bn |
0
P
P
n
2
n
As it can be seen, the matrix of ρ is a diagonal matrix in the
= i=1 |bi | | bi i h bi | = i=1 pi | bi i h bi | .
computational basis {| 0i , | 1i }. Eq. (44) and (45) highlights
(53)
the difference between quantum superpositions (probability This density matrix is a diagonal matrix with the probabilities
amplitude weighted sum) and classical probabilistic mixtures in the diagonal entries
of quantum states.


p1 · · · 0
0
Now, let us see the result of the measurement on the input

.. 
quantum system ρ
 0 p2 0
. 
.
(54)
ρ= 
 .

..
..


1
.
0
0
X
M (ρ) =
Mj ρMj† =M0 ρM0† +M1 ρM1† .
(46)
0 ··· 0
pn
ρ0 =p | 0i h 0| + (1−p) | 1i h 1| =



2

|α|
0

0
2
|β|





=

j=0

For the measurement operators M0 = | 0i h 0| and M1 = | 1i h 1|
the completeness relation holds
Mj Mj† = | 0i h 0|| 0i h 0| + | 1i h 1| | 1i h 1|
1 0
= | 0i h 0| + | 1i h 1| =
=I.
0 1
P1

j=0

(47)

P1
M (ρ) = j=0 Mj ρMj†
= | 0i h 0| ρ | 0i h 0| + | 1i h 1| ρ | 1i h 1|
= | 0i h 0| | ψi h ψ| | 0i h 0| + | 1i h 1| | ψi h ψ| | 1i h 1|
= | 0i h0 | ψi h0 | ψi h 0| + | 1i h1 | ψi h1 | ψi h 1|
2
2
=|h0 | ψi| | 0i h 0| +|h1 | ψi| | 1i h 1|
2
2
=|α| | 0i h 0| +|β| | 1i h 1| =p | 0i h 0| +1−p | 1i h 1| .
(48)
As we have found, after the measurement operation M (ρ),
the off-diagonal entries will have zero values, and they have
no relevance. As follows, the initial input system ρ= | ψi h ψ|
after operation M becomes
ρ=

2

|α|
α∗ β

αβ ∗
2
|β|



M 0

→ρ =



2

|α|
0

0
2
|β|


.

ρij = hbi | ρ| bj i
!
n
n
X
X
= hbi |
pi |bi i hbi | |bj i =
pl hbi |bl i hbl |bj i ,
l=1

l=1

(55)

Using input system ρ= | ψi h ψ| , where | ψi =α | 0i +β | 1i ,
the state after the measurement operation is



The diagonal property of density matrix (53) in (54) can be
checked, since the elements of the matrix can be expressed as

(49)

Pn

where l=1 pi = 1.
b) The Projective and POVM Measurement: The projective measurement is also known as the von Neumann
measurement is formally can be described by the Hermitian
operator Z, which has the spectral decomposition
X
Z=
λm Pm .
(56)
m

where Pm is a projector to the eigenspace of Z with eigenvalue
λm . For the projectors
X
Pm =I,
(57)
m

and they are pairwise orthogonal. The measurement outcome
m corresponds to the eigenvalue λm , with measurement probability
Pr [m |ψi] = hψ| Pm | ψi .
(58)

11

When a quantum system is measured in an orthonormal basis
| mi , then we make a projective measurement with projector
Pm = | mi h m| , thus (56) can be rewritten as
X
Z=
mPm .
(59)
m

The P POVM (Positive Operator Valued Measurement) is
m
intended to select among the non-orthogonal states {| ψi i }i=1
m+1
and defined by a set of POVM operators {Mi }i=1 , where
Mi =Q†i Qi ,

(60)

and since we are not interested in the post-measurement state
the exact knowledge about measurement operator Qi is not
required. For POVM operators Mi the completeness relation
holds,
X
Mi =I.
(61)
i

For the POVM the probability of a given outcome n for the
state | ψi can be expressed as
Pr [i |ψi] = hψ| Mi | ψi .

(63)

where {M1 , . . . ,Mm } are responsible to distinguish m different typically non-orthogonal states i.e., if we observe i∈ [1,m]
on the display of the measurement device we can be sure,
that the result is correct. However, because unknown nonorthogonal states can not be distinguished with probability 1,
we have to introduce an extra measurement operator, Mm+1 ,
as the price of the distinguishability of the m different states
and if we obtain m+1 as measurement results we can say
nothing about | ψi . This operator can be expressed as
Mm+1 =I−

m
X

Mi .

While the wavefunction representation is the full physical
description of a quantum system in the space-time, the tensor
product of multiple copies of two dimensional Hilbert spaces
is its discrete version, with discrete finite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces. The geometrical representation also can be extended
to analyze the geometrical structure of the transmission of
information though a quantum channel, and it also provides a
very useful tool to analyze the capacities of different quantum
channel models.
As it has been mentioned, the Bloch sphere is a geometrical
conception, constructed to represent two-level quantum systems in a more expressive way than is possible with algebraic
tools. The Bloch sphere has unit radius and is defined in a
three-dimensional real vector space. The pure states are on
the surface of the Bloch sphere, while the mixed states are
in the interior of the original sphere. In the Bloch sphere
representation, the state of a single qubit | ψi =α | 0i +β | 1i
can be expressed as


θ
θ
iϕ
iδ
(65)
| ψi =e
cos | 0i +e sin | 1i ,
2
2

(62)

The POVM also can be imagined as a ‘black-box’, which
outputs a number from 1 to m for the given input quantum
state ψ, using the set of operators
{M1 , . . . ,Mm , Mm+1 } ,

G. Geometrical Interpretation of the Density Matrices

(64)

i=1

Such Mm+1 can be always constructed if the states in
m
{| ψn i }n=1 are linearly independent. We note, we will omit
listing operator Mm+1 in further parts of the paper. The
POVM measurement apparatus will be a key ingredient to
distinguish quantum codewords with zero-error, and to reach
the zero-error capacity of quantum channels.
The POVM can be viewed as the most general formula from
among of any possible measurements in quantum mechanics.
Therefore the effect of a projective measurement can be
described by POVM operators, too. Or with other words, the
projective measurements are the special case POVM measurement [244]. The elements of the POVM are not necessarily
orthogonal, and the number of the elements can be larger than
the dimension of the Hilbert space which they are originally
used in.

where δ is the global phase factor, which can be ignored from
the computations, hence the state | ψi in the terms of the angle
θ and ϕ can be expressed as
θ
θ
| ψi = cos | 0i +eiϕ sin | 1i .
2
2

(66)

The Bloch sphere is a very useful tool, since it makes possible
to describe various, physically realized one-qubit quantum
systems, such as the photon polarization, spins or the energy
levels of an atom. Moreover, if we would like to compute
the various channel capacities of the quantum channel, the
geometrical expression of the channel capacity also can be
represented by the Bloch sphere. Before we would introduce
the geometrical calculation of the channel capacities, we
have to start from the geometrical interpretation of density
matrices. The density matrix ρ can then be expressed using
the Pauli matrices (a set of three
matrices
which
 complex


 are
0 1
0 −i
Hermitian and unitary) σX =
, σY =
and
1 0
i 0


1 0
σZ =
as
0 −1
ρ=

1+rX σX +rY σY +rZ σZ
,
2

(67)

where r= (rX , rY , rZ ) = (sinθcosφ, sinθsinφ, cosθ) is the
T
Bloch vector, k(rX , rZ , rY )k ≤1, and σ=(σX , σY , σZ ) . In
the vector representation, the previously shown formula can
be expressed as
1+rσ
ρ=
.
(68)
2
In conclusion, every state can be expressed as linear combinations of the Pauli matrices and according to these Pauli
matrices every state can be interpreted as a point in the
three-dimensional real vector space. If we apply a unitary

12

transformation U to the density matrix ρ, then it can be
expressed as
ρ→ρ0 =U ρU † =

1+U rσU † 1+U rU † σ
=
,
2
2

(69)

and r 0 =U rU † realizes a unitary transformation on r as a
rotation.
A density matrix ρ can be expressed in a ‘weighted form’
of density matrices ρ1 and ρ2 as follows:
ρ=γρ1 + (1−γ) ρ2 ,

(70)

where 0≤γ≤1, and ρ1 and ρ2 are pure states, and lie on a line
segment connecting the density matrices in the Bloch sphere
representation. Using probabilistic mixtures of the pure density
matrices, any quantum state which lies between the two states
can be expressed as a convex combination
ρ=pρ1 + (1−p) ρ2 , 0≤p≤1.

(71)

This remains true for an arbitrary number of quantum states,
hence this result can be expressed for arbitrary number of
density matrices. Mixed quantum states can be represented
as statistical mixtures of pure quantum states. The statistical
representation of a pure state is unique. On the other hand we
note that the decomposition of a mixed quantum state is not
unique. In the geometrical interpretation a pure state ρ is on the
surface of the Bloch sphere, while the mixed state σ is inside.
A maximally mixed quantum state, σ= 12 I, can be found in the
center of the Bloch sphere. The mixed state can be expressed
as probabilistic mixture of pure states {ρ1 , ρ2 } and {ρ3 , ρ4 }.
As it has been stated by von Neumann, the decomposition of
a mixed state is not unique, since it can be expressed as a
mixture of {ρ1 , ρ2 } or equivalently of {ρ3 , ρ4 }.
One can use a pure state ρ to recover mixed state σ
from it, after the effects of environment (E) are traced out.
With the help of the partial trace operator, Bob, the receiver,
can decouple the environment from his mixed state, and the
original state can be recovered by discarding the effects of
the P
environment. If Bob’s state is a probabilistic mixture
σ= i pi | ϕi i h ϕi | , then a global pure purification state | Ψi
exists, which from Bob’s state can be expressed as
σ=T rE | Ψi h Ψ| .

(72)

Note, density matrix σ can be recovered from | Ψi after
discarding the environment. The decoupling of the environment can be achieved with the T rE operator. For any unitary
transformation of the environment, the pure state | Ψi is a
unique state.
We have seen, that the decomposition of mixed quantum
states into pure quantum states is not unique, hence for
example, it can be easily verified by the reader, that the
decomposition of a mixed state σ= 12 (| 0i h 0| + | 1i h 1| ) can
be made with pure
n states {| 0i , | 1i }, and also can
o be given
1
1
√
√
with pure states
(| 0i + | 1i ) , 2 (| 0i − | 1i ) . Here, we
2
have just changed the basis from rectilinear to diagonal, and
we have used just pure states - and it resulted in the same
mixed quantum state.

H. Channel System Description
If we are interested in the origin of noise (randomness) in
the quantum channel the model should be refined in the following way: Alice’s register X, the purification state P, channel
input A, channel output B, and the environment state E. The
input system A is described by a quantum system ρx , which
occurs on the input with probability pX (x). They together
form an ensemble denoted by {pX (x) , ρx }x∈X , where x is
a classical variable from the register X. In the preparation
process, Alice generates pure states ρx according to random
variable x, i.e., the input density operator can be expressed
as ρx = | xi h x| , where the classical states {| xi }x∈X form
an orthonormal basis. According to the elements of Alice’s
register X, the input system can be characterized by the
quantum system
X
X
ρA =
pX (x) ρx =
pX (x) | xi h x| .
(73)
x∈X

x∈X

The system description is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The system state ρx with the corresponding probability
distribution pX (x) can be indentified by a set of measurement
operators M ={| xi h x| }x∈X . If the density operators ρx in ρA
are mixed, the probability distribution pX (x) and the classical
variable x from the register X cannot be indentified by the
measurement operators M ={| xi h x| }x∈X , since the system
state ρx is assumed to be a mixed or in a non-orthonormal
state. Alice’s register X and the quantum system A can be
viewed as a tensor product system as
{pX (x) , | xi h x| X ⊗ρxA }x∈X ,

(74)

where the classical variable x is correlated with the quantum
system ρx , using orthonormal basis {| xi }x∈X . Alice’s register
X represents a classical variable, the channel input system is
generated corresponding to the register X in the form of a
quantum state, and it is described by the density operator ρxA .
The input system A with respect to the register X, is described
by the density operator
X
ρXA =
pX (x) | xi h x| X ⊗ρxA ,
(75)
x∈X

ρxA = | ψx i

where
h ψx | A is the density matrix representation
of Alice’s input state | ψx i A .
1) Purification: The purification gives us a new viewpoint
on the noise of the quantum channel. Assuming Alice’s side
A and Alice’s register X, the spectral decomposition of the
density operator ρA can be expressed as
X
ρA =
pX (x) |xi hx|A ,
(76)
x

where pX (x) is the probability of variable x in Alice’s register
X. The {pX (x) , | xi } together is called an ensemble, where
| xi is a quantum state according to classical variable x.
Using the set of orthonormal basis vectors {|xiP }x∈X of the
purification system P, the purification of (76) can be given in
the following way:
Xp
pX (x)| xi P | xi A .
(77)
| ϕi P A =
x

13

Fig. 5: Detailed model of a quantum communication channel exposing the interaction with the environment. Alice’s register
is denoted by X, the input system is A while P is the purification state. The environment of the channel is denoted by E, the
output of the channel is B. The quantum channel has positive classical capacity if and only if the channel output system B
will be correlated with Alice’s register X.
From the purified system state | ϕi P A , the original system
state ρA can be expressed with the partial trace operator (see
Appendix) T rP (·), which operator traces out the purification
state from the system
ρA =T rP (| ϕi h ϕ| P A ) .

(78)

i

From joint system (77) and the purified state (78), one can
introduce a new definition. The extension of ρA can be given
as
ρA =T rP (ωP A ) ,

(79)

where ωP A is the joint system of purification state P and
channel input A [538], which represents a noisy state.
2) Isometric Extension: Isometric extension has utmost
importance, because it helps us to understand what happens
between the quantum channel and its environment whenever
a quantum state is transmitted from Alice to Bob. Since the
channel and the environment together form a closed physical
system the isometric extension of the quantum channel N is
the unitary representation of the channel
N :UA→BE ,

(80)

enabling the ‘one-sender and two-receiver’ view: beside Alice
the sender, both Bob and the environment of the channel
are playing the receivers. In other words, the output of the
noisy quantum channel N can be described only after the
environment of the channel is traced out
ρB =T rE (UA→BE (ρA )) =N (ρA ) .

3) Kraus Representation: The map of the quantum channel
can also be expressed by means of a special tool called
the Kraus Representation. For a given input system ρA and
quantum channel N , this representation can be expressed as
X
N (ρA ) =
Ni ρA Ni† ,
(82)

(81)

P
where Ni are the Kraus operators, and i Ni† Ni =I. The isometric extension of N by means of the Kraus Representation
can be expressed as
X
X
ρB =N (ρA ) =
Ni ρA Ni† →UA→BE (ρA ) =
Ni ⊗| ii E .
i

i

(83)
The action of the quantum channel N on an operator | ki h l| ,
where {| ki } form an orthonormal basis also can be given
in operator form using the Kraus operator Nkl =N (| ki h l| ).
By exploiting the property U U † =PBE , for the input quantum
system ρA
ρB =UA→BE (ρA ) =UρA U †

P
P
†
= ( i Ni ⊗| ii E ) ρA
N
⊗h
j|
j
j
E
P
= i,j Ni ρA Nj† ⊗ | ii h j| E .

(84)

If we trace out the environment, we get the equivalence of the
two representations
X
Ni ρA Ni† .
(85)
ρB =T rE (UA→BE (ρA )) =
i

4) The von Neumann Entropy: Quantum information processing exploits the quantum nature of information. It offers
fundamentally new solutions in the field of computer science

14

and extends the possibilities to a level that cannot be imagined
in classical communication systems. On the other hand, it
requires the generalization of classical information theory
through a quantum perception of the world. As Shannon
entropy plays fundamental role in classical information theory,
the von Neumann entropy does the same for quantum information. The von Neumann entropy S (ρ) of quantum state ρ can
be viewed as an extension of classical entropy for quantum
systems. It measures the information of the quantum states in
the form of the uncertainty of a quantum state. The classical
Shannon entropy H (X) of a variable X with probability
distribution p (X) can be defined as
X
H (X) = −
p (x)log (p (x)) ,
(86)
x∈X

with 1≤H (X) ≤log (|X|), where |X| is the cardinality of the
set X.
The von Neumann entropy
S (ρ) = −T r (ρlog (ρ))

(87)

measures the information contained in the quantum system ρ.
Furthermore S (ρ) can be expressed by means of the Shannon
entropy for the eigenvalue distribution
S (ρ) =H (λ) = −

d
X

λi log (λi ),

(88)

i=1

where d is the level of the quantum system and λi are the
eigenvalues of density matrix ρ.
5) The Holevo Quantity: The Holevo bound determines the
amount of information that can be extracted from a single qubit
state. If Alice sends a quantum state ρi with probability pi over
an ideal quantum channel, then at Bob’s receiver a mixed state
X
ρB =ρA =
p i ρi
(89)
i

appears. Bob constructs a measurement {Mi } to extract the
information encoded in the quantum states. If he applies
the measurement to ρA , the probability distribution
of Bob’s

†
classical symbol B will be Pr [ b| ρA ] =T r Mb Mb ρA . As
had been shown by Holevo [231], the bound for the maximal
classical mutual information between Alice and Bob is
X
I (A:B) ≤S (ρA ) −
pi S (ρi )≡χ,
(90)
i

where χ is called the Holevo quantity, and (90) known as the
Holevo bound.
In classical information theory and classical communication
systems, the mutual information I (A:B) is bounded only
by the classical entropy of H (A), hence I (A:B) ≤H (A).
The mutual information I (A:B) is bounded by the classical
entropy of H (A), hence I (A:B) ≤H (A). On the other hand,
for mixed states and pure non-orthogonal states the Holevo
quantity χ can be greater than the mutual information I (A:B),
however, it is still bounded by H (A), which is the bound for
the pure orthogonal states
I (A:B) ≤χ≤H (A) .

(91)

The Holevo bound highlights the important fact that one qubit
can contain at most one classical bit i.e., cbit of information.

6) Quantum Conditional Entropy: While the classical conditional entropy function is always takes a non negative value,
the quantum conditional entropy can be negative. The quantum
conditional entropy between quantum systems A and B is given
by
S ( A| B) = S (ρAB ) −S (ρB ) .
(92)
If we have two uncorrelated subsystems ρA and ρB , then the
information of the quantum system ρA does not contain any
information about ρB , or reversely, thus
S (ρAB ) =S (ρA ) +S (ρB ) ,

(93)

hence
we
get
S ( A| B) =S (ρA ),
and
similarly
S ( B| A) = S (ρB ). The negative property of conditional
entropy S ( A| B) can be demonstrated with an entangled
state, since in this case, the joint quantum entropy of the
joint state less than the sum of the von Neumann entropies
of its individual components. For a pure entangled state,
S (ρAB ) = 0, while S (ρA ) = S (ρB ) = 1 since the two qubits
are in maximally mixed 21 I state, which is classically totally
unimaginable. Thus, in this case
S ( A| B) = −S (ρB ) ≤0,

(94)

and S ( B| A) = −S (ρA ) ≤0 and S (ρA ) = S (ρB ).
7) Quantum Mutual Information: The classical mutual information I (·) measures the information correlation between
random variables A and B. In analogue to classical information
theory, I (A:B) can be described by the quantum entropies of
individual states and the von Neumann entropy of the joint
state as follows:
I (A:B) = S (ρA ) +S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ) ≥0,

(95)

i.e., the quantum mutual information is always a non negative
function. However, there is a distinction between classical and
quantum systems, since the quantum mutual information can
take its value above the maximum of the classical mutual
information. This statement can be confirmed, if we take
into account that for an pure entangled quantum system, the
quantum mutual information is
I (A:B) = S (ρA ) +S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ) = 1 + 1 − 0 = 2, (96)
and we can rewrite this equation as
I (A:B) = 2S (ρA ) = 2S (ρB ) .

(97)

For some pure joint system ρAB , the equation (97) can be
satisfied such that S (ρA ) = S (ρB ) and S (ρAB ) =0.
If we use entangled states, the quantum mutual information
could be 2, while the quantum conditional entropies could be
2. In classical information theory, negative entropies can be
obtained only in the case of mutual information of three or
more systems. An important property of maximized quantum
mutual information: it is always additive for a quantum
channel.
The character of classical information and quantum information is significantly different. There are many phenomena in
quantum systems which cannot be described classically, such
as entanglement, which makes it possible to store quantum
information in the correlation of quantum states. Similarly, a

15

quantum channel can be used with pure orthogonal states to
realize classical information transmission, or it can be used to
transmit non-orthogonal states or even quantum entanglement.
Information transmission also can be approached using the
question, whether the input consists of unentangled or entangled quantum states. This leads us to say that for quantum
channels many new capacity definitions exist in comparison
to a classical communication channel. In possession of the
general communication model and the quantities which are
able to represent information content of quantum states we
can begin to investigate the possibilities and limitations of
information transmission through quantum channels [304].
8) Quantum Relative Entropy: The quantum relative entropy measures the informational distance between quantum
states, and introduces a deeper characterization of the quantum
states than the von Neumann entropy. Similarly to the classical
relative entropy, this quantity measures the distinguishability
of the quantum states, in practice it can be realized by POVM
measurements. The relative entropy classically is a measure
that quantifies how close a probability distribution p is to a
model or candidate probability distribution q. For probability
distributions p and q, the classical relative entropy is given by
 
X
pi
,
(98)
D ( pk q) =
pi log
qi
i
while the quantum relative entropy between quantum states ρ
and σ is
D ( ρk σ)=T r (ρlog (ρ)) −T r (ρlog (σ))
=T r [ρ (log (ρ) −log (σ))] .

(99)

In the definition above, the term T r (ρlog (σ)) is finite only if
ρlog (σ) ≥0 for all diagonal matrix elements. If this condition
is not satisfied, then D ( ρk σ) could be infinite, since the trace
of the second term could go to infinity.
The quantum informational distance (i.e., quantum relative
entropy) has some distance-like properties (for example, the
quantum relative entropy function between a maximally mixed
state and an arbitrary quantum state is symmetric, hence in
this case it is not just a pseudo distance), however it is
not commutative, thus D (ρ kσ ) 6=D (σ kρ ) , and D (ρ kσ ) ≥0
iff ρ6=σ, and D (ρ kσ ) = 0 iff ρ=σ. Note, if σ has zero
eigenvalues, D (ρ kσ ) may diverge, otherwise it is a finite
and continuous function. Furthermore, the quantum relative
entropy function has another interesting property, since if we
have two density matrices ρ and σ, then the following property
holds for the traces used in the expression of D (ρ kσ )
T r (ρlog (ρ)) ≥T r (ρlog (σ)) .

(100)

The symmetric Kullback-Leibler distance is widely used in
classical systems, for example in computer vision and sound
processing. Quantum relative entropy reduces to the classical
Kullback-Leibler relative entropy for simultaneously diagonalizable matrices.
We note, the quantum mutual information can be defined
by quantum relative entropy D ( ·k ·). This quantity can be
regarded as the informational distance between the tensor

product of the individual subsystems ρA ⊗ρB , and the joint
state ρAB as follows:
I (A:B) =D ( ρAB k ρA ⊗ρB ) = S (ρA ) +S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ) .
(101)
9) Quantum Rényi-Entropy: As we have seen, the quantum
informational entropy can be defined by the S (ρ) von Neumann entropy function. On the other hand, another entropy
function can also be defined in the quantum domain, it is called
the Rényi-entropy and denoted by R (ρ). This function has
relevance mainly in the description of quantum entanglement.
The Rényi-entropy function is defined as follows
R (ρ) =

1
T r(ρr ),
1−r

(102)

where r≥0, while R (ρ) is equal to the von Neumann entropy
function S (ρ) if
lim R (ρ) = S (ρ) .
(103)
r→1

If parameter r converges to infinity, then we have
lim R (ρ) = −log (kρk) .

r→∞

(104)

On the other hand if r= 0 then R (ρ) can be expressed from
the rank of the density matrix
R (ρ) = log (rank (ρ)) .

(105)

I. Related Work
The field of quantum information processing is a rapidly
growing field of science, however there are still many challenging questions and problems. These most important results
will be discussed in further sections, but these questions cannot
be exposited without a knowledge of the fundamental results
of quantum information theory.
1) Early Years of quantum information theory: quantum
information theory extends the possibilities of classical information theory, however for some questions, it gives extremely
different answers. The advanced communications and quantum
networking technologies offered by quantum information processing will revolutionize traditional communication and networking methods. Classical information theory— was founded
by Claude Shannon in 1948 [209], [477]. In Shannon’s paper
the mathematical framework of communication was invented,
and the main definitions and theorems of classical information
theory were laid down. On the other hand, classical information theory is just one part of quantum information theory.
The other, missing part is the Quantum Theory, which was
completely finalized in 1926.
The results of quantum information theory are mainly based
on the results of von Neumann, who constructed the mathematical background of quantum mechanics [395]. An interesting—
and less well known—historical fact is that quantum entropy
was discovered by Neumann before the classical information
theoretic concept of entropy. Quantum entropy was discovered
in the 1930s, based on the older idea of entropy in classical
Statistical Mechanics, while the classical information theoretic
concept was discovered by Shannon only later, in 1948. It is
an interesting note, since the reader might have thought that

16

quantum entropy is an extension of the classical one, however
it is not true. Classical entropy, in the context of Information
Theory, is a special case of von Neumann’s quantum entropy.
Moreover, the name of Shannon’s formula was proposed by
von Neumann. Further details about the history of Quantum
Theory, and the main results of physicists from the first
half of the twentieth century——such as Planck, Einstein,
Schrödinger, Heisenberg, or Dirac——can be found in the
works of Misner et al. [325], McEvoy [318], Sakurai [454],
Griffiths [190] or Bohm [76].
‘Is quantum mechanics useful’— asked by Landauer in 1995
[291]. Well, having the results of this paper in our hands, we
can give an affirmative answer: definitely yes. An interesting
work about the importance of quantum mechanical processes
was published by Dowling [144]. Some fundamental results
from the very early days of Quantum Mechanics can be found
in [92], [141], [152], [153], [175], [225], [441], [458], [459],
[512]. About the early days of Information Theory see the
work of Pierce [440]. A good introduction to Information
Theory can be found in the work of Yeung [560]. More
information about the connection of Information Theory and
statistical mechanics can be found in work of Aspect from
1981 [23], in the book of Jaynes [251] or Petz [428]. The
elements of classical information theory and its mathematical
background were summarized in a very good book by Cover
[116]. On matrix analysis a great work was published by Horn
and Johnson [234].
A very good introduction to quantum information theory
was published by Bennett and Shor [65]. The idea that the
results of quantum information theory can be used to solve
computational problems was first claimed by Deutsch in 1985
[133].
Later in the 90s, the answers to the most important questions
of quantum information theory were answered, and the main
elements and the fundamentals of this field were discovered. Details about the simulation of quantum systems and
the possibility of encoding quantum information in physical
particles can be found in Feynman’s work from 1982 [160].
Further information on quantum simulators and continuoustime automata can be found in the work of Vollbrecht and
Cirac [526].
2) Quantum Coding and Quantum Compression: The next
milestone in quantum information theory is Schumacher’s
work from 1995 [466] in which he introduced the term, ‘qubit.’
In [465, 466, 467, 468] the main theories of quantum source
coding and the quantum compression were presented. The
details of quantum data compression and quantum typical
subspaces can be found in [466]. In this paper, Schumacher
extended those results which had been presented a year before,
in 1994 by Schumacher and Jozsa on a new proof of quantum
noiseless coding, for details see [464]. Schumacher in 1995
also defined the quantum coding of pure quantum states; in
the same year, Lo published a paper in which he extended
these result to mixed quantum states, and he also defined an
encoding scheme for it [306]. Schumacher’s results from 1995
on the compression of quantum information [466] were the
first main results on the encoding of quantum information——
its importance and significance in quantum information theory

is similar to Shannon’s noiseless channel coding theorem
in classical information theory. In this work, Schumacher
also gives upper and lower bounds on the rate of quantum
compression. We note, that the mathematical background of
Schumacher proof is very similar to Shannon’s proof, as the
reader can check in [466] and in Shannon’s proof [477].
The method of sending classical bits via quantum bits was
firstly completed by Schumacher et al. in their famous paper
form 1995, see [465]. In the same year, an important paper on
the encoding of information into physical particles was published by Schumacher [465, 466]. The fundaments of noiseless
quantum coding were laid down by Schumacher, one year
later, in 1996 [467, 468]. In 1996, many important results were
published by Schumacher and his colleges. These works cover
the discussion of the relation of entropy exchange and coherent
quantum information, which was completely unknown before
1996. The theory of processing of quantum information, the
transmission of entanglement over a noisy quantum channel,
the error-correction schemes with the achievable fidelity limits,
or the classical information capacity of a quantum channel
with the limits on the amount of accessible information in
a quantum channel were all published in the same year. For
further information on the fidelity limits and communication
capabilities of a noisy quantum channel, see the work of
Barnum et al. also from 1996 [45]. In 1997, Schumacher and
Westmoreland completed their proof on the classical capacity
of a quantum channel, and they published in their famous
work, for details see [469]. These results were extended in
their works from 1998, see [470-472]. On the experimental
side of fidelity testing see the work of Radmark et al. [446].
About the limits for compression of quantum information carried by ensembles of mixed states, see the work of
Horodecki [240]. An interesting paper about the quantum
coding of mixed quantum states was presented by Barnum et
al. [42]. Universal quantum compression makes it possible to
compress quantum information without the knowledge about
the information source itself which emits the quantum states.
Universal quantum information compression was also investigated by Jozsa et al. [258], and an extended version of Jozsa
and Presnell [256]. Further information about the technique
of universal quantum data compression can be found in the
article of Bennett et al. [56]. The similarity of the two schemes
follows from the fact that in both cases we compress quantum
information, however in the case of Schumacher’s method we
do not compress entanglement. The two compression schemes
are not equal to each other, however in some cases——if
running one of the two schemes fails——they can be used
to correct the errors of the other, hence they can be viewed
as auxiliary protocols of each other. Further information about
the mathematical background of the processes applied in the
compression of quantum information can be found in Elias’s
work [155].
A good introduction to quantum error-correction can be
found in the work of Gottesman, for details see [188]. A
paper about classical data compression with quantum side
information was published by Devetak and Winter [134]. We
note that there is a connection between the compression of
quantum information and the concentration of entanglement,

17

however the working method of Schumacher’s encoding and
the process of entanglement concentrating are completely
different. Benjamin Schumacher and Richard Jozsa published
a very important paper in 1994 [464]. Here, the authors were
the first to give an explicit proof of the quantum noiseless
coding theorem, which was a milestone in the history of
quantum computation. Further information on Schumacher’s
noiseless quantum channel coding can be found in [464].
The basic coding theorems of quantum information theory
were summarized by Winter in 1999 [547]. In this work,
he also analyzed the possibilities of compressing quantum
information. A random coding based proof for the quantum
coding theorem was shown by Klesse in 2008 [277]. A very
interesting article was presented by Horodecki in 1998 [240],
about the limits for the compression of quantum information
into mixed states. On the properties of indeterminate-length
quantum coding see the work of Schumacher and Westmoreland [461].
The quantum version of the well-known Huffman coding
can be found in the work of Braunstein et al. from 2000
[88]. Further information about the compression of quantum
information and the subspaces can be found in [169], [223],
and [224]. The details of quantum coding for mixed states can
be found in the work of Barnum et al. [42].
3) Quantum Entanglement: Entanglement is one of the
most important differences between the classical and the
quantum worlds. An interesting paper on communication via
one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
states was published in 1992, by Bennett [58]. About the
history of entanglement see the paper of Einstein, Podolsky
and Rosen from 1935 [153]. In this manuscript, we did
not give a complete mathematical background of quantum
entanglement—further details on this topic can be found in
Nielsen’s book [403] or by Hayashi [220], or in an very
good article published by the four Horodeckis in 2009 [239].
We have seen that entanglement concentration can be applied
to generate maximally mixed entangled states. We also gave
the asymptotic rate at which entanglement concentration can
be made, it is called the entropy of entanglement and we
expressed it in an explicit form. A very important paper on
the communication cost of entanglement transformations was
published by Hayden and Winter, for details see [221]. The
method of entanglement concentration was among the first
quantum protocols, for details see the work of Bennett et al.
from 1996 [63]. The method of Bennett’s was improved by
Nielsen in 1999, [405]. A very important work on variable
length universal entanglement concentration by local operations and its application to teleportation and dense coding was
published by Hayashi and Matsumoto [217]. The entanglement
cost of antisymmetric states was studied by [317].
The calculation of entanglement-assisted classical capacity
requires a superdense protocol-like encoding and decoding
strategy,——we did not explain its working mechanism in
detail, further information can be found in the work of Bennett
et al. [54]. A paper about the compression of quantummeasurement operations was published by Winter and Massar
in 2001 [543]. Later, in 2004, Winter extended these results
[544]. Here we note, these results are based on the work of

Ahlswede and Winter [8].
The definition of a conditionally typical subspace in quantum information was given by Schumacher and Westmoreland
in 1997 [469]. Holevo also introduced it in 1998 [233].
We did not explain in detail entanglement concentrating [63], entanglement transformations [405], or entanglement generation, entanglement distribution and quantum
broadcasting,——further information can be found in [217],
[221], [241], [542], [555], [556]. About the classical communication cost of entanglement manipulation see the work of Lo
and Popescu from 1999 [307]. The fact that noncommuting
mixed states cannot be broadcast was shown by Barnum et al.
in 1995, see [44].
Lo and Popescu also published a work on concentrating
entanglement by local actions in 2001, for details see [305].
About the purification of noisy entanglement see the article of
Bennett et al. from 1996 [62]. The entanglement purification
protocol was a very important result, since it will have great
importance in the quantum capacity of a quantum channel.
(However, when the authors have developed the entanglement
purification scheme, this connection was still not completely
cleared.)
About the quantum networks for concentrating entanglement and the distortion-free entanglement concentration, further information can be found in the paper of Kaye and Mosca
from 2001 [262]. In 2005, Devetak and Winter have shown,
that there is a connection between the entanglement distillation
and the quantum coherent information, which measure has
tremendous relevance in the quantum capacity of the quantum
channels, for details see [137, 137]. An interesting paper about
distortion-free entanglement concentration was published by
Kohout et al. in 2009 [281]. The method presented in that
paper gives an answer to streaming universal. We did not
mentioned the inverse protocol of entanglement concentration
which is called entanglement dilution, for further details see
the works of Lo and Popescu from 1999 [307] and 2001 [305],
and Harrow and Lo’s work from 2004 [213]. Harrow and Lo
have also given an explicit solution of the communication
cost of the problem of entanglement dilution, which was
an open question until 2004. Their results are based on the
previous work of Hayden and Winter from 2003, for details
see [221]. The typical entanglement in stabilizer states was
studied by Smith and Leung, see [495]. The teleportationbased realization of a two-qubit entangling gate was shown
by Gao et al. [173].
4) Quantum Channels: About the statistical properties of
the HSW theory and the general HSW capacity, a very interesting paper was published by Hayashi and Nagaoka in 2003
[218]. As we have seen, some results of quantum information
theory are similar to the results of classical information theory,
however many things have no classical analogue. As we
have found in this section, the Holevo theorem gives an
information-theoretic meaning to the von Neumann entropy,
however it does not make it possible to use it in the case
of the interpretation of von Neumann entropy of physical
macrosystems. Further properties of the von Neumann entropy
function was studied by Audenaert in 2007 [25].
The concept of quantum mutual information measures the

18

classical information which can be transmitted through a
noisy quantum channel (originally introduced by Adami and
Cerf [4]) however it cannot be used to measure the maximal
transmittable quantum information. The maximized quantum
mutual information is always additive, however this is not
true for the Holevo information. In this case, the entanglement
makes non-additive the Holevo information, but it has no effect
on the quantum mutual information. Further information about
the mathematical background of these ‘strange’ phenomena
can be found in the work of Adami from 1996 [4] or in the
book of Hayashi from 2006 [220]. A very good book on these
topics was published by Petz in 2008 [428].
For the properties of Holevo information and on the capacity
of quantum channels see the works of Holevo [231], [233],
Schumacher and Westmoreland [464, 465, 466, 467, 468,
469], Horodecki [237], Datta [127], Arimoto [18]. On the
geometrical interpretation of the maps of a quantum channel
see the works of Cortese [114], Petz [427-433], [435], Hiai
[229].
On physical properties of quantum communication channels
the work of Levitin [295], on the capacities of quantum
communication channels see Bennett [64], DiVincenzo [142],
Schumacher [469], Fuchs [165]. In 1997, Barnum, Smolin and
Terhal also summarized the actual results on quantum channel,
see [47].
The mathematical background of distinguishing arbitrary
multipartite basis unambiguously was shown by Duan et al.
[146].)
In 2010, Dupis et al. [148] published a paper in which
they described a protocol for quantum broadcast quantum
channel, then Jon Yard et al. published a paper on quantum
broadcast channels [557]. Before these results, in 2007, an
important practical result on broadcasting was shown by Guha
et al. [192], [193], who demonstrated the classical capacity
of practical (bosonic) quantum channels. General quantum
protocols—such as super-dense coding and teleportation—are
not described in this article. Further information about these
basic quantum protocols can be found in the book of Hayashi
from 2006 [220], in the book of Nielsen and Chuang [403],
or in the paper of Bennett and Wiesner [58], and [59], (both
papers from 1992),, and Bennett’s paper from 1993 [60].
A very good overview of the capacity of quantum channels was presented by Smith in 2010, see [504]. About
the information tradeoff relations for finite-strength quantum
measurements, see the works of [163]. On the mathematical
background of quantum communication see the works of
[435], Ruskai et al. [451], and [219], [525]. The generalized
Pauli channels are summarized by Ohno and Petz in [408].
The relative entropy function was introduced by Solomon
Kullback and Richard Leibler in 1951 [285]. Another interpretation of the relative entropy function was introduced by
Bregman, known as the class of Bregman divergences [89].
A very important paper about the role of relative entropy in
quantum information theory was published by Schumacher
and Westmoreland in 2000 [463]. The quantum relative entropy function was originally introduced by Umegaki, and
later modified versions have been defined by Ohya, Petz and
Watanbe [409]. Some possible applications of quantum relative

entropy in quantum information processing were introduced by
Vedral [524].
About the negativity of quantum information see the works
of Horodecki et al. [237], [238]. About the use of entanglement
in quantum information theory, see the work of Li et al.
from 2010, [297], [299]. A method for measuring two-qubit
entanglement by local operations and classical communication
was shown by Bai et al. in 2005 [40]. About the additivity
of the capacity of quantum channels see [167], [274] and
[488]. A very good paper on the Holevo capacity of finite
dimensional quantum channels and the role of additivity
problem in quantum information theory was published by
Shirokov [486]. A great summary of classical and quantum
information theory can be found in the book of Desurvire
from 2009 [132]. The bounds for the quantity of information
transmittable by a quantum communication channel was analyzed by Holevo in 1973, see [231]. About sending classical
information via noisy quantum channels, see the works of
Schumacher and Jozsa [464], Schumacher from 1996 [467,
468], and Schumacher and Westmoreland from 1997 [469]
and Smith’s summarize [504]. The mathematical background
of classical relative entropy function can be found in the works
of Kullback and Leibler [285], [286], and [288]. For the details
of Bregman distance see [89] and [41]. Further information
about the Kraft-McMillan inequality can be found in [284],
[319] and [116].
For research on satellite quantum communications, see [35,
36, 37, 38], [172]. For research results on quantum repeaters
see [32], [74], [90], [150], [254], [289], [309], [330-332],
[455], [520, 521, 522, 523], and [563]. For some further
research topic on quantum channels see [34], [419, 420], [194197,198-199, 200, 201, 202-205, 206], [246].
5) Comprehensive Surveys: A reader who is interested in
the complete mathematical background of quantum information theory can find the details for example in Nielsen and
Chuang’s book [403]. For a general introduction to the quantum information theory and its applications see the excellent
book of Hayashi [220]. We also suggest the book of Imre
from 2005, see [244]. A very good introduction to quantum
information theory was published by Bennett and Shor, for
details see [65]. Also in 1998, Preskill summarized the actual
state of quantum information theory in the form of lecture
notes [443]. Preskill also summarized the conditions of reliable
quantum computers, for details see [444]. Also in 1998, a1998,
a good work on the basics of quantum computations and the
mathematical formalism was published by Vedral and Plenio
[525] and by Nielsen [404]. On the mathematical background
of quantum information processing, see the works of Shor
[491, 492, 493], [494], [487], and [489]. The description of
classical data compression can be found in the very good book
of Cover and Thomas [116], or in the book of Berger [71]. We
also suggest the work of Stinespring [510]. A very important
result regarding the compression of classical information was
published by Csiszár and Körner in 1978 [117], and later
the authors published a great book about coding theorems
for discrete memoryless systems [118]. A work on the nonadditivity of Renyi entropy was published by Aubrun et al.
[24]. On the connection of quantum entanglement and classi-

19

cal communication through a depolarizing channel see [93].
Regarding the results of quantum Shannon theory, we suggest
the great textbook of Wilde [538]. The structure of random
quantum channels, eigenvalue statistics and entanglement of
random subspaces are discussed in [110], [111]. Finally, for
an interesting viewpoint on ‘topsy turvy world of quantum
computing’ see [329].
III. C LASSICAL C APACITIES OF A Q UANTUM C HANNEL
Communication over quantum channels is bounded by the
corresponding capacities. Now, we lay down the fundamental
theoretic results on classical capacities of quantum channels.
These results are all required to analyze the advanced and
more promising properties of quantum communications.
This section is organized as follows. In the first part, we
introduce the reader to formal description of a noisy quantum
channel. Then we start to discuss the classical capacity of
a quantum channel. Next, we show the various encoder and
decoder settings for transmission of classical information.
We define the exact formula for the measure of maximal
transmittable classical information. Finally, we discuss some
important channel maps.
The most relevant works are included in the Related Work
subsection.
A. Extended Formal Model
The discussed model is general enough to analyze the
limitations for information transfer over quantum channels.
However, later we will investigate special quantum channels
which models specific physical environment. Each quantum
channel can be represented as a CPTP map (Completely
Positive Trace Preserving), hence the process of information
transmission through a quantum communication channel can
be described as a quantum operation.
The general model of a quantum channel describes the
transmission of an input quantum bit, and its interaction with
the environment (see Fig. 6. Assuming Alice sends quantum
state ρA into the channel this state becomes entangled with
the environment ρE , which is initially in a pure state | 0i . For
a mixed input state a so called purification state P can be
defined, from which the original mixed state can be restored
by a partial trace (see Appendix) of the pure system ρA P .
The unitary operation UAE of a quantum channel N entangles
ρA P with the environment ρE , and outputs Bob’s mixed state
as ρB (and the purification state as P ). The purification state
is a reference system, it cannot be accessed, it remains the
same after the transmission.
The output of the noisy quantum channel is denoted by
ρB , the post state of the environment by ρE , while the postpurification state after the output realized on the channel output
is depicted by P .
B. Capacity of Classical Channels
Before we start to investigate quantum channels, we survey
the results of transmitting information over classical noisy

channels. In order to achieve reliable (error-free) information
transfer we use the so called channel coding which extends the
payload (useful) information bits with redundancy bits so that
at the receiver side Bob will be able to correct some amount
of error by means of this redundancy.
The channel is given an input A, and maps it probabilistically (it is a stochastic mapping, not a unitary or deterministic
transformation) to an output B, and the probability of this
mapping is denoted by p ( B| A).
The channel capacity C (N ) of a classical memoryless
communication channel N gives an upper bound on the number
of classical bits which can be transmitted per channel use,
in reliable manner, i.e., with arbitrarily small error at the
receiver. As it has been proven by Shannon the capacity C (N )
of a noisy classical memoryless communication channel N,
can be expressed by means of the maximum of the mutual
information I (A:B) over all possible input distributions p (x)
of random variable X
C (N ) = max I (A:B) .
p(x)

(106)

In order to make the capacity definition more plausible let us
consider Fig. 7. Here, the effect of environment E is represented by the classical conditional entropies H ( A:E| B) > 0
and H ( B:E| A) > 0.
Shannon’s noisy coding theorem claims that forming K
different codewords m= logK of length from the source bits
and transmitting each of them using the channel n times (m
to n coding) the rate at which information can be transmitted
through the channel is
log (K)
,
(107)
n
and exponentially small probability of error at this rate can be
achieved only if R≤C (N ), otherwise the probability of the
successful decoding exponentially tends to zero, as the number
of channel uses increases. Now, having introduced the capacity
of classical channel it is important to highlight the following
distinction. The asymptotic capacity of any channel describes
that rate, which can be achieved if the channel can be used n
times (denoted by N ⊗n ), where where n→∞. Without loss of
generality, in case of n= 1 we speak about single-use capacity.
Multiple channel uses can be implemented in consecutive or
parallel ways, however from practical reasons we will prefer
the latter one.
R=

C. Transmission of Classical Information over Noisy Quantum
Channels
As the next step during our journey towards the quantum
information transfer through quantum channels (which is the
most general case) we are leaving the well-known classical
(macro) world and just entering into the border zone. Similar
to the ancient Romans - who deployed a sophisticated wide
border defense system (called the limes which consisted of
walls, towers, rivers, etc.), instead of drawing simply a red line
between themselves and the barbarians – we remain classical
in terms of inputs and outputs but allow the channel operating
in a quantum manner.

20

Fig. 6: The formal model of a noisy quantum communication channel. The output of the channel is a mixed state.

Fig. 7: The effects of the environment on the transmittable information and on the receiver’s uncertainty.

Quantum channels can be used in many different ways
to transmit information from Alice to Bob. Alice can send
classical bits to Bob, but she also has the capability of
transmitting quantum bits. In the first case, we talk about the
classical capacity of the quantum channel, while in the latter
case, we have a different measure - the quantum capacity. The
map of the channel is denoted by N , which is trace preserving
if
T r (N (ρ)) =T r (ρ)
(108)
for all density matrices ρ, and positive if the eigenvalues of
N (ρ) are non-negative whenever the eigenvalues of ρ are nonnegative.
Compared to classical channels – which have only one
definition for capacity – the transmittable classical information and thus the corresponding capacity definition can be
different when one considers quantum channels. This fact
splits the classical capacity of quantum channels into three
categories, namely the (unentangled) classical (also known

as the product-state classical capacity, or the HSW (HolevoSchumacher-Westmoreland) capacity) capacity C (N ), private
classical capacity P (N ) and entanglement-assisted classical
capacity CE (N ).
The (unentangled) classical capacity C (N ) is a natural
extension of the capacity definition from classical channels
to the quantum world. For the sake of simplicity the term
classical capacity will refer to the unentangled version in the
forthcoming pages of this paper. (The entangled version will
be referred as the entanglement-assisted classical capacity. As
we will see, the HSW capacity is defined for product state
inputs; however it is possible to extend it for entangled input
states)
The private classical capacity P (N ) has deep relevance in
secret quantum communications and quantum cryptography.
It describes the rate at which Alice is able to send classical
information through the channel in secure manner. Security
here means that an eavesdropper will not be able to access

21

the encoded information without revealing her/himself.
The entanglement-assisted classical capacity CE (N ) measures the classical information which can be transmitted
through the channel, if Alice and Bob have already shared
entanglement before the transmission. A well-known example
of such protocols is ‘superdense coding’ [244]. Next, we
discuss the above listed various classical capacities of quantum
channels in detail.
As the first obvious generalization of classical channel
capacity definition is if we maximize the quantum mutual
information over all possible input ensembles
C (N ) = max I (A:B) .
allpi ,ρi

(109)

Next, we start to discuss the classical information transmission
capability of a noisy quantum channel.
1) The Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland Capacity: The
HSW (Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland) theorem defines
the maximum of classical information which can be transmitted through a noisy quantum channel N if the input contains
product states (i.e., entanglement is not allowed, also known as
the product-state classical capacity) and the output is measured
by joint measurement setting (see the second measurement
setting in subsection 3.3.2.1). In this setting, for the quantum
noisy communication channel N , the classical capacity can be
expressed as follows
"
#
X
C (N )= max χ= max S (σout ) −
pi S (σi )
allpi ,ρi

allpi ,ρi

i

"
= max

allpi ,ρi

!!
S N

X
i

pi ρi

The three classical capacities of the quantum channel of
quantum channels will be discussed next.
In the regularization step, the channel capacity is computed
as a limit. In possession of this limit, we will use the following
lower bounds for the single-use capacities. In Section 3.3.1 we
have also seen, the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland theorem gives an explicit answer to the maximal transmittable
classical information over the quantum channel. Next, we
show the connection between these results. As we will see
in subsection 3.3.2.1, four different measurement settings can
be defined for the measurement of the classical capacity of the
quantum channel. Here we call the attention of the reader that
Holevo bound (90) limits the classical information stored in a
quantum bit. HSW theorem can be regarded a similar scenario
but a quantum channel deployed between Alice and Bob
introduces further uncertainty before extracting the classical
information. Obviously if we assume an ideal channel the two
scenarios become the same.
Now, we present an example allowing the comparison of
classical capacity of a simple channel model in classical and
quantum context. The binary symmetric channel inverts the
input cbits with probability p and leaves it unchanged with
(1-p). The equivalent quantum bit flip channel (see Section V)
applies the Pauli X and the identity transforms I.
Considering the worst case p= 0.5 all the sent information
vanishes in the classical channel C(N ) = 1−H (p) = 0. However, the HSW theorem enables the optimization not only over
the input probabilities but over input ensembles {pi , ρi }. If we
set ρi to the eigenvectors of Pauli X deriving them from its
spectral decomposition

#
−

X
i

pi S (N (ρi ))

X= 1 | +i h +| +(−1) | −i h −| ,

(112)

where | ±i = | 0i√±|2 1i , C (N ) = 1 can be achieved. This results
(110) is more than surprising, encoding into quantum states in
certain cases may improve the transfer of classical information
where the maximum is taken over all ensembles {pi , ρi } of between distant points i.e., the increased degree of freedom
input quantum states, while for σout see (14), while χ (N ) is enables reducing the uncertainty introduced by the channel.
the Holevo capacity of N . Trivially follows, that the χ (N )
a) Measurement Settings: Similar to classical channel
capacity reaches its maximum for a perfect noiseless quantum encoding, the quantum states can be transmitted in codewords
channel N = I.
n qubit of length using the quantum channel consecutively nIf Alice chooses among a set of quantum codewords, then times or equivalently we can send codewords over n copies
is it possible to transmit these codewords through the noisy of quantum channel N denoted by N ⊗n . For the sake of
quantum channel N to Bob with arbitrary small error, if
simplicity we use n= 2 in the figures belonging to the fol"
!!
# lowing explanation. In order to make the transient smoother
X
X
R<C (N ) = max S N
pi ρi
−
pi S (N (ρi )) ; between the single-shot and the asymptotic approaches we
allpi ,ρi
depicted the scenario using product input states and single (or
i
i
(111) independent) measurement devices at the output of the channel
if Alice adjusts R to be under maxallpi ,ρi χ, then she can trans- in Fig. 8. In that case the C (N ) classical capacity of quantum
mit her codewords with arbitrarily small error. If Alice chooses channel N with input A and output B can be expressed by the
R>C (N ) ,then she cannot select a quantum code of arbitrary maximization of the I (A:B) quantum mutual information as
size, which was needed for her to realize an error-free commu- follows:
nication. The HSW channel capacity guarantees an error-free
C (N ) = max I (A:B) .
(113)
allpi ,ρi
quantum communication only if R<C (N ) = maxallpi ,ρi χ is
satisfied for her code rate R.
From (113) also follows that for this setting the single-use
2) Various Classical Capacities of a Quantum Channel:
(1)
C
(N ) and the asymptotic C (N ) classical capacities are
The asymptotic channel capacity is the ‘true measure’ of the
equal:
various channel capacities, instead of the single-use capacity,
C (1) (N ) =C (N ) = max I (A:B) .
(114)
which characterizes the capacity only in a very special case.
allpi ,ρi
=χ (N ) ,

22

The relation discussed above holds for the restricted channel
setting illustrated in Fig. 9, where the input consists of product
states, and the output is measured by a joint measurement
setting.

Fig. 8: Transmission of classical information over quantum
channel with product state inputs and single measurements.
Environment is not depicted.

On the other hand, if we have product state inputs but we
change the measurement setting from the single measurement
setting to joint measurement setting, then the classical channel
capacity cannot be given by (113), hence
C (N ) 6= max I (A:B) .

(115)

allpi ,ρi

If we would like to step forward, we have to accept the
fact, that the quantum mutual information cannot be used
to express the asymptotic version: the maximized quantum
mutual information is always additive (see Section II) - but
not the Holevo information. As follows, if we would take the
regularized form of quantum mutual information to express
the capacity, we will find that the asymptotic version is equal
to the single-use version, since:
lim

n→∞

1
max I (A:B) = max I (A:B) .
allpi ,ρi
n allpi ,ρi

(116)

From (116) follows, that if we have product inputs and
joint measurement at the outputs, we cannot use the
maxallpi ,ρi I (A:B) maximized quantum mutual information
function to express C (N ). If we would like to compute the
classical capacity C (N ) for that case, we have to leave the
quantum mutual information function, and instead of it we
have to use the maximized Holevo information maxallpi ,ρi χ.
This new C (N ) capacity (according to the HolevoSchumacher-Westmoreland theorem) can be expressed by the
Holevo capacity χ (N ), which will be equal to the maximization of Holevo information of channel N :
C (N ) =χ (N ) = max χ.
allpi ,ρi

(117)

The Holevo capacity and the asymptotic channel capacity will
be equal in this case.
The HSW theorem gives an explicit answer for the classical
capacity of the product state input with joint measurement
setting, and expresses C (N ) as follows:
C (N )=χ (N )
"
= max

allpi ,ρi

!!
S N

X
i

pi ρi

#
−

X

pi S (N (ρi )) .

i

(118)

Fig. 9: Transmission of classical information over quantum
channel with product state inputs and joint measurements.
Environment is not depicted.
However, if entangled inputs are allowed with the joint
measurement setting - then this equality does not hold anymore. As a conclusion, the relation between the maximized
Holevo information χ (N ) of the channel of the channel and
the asymptotic classical channel capacity C (N ):
χ (N ) ≤C (N ) .

(119)

This means that we have to redefine the asymptotic formula
of C (N ) for entangled inputs and joint measurement setting,
to measure the maximum transmittable classical information
through a quantum channel.
In the 1990s, it was conjectured that the formula of (118)
can be applied to describe the channel capacity for entangled
inputs with the single measurement setting; however it was an
open question for a long time. Single measurement destroys
the possible benefits arising from the entangled inputs, and
joint measurement is required to achieve the benefits of
entangled inputs [275].
In 2009 Hastings have used entangled input states and
showed that the entangled inputs (with the joint measurement)
can increase the amount of classical information which can
be transmitted over a noisy quantum channel. In this case,
C (N ) 6=χ (N ) and the C (N ) can be expressed with the help
of Holevo capacity as follows, using the asymptotic formula
of χ (N ):

1
C (N ) = lim χ N ⊗n .
(120)
n→∞ n
The channel construction for this relation is illustrated in
Fig. 10. The entangled input is formally denoted by Ψ12 .
We also show the channel construction of the fourth possible
construction to measure the classical capacity of a quantum
channel. In this case, we have entangled input states, however we use a single measurement setting instead of a joint
measurement setting.
To our knowledge, currently there is no quantum channel
model where the channel capacity can be increased with this
setting, since in this case the benefits of entanglement vanish

23

Fig. 10: Transmission of classical information over quantum
channel with entangled inputs Ψ12 and joint measurements.
Environment is not depicted.

because of the joint measurement setting has been changed
into the single measurement setting. We illustrated this setting
in Fig. 11.

see in Section IV, the Holevo quantity also can be used to
express the quantum capacity of the quantum channel, which
is a not trivial fact. The HSW capacity maximizes the Holevo
quantity over a set of possible input states, and expresses the
classical information, which can be sent through reliably in the
form of product input states over the noisy quantum channel,
hence HSW capacity is also known as product state channel
capacity. In this case, the input states are not entangled;
hence there is no entanglement between the multiple uses
of the quantum channel. As we have seen in this section, if
the input of the channel consists of product states and we
use single measurement setting, then the classical capacity
can be expressed as the maximized of the quantum mutual
information. On the other hand, if the single measurement
has been changed to joint measurement, this statement is
not true anymore; - this capacity will be equal to HSW
capacity, see (118). Moreover, if we step forward, and we
allow entanglement among the input states, then we cannot
use anymore the HSW capacity, which was defined in (110).
In this case we have to take its asymptotic formula, which was
shown in (120).
Next we discuss the private classical capacity of quantum
channels.
D. The Private Classical Capacity

Fig. 11: Transmission of classical information over quantum
channel with entangled inputs and single measurements. Environment is not depicted.
We have seen in (118), that if we have product input states
and we change from a single to a joint measurement setting,
then the classical capacity of N cannot be expressed by the
maximized quantum mutual information function, because it
is always additive, hence
C (N ) 6= lim

n→∞

1
max I (A:B) .
n allpi ,ρi

(121)

If we allow entangled input states and joint measurement (see
(120)), then we have to use the C (N ) asymptotic formula of
the previously derived Holevo capacity, χ (N ) which yields

1
C (N ) = lim χ N ⊗n 6=χ (N ) .
(122)
n→∞ n
3) Brief Summary: The Holevo quantity measures the classical information, which remains in the encoded quantum
states after they have transmitted through a noisy quantum
channel. During the transmission, some information passes to
the environment from the quantum state, which results in the
increased entropy of the sent quantum state. The HSW theorem
states very similar to Holevo’s previous result. As in the case of
the Holevo quantity, the HSW capacity measures the classical
capacity of a noisy quantum channel - however, as we will

The private classical capacity P (N ) of a quantum channel
N describes the maximum rate at which the channel is able
to send classical information through the channel reliably
and privately (i.e., without any information leaked about the
original message to an eavesdropper). Privately here means
that an eavesdropper will not be able to access the encoded
information without revealing her/himself i.e., the private
classical capacity describes the maximal secure information
that can be obtained by Bob on an eavesdropped quantum
communication channel.
The generalized model of the private communication over
quantum channels is illustrated in Fig. 12. The first output of
the channel is denoted by σB =N (ρA ), the second ‘receiver’
is the eavesdropper E, with state σE . The single-use private
classical capacity from these quantities can be expressed as
the maximum of the difference between two mutual information quantities. The eavesdropper, Eve, attacks the quantum
channel, and she steals I (A:E) from the information I (A:B)
sent by Alice to Bob, therefore the single-use private classical
capacity (or private information) of N can be determined asl
P (1) (N ) = max (I (A:B) −I (A:E)) .
allpi ,ρi

(123)

while the asymptotic private classical capacity is

1 (1)
P
N ⊗n
n→∞ n
1
= lim
max (I (A : B) − I (A : E)) .
n→∞ n all pi ,ρi

P (N ) = lim

(124)

The private classical capacity can be expressed as the difference of two quantum mutual information functions, see (124).
Here, we give an equivalent definition for private classical

24

capacity P (N ) and show, that it also can be rewritten using
the Holevo quantity X , as follows:
1
max (XAB −XAE ) ,
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi

P (N ) = lim

(125)

(1)

CE (N ) can be derived from the single-use version CE (N ).
From (128) the reader can conclude, there is no need for
the asymptotic version to express the entanglement-assisted
classical capacity, i.e.:
(1)

where

CE (N ) =CE (N ) = max I (A:B) .

XAB = S (NAB (ρAB )) −

X

allpi ,ρi

pi S (NAB (ρi ))

(126)

pi S (NAE (ρi ))

(127)

i

and
XAE = S (NAE (ρAE )) −

X
i

measure the Holevo quantities between Alice and Bob,
and Alice
Eve, respectively, while
P and the eavesdropper
P
ρAB = i pi ρi and ρAE = i pi ρi . An important corollary
from (124), while the quantum mutual information itself is
additive (see the properties of quantum mutual information
function in Section II), the difference of two quantum mutual
information functions is not (i.e., we need the asymptotic
version to compute the ‘true’ private classical capacity of a
quantum channel.)

(129)

It also can be concluded, that shared entanglement does not
change the additivity of maximized quantum mutual information - or with other words, it remains true if the parties
use shared entanglement for the transmission of classical
information over N . In Fig. 13 we illustrate the general model
of entanglement-assisted classical capacity CE (N ).
We note an important property of shared entanglement:
while it does not provide any benefits in the improving of the
classical capacity of the quantum channel, (see (128)), it can be
used to increase the single-use classical capacity. It was shown,
that with the help of shared entanglement the transmission
of a single quantum bit can be realized with higher success
probability, - this strategy is known as the CHSH (ClauserHorne-Shimony-Holt) game, for details see [244].
a) Brief Summary of Classical Capacities: Here, we give
a brief summarization on the classical capacities. For the
asymptotic capacity of a quantum channel, we have
C (N ) ≥χ (N ) .

(130)

According to the results of Holevo-SchumacherWestmoreland, the asymptotic classical capacity is not
equal to the single-use classical capacity. The asymptotic
formula of the classical capacity C (N ) can be expressed by
the help of the Holevo capacity χ (N ) as

1
χ N ⊗n .
n→∞ n

C (N ) = lim
Fig. 12: The model of private classical communication of a
quantum channel.

E. The Entanglement-assisted Classical Capacity
The last capacity regarding classical communication over
quantum channels is called entanglement-assisted classical
capacity CE (N ), which measures the classical information
which can be transmitted through the channel, if Alice and
Bob have shared entanglement before the transmission i.e.,
entanglement is applied not between the input states like in
case of the HSW (i.e., the product-state capacity) theorem.
This capacity measures classical information, and it can be
expressed with the help of the quantum mutual information
function (see Section II) as
CE (N ) = max I (A:B) .
allpi ,ρi

(128)

The main difference between the classical capacity C (N ) and
the entanglement-assisted classical capacity CE (N ), is that
in the latter case the maximum of the transmittable classical
information is equal to the maximized quantum mutual information, - hence the entanglement-assisted classical capacity

(131)

The difference between the single-use formula and the asymptotic formula holds for the private capacity P (N ). Unlike
these capacities, in the case of entanglement-assisted classical
capacity CE (N ), we will find something else in the expression. In this case, we have
(1)

CE (N ) =CE (N ) = max I (A:B) ,
allpi ,ρi

(132)

and so we can conclude, there is no regularization. Since
there is no regularization needed, it also means that the
entanglement-assisted classical capacity CE (N ) will always
be additive. This makes it easier to compute the entanglementassisted capacity than the other formulas, in which regularization is needed.
Originally, it was conjectured that in the general case, the
Holevo information χ is additive too, for the same channels.
Later, a counterexample was found by Hastings. As has been
shown, in this case the additivity of the Holevo information
fails.
Similarly, for the P (N ) private classical capacity, - which
also measures classical information we have
P (N ) ≥ max (I (A:B) −I (A:E)) ,
allpi ,ρi

(133)

25

Fig. 13: The entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel. This capacity measures the maximum of transmittable
classical information through a quantum channel, if shared a priori entanglement between the parties is allowed.
and finally, for the classical capacity C (N ) of N

1
max I (A:B) ≤C (N ) ≤ lim χ N ⊗n .
n→∞ n
allpi ,ρi

(134)

As can be seen, in case of the classical and private classical
capacities the regularization is needed, since the asymptotic
and the single-use formulas are not equal.
F. The Classical Zero-Error Capacity
Shannon’s results on capacity [477] guarantees transmission
rate only in average when using multiple times of the channel.
The zero-error capacity of the quantum channel describes
the amount of (classical or quantum) information which can
be transmitted perfectly (zero probability of error) through
a noisy quantum channel. The zero-error capacity of the
quantum channel could have an overriding importance in
future quantum communication networks.
The zero-error capacity stands a very strong requirement in
comparison to the standard capacity where the information
transmission can be realized with asymptotically small but
non-vanishing error probability, since in the case of zero-error
communication the error probability of the communication
has to be zero, hence the transmission of information has to
be perfect and no errors are allowed. While in the case of
classical non zero-error capacity for an n-length code the error
probabilities after the decoding process are Pr [error] →0 as
n→∞, in case of an n-length zero-error code, Pr [error] = 0.
In this subsection we give the exact definitions which
required for the characterization of a quantum zero-error
communication system. We will discuss the classical and
quantum zero-error capacities and give the connection between
zero-error quantum codes and the elements of graph theory.
1) Classical Zero-Error Capacities of Quantum Channels:
In this section we review the background of zero-error capacity
C0 (N ) of a quantum channel N . Let us assume that Alice

has information source {Xi } encoded into quantum states
{ρi } which will be transmitted through a quantum channel N
(see Fig. 14). The quantum states will be measured by a set
of POVM operators P= {M1 , . . . ,Mk } at the receiver (see
Section II). The classical zero-error quantum capacity C0 (N )
for product input states can be reached if and only if the input
states are pure states, similarly to the HSW capacity C (N ).
The zero-error transmission of quantum states requires
perfect distinguishability. To achieve this perfect distinguishability of the zero-error quantum codewords, they have to be
pairwise orthogonal. Non-adjacent codewords can be distinguished perfectly. Two inputs are called adjacent if they can
result in the same output. The number of possible non-adjacent
codewords determines the rate of maximal transmittable classical information through N .
In the d dimensional Hilbert space (e.g. d=2 for qubits)
at most d pairwise distinguishable quantum states exist, thus
for a quantum system which consist of n pieces of d dimensional quantum states at most dn pairwise distinguishable
n-length quantum codewords are available. Obviously if two
quantum codewords are not orthogonal, then they cannot be
distinguished perfectly. We note, if we would like to distinguish between K pairwise orthogonal quantum codewords (the
length of each codewords is n) in the dn dimensional Hilbert
space, then we have to define the POVM set
n
o
P= M(1) , . . . ,M(K) ,
(135)
where M(i) are set of d-dimensional projectors on the individual quantum systems (e.g. qubits) which distinguish the
n-length codewords
M(i) = {M1 , . . . ,Mm }

(136)

where m=dn . The probability that Bob gives measurement
outcome j from quantum state ρi is
Pr [ j| ρi ] =T r (Mj N (ρi )) .

(137)

26

The i-th codeword | ψXi i encodes the n-length classical codeword Xi = {xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . ,xi,n } consisting of n product input
quantum states:

channel takes the input states ρ1 and ρ2 into orthogonal
subspaces
N (ρ1 ) ⊥ N (ρ2 ) ;
(142)
N

| ψXi i = [| ψi,1 i ⊗ | ψi,2 i ⊗ | ψi,3 i · · ·⊗ | ψi,n i ] , i= 1..K,
(138)
where ρi = | ψXi i h ψXi | .
The quantum block code consist of codewords
| ψX1 i = [| ψ1,1 i ⊗ | ψ1,2 i ⊗ | ψ1,3 i · · ·⊗ | ψ1,n i ]
....
..
| ψXK i = [| ψK,1 i ⊗ | ψK,2 i ⊗ | ψK,3 i · · ·⊗ | ψK,n i ] ,
(139)
where K is the number of classical (n length) messages.
decoder will produce the output codeword Xi0 =
 The
0
0
xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , x0i,n generated by the POVM measurement
operators, where the POVM M(i) can distinguish m messages
0
{X10 , X20 , . . . Xm
} (n-length) at the output. Bob would like to
determine each message i∈[1,K] with unit probability. The
zero probability of error means that for the input code | ψXi i
the decoder has to identify the classical output codeword X 0 i
with classical input codeword Xi perfectly for each possible
i, otherwise the quantum channel has no zero-error capacity;
that is, for the zero-error quantum communication system
Pr [ Xi0 | Xi ] = 1.

(140)

2) Formal Definitions of Quantum Zero-Error Communication: In this subsection we review the most important
definitions of quantum zero-error communication systems.
The non-adjacent elements are important for zero-error
capacity, since only non-adjacent codewords can be distinguished perfectly. Two inputs are called adjacent if they can
result in the same output, while for non-adjacent inputs, the
output of the encoder is unique. The number of possible nonadjacent codewords determines the rate of maximal transmittable classical information through quantum channels.
Formally, the non-adjacent property of two quantum states
ρ1 and ρ2 can be given as

that is, the quantum channel has positive classical zero-error
capacity C0 (N ) if and only if this property holds for the
output of the channel for a given POVM P= {M1 , . . . ,Mm }.
The previous result can be rephrased as follows. Using the
trace preserving property of the quantum channe, the two
quantum states ρ1 and ρ2 are non-adjacent if and only if for
the channel output states N (ρ1 ) , N (ρ2 ),
T r (N (ρ1 ) N (ρ2 )) = 0,

(143)

and if ρ1 and ρ2 are non-adjacent input states then
T r (ρ1 ρ2 ) = 0.

(144)

Let the two non-adjacent input codewords of the N
be denoted by | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i . These quantum codewords encode messages X1 = {x1,1 , x1,2 , . . . ,x1,n } and
X2 = {x2,1 , x2,2 , . . . ,x2,n }. For this setting, we construct the
following POVM operators for the given complete set of
POVM P= {M1 , . . . ,Mm } and the two input codewords
| ψX1 i and | ψX2 i as follows
M(1) = {M1 , . . . ,Mk }

(145)

M(2) = {Mk+1 , . . . ,Mm } .

(146)

and
The groups of operators, M(1) and M(2) , will identify and
distinguish the input codewords | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i . Using this
setting the two non-adjacent codewords | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i can
be distinguished with probability one at the output since
Pr[Xi0 |X1 ]= 1, i= 1, . . . ,k,
Pr[Xi0 |X2 ]= 1, i=k+1, . . . ,m,

(147)

where Xi0 is a number between 1 and m, (according to the
possible number of POVM operators) which identifies the
measured unknown quantum codeword and consequently
Pr[Xi0 |X1 ]= 0, i=k+1, . . . ,m,
Pr[Xi0 |X2 ]= 0, i= 1, . . . ,k.

(148)

Set1 ∩Set2 =∅,
(141)
For input message | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i with the help of set M(1)
  0

where Seti = Pr Xj Xi = T r (Mj N (|ψXi i hψXi |)) > 0 , and M(2) these probabilities are

j ∈ {1, . . . , m} , i = 1, 2, and P= {M1 , . . . ,Mm } is a
Pr[X 01 |X1 ]=T r M(1) N (| ψX1 i h ψX1 | ) = 1,
POVM measurement operator. In a relation of a noisy
(149)
Pr[X 02 |X2 ]=T r M(2) N (| ψX2 i h ψX2 | ) = 1,
quantum channel N , the non-adjacent property can be
rephrased as follows. Two input quantum states ρ1 and ρ2 are where M(1) and M(2) are orthogonal projectors,
non-adjacent with relation to N , if N (ρ1 ) and N (ρ2 ) are M(1) and M(2) are defined in (145) and (146)), and
perfectly distinguishable. The notation ρ1 ⊥ ρ2 also can be M(1) +M(2) +M(2+1) =I, to make it possible for the
N
used to denote the non-adjacent inputs of quantum channel quantum channel to take the input states into orthogonal
N.
subspaces; that is, N (| ψX1 i h ψX1 | ) ⊥N (| ψX2 i h ψX2 | ) has
A quantum channel N has greater than zero zero-error to be satisfied. The POVM measurement has to be restricted to
l
capacity if and only if a subset of quantum states Ω={ρi }i=1 projective measurement. As follows, the P= M(1) , M(2)
and POVM P= {M1 , . . . ,Mm } exists where for at least two POVM measurement can be replaced with the set of von
states ρ1 and ρ2 from subset Ω, the relation (141) holds; Neumann operators, Z= P (1) , P (2) , where P (1) +P (2) =I.
that is, the non-adjacent property with relation to the POVM This result also can be extended for arbitrarily number of
measurement is satisfied. For the quantum channel N , the two operators, depending on the actual system. The non-adjacent
inputs ρ1 and ρ2 are non-adjacent if and only if the quantum property also can be interpreted for arbitrary length of

27

Fig. 14: A quantum zero-error communication system.
quantum codewords. For a given quantum channel N , the
two n-length input quantum codewords | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i ,
which are tensor products of n quantum states, then input
codewords | ψX1 i and | ψX2 i are non-adjacent in relation
with N if and only if at least one pair of quantum states
{| ψ1,i i , | ψ2,i i } from the two n-length sequences is perfectly
distinguishable. Formally, at least one input quantum state
pair {| ψ1,i i , | ψ2,i i } with i, 1≤i≤n, exists in | ψX1 i and
| ψX2 i , for which N (| ψ1,i i h ψ1,i | ) is non-adjacent to
N (| ψ2,i i h ψ2,i | ). Because we have stated that the two
codewords can be distinguished at the channel output, the
following relation has to be hold for their trace, according to
(143), and their non-adjacency can be verified as follows:
T r (N (| ψX1 i h ψX1 | ) N (| ψX2 i h ψX2 | ))



n
n
⊗ N (| ψ2,i i h ψ2,i | )
⊗ N (| ψ1,i i h ψ1,i | )
=T r
i=1

=

n
Y

i=1

T r (N (| ψ1,i i h ψ1,i | ) N (| ψ2,i i h ψ2,i | )) = 0.

i=1

(150)
As follows from (150), a quantum channel N has non-zero
zero-error capacity if and only if there exists at least two
non-adjacent input quantum states ρ1 and ρ2 . These two nonadjacent quantum states make distinguishable the two, n-length
quantum codewords at the output of quantum channel N ,
and these input codewords will be called as non-adjacent
quantum codewords. The joint measurement of the quantum
states of an output codeword is necessary and sufficient to
distinguish the input codewords with zero-error. Necessary,
because the joint measurement is required to distinguish
orthogonal general (i.e., non zero-error code) tensor product
states [67]. Sufficient, because the non-adjacent quantum states
have orthogonal supports at the output of the noisy quantum
channel, i.e., T r (ρi ρj ) = 0 [320]. (The support of a matrix A
is the orthogonal complement of the kernel of the matrix. The
kernel of A is the set of all vectors v, for which Av= 0.) In
the joint measurement, the {Mi } , i= 1, . . . ,m projectors are
dn ×dn matrices, while if we were to use a single measurement
then the size of these matrices would be d×d.

In Fig. 15 we compared the difference between single and
joint measurement settings for a given n-length quantum codeword | ψX i = [| ψ1 i ⊗ | ψ2 i ⊗ | ψ3 i · · ·⊗ | ψn i ]. In the case of
single measurement Bob measures each of the n quantum
states of the i-th codeword states individually. In case of the
joint measurement Bob waits until he receives the n quantum
states, then measures them together.
Next we study the achievable rates for zero error classical
communication over quantum channels.
3) Achievable Zero-Error Rates in Quantum Systems: Theoretically (without making any assumptions about the physical
attributes of the transmission), the classical single-use zero(1)
error capacity C0 (N ) of the noisy quantum channel can be
expressed as
(1)
C0 (N ) = log (K (N )) ,
(151)
where K (N ) is the maximum number of different messages
which can be sent over the channel with a single use of N
(or in other words the maximum size of the set of mutually
non-adjacent inputs).
The asymptotic zero-error capacity of the noisy quantum
channel N can be expressed as

1
log K N ⊗n ,
(152)
C0 (N ) = lim
n→∞ n
where K (N ⊗n ) is the maximum number of n-length classical
messages that the quantum channel can transmit with zero
error and N ⊗n denotes the n-uses of the channel.
The C0 (N ) asymptotic classical zero-error capacity of a
quantum channel is upper bounded by the HSW capacity, that
is,
(1)
C0 (N ) ≤C0 (N ) ≤C (N ) .
(153)
Next, we study the connection of zero-error quantum codes
and graph theory.
4) Connection with Graph Theory: The problem of finding non-adjacent codewords for the zero-error information
transmission can be rephrased in terms of graph theory. The
adjacent codewords are also called confusable, since these
codewords can generate the same output with a given non-zero

28

Fig. 15: Comparison of single (a) and joint (b) measurement settings. The joint measurement is necessary to attain the quantum
zero-error communication.
probability. Since we know that two input codewords | ψX1 i
and | ψX2 i are adjacent if there is a channel output codeword
| ψX 0 i which can be resulted by either of these two, that is
Pr [ X 0 | X1 ] > 0 and Pr [ X 0 | X2 ] > 0.
The non-adjacent property of two quantum codewords can
be analyzed by the confusability graph Gn , where n denotes
the length of the block code.
Let us take as many vertices as the number of input
messages K, and connect two vertices if these input messages
are adjacent. For example, using the quantum version of the
famous pentagon graph we show how the classical zero-error
capacity C0 (N ) of the quantum channel N changes if we
use block codes of length n=1 and n=2. In the pentagon
graph an input codeword from the set of non-orthogonal
qubits {| 0i , | 1i , | 2i , | 3i , | 4i } is connected with two other
adjacent input codewords, and the number of total codewords
is 5 [311].
The G1 confusability graph of the pentagon structure for
block codes of length n=1 is shown in Fig. 16. The vertices
of the graph are the possible input messages, where K = 5.
The adjacent input messages are connected by a line. The nonadjacent inputs | 2i and | 4i are denoted by gray circles, and
there is no connection between these two input codewords.
For the block codes of length n=1, the maximal transmittable classical information with zero error is
C0 (N ) = log (2) = 1,

(154)

since only two non-adjacent vertices can be found in the graph.
We note, other possible codeword combinations also can be
used to realize the zero-error transmission, in comparison with
the confusability graph, for example | 1i and | 3i also nonadjacent, etc. On the other hand, the maximum number of
non-adjacent vertices (two, in this case) cannot be exceeded,
thus C0 (N ) = 1 remains in all other possible cases, too.

Fig. 16: The confusability graph of a zero-error code for one
channel use. The two possible non-adjacent codewords are
denoted by the large shaded circles.

Let assume that we use n= 2 length of block codes. First,
let us see how the graph changes. The non-adjacent inputs
are denoted by the large gray shaded circles. The connections
between the possible codewords (which can be used as a block
code) are denoted by the thick line and the dashed circle.
The confusability graph G2 for n= 2 length of block codes
is shown in Fig. 17. The two half-circles together on the left
and right sides represent one circle and the two half circles
at the top and bottom of the figure also represent one circle;
thus there are five dashed circles in the figure.
It can be seen that the complexity of the structure of the
graph has changed, although we have made only a small
modification: we increased the lengths of the block codes
from n= 1 to n= 2. The five two-length codewords and zeroerror quantum block codes which can realize the zero-error

29

Fig. 17: The graph of a zero-error code for two channel uses of a quantum channel. The possible zero-error codewords are
depicted by the thick lines and dashed circles.

transmission can be defined using the computational basis
{| 0i , | 1i , | 2i , | 3i , | 4i }. The classical zero-error capacity
which can be achieved by n= 2 length block codes is
 1
C0 N ⊗2 = log (5) = 1.1609.
(155)
2
From an engineering point of view this result means, that
for the pentagon graph, the maximum rate at which classical
information can be transmitted over a noisy quantum channel
N with a zero error probability, can be achieved with quantum
block code length of two.
For the classical zero-error capacities of some typical quantum channels see Section V.
G. Entanglement-assisted Classical Zero-Error Capacity
In the previous subsection we discussed the main properties
of zero-error capacity using product input states. Now, we
add the entanglement to the picture. Here we discuss how
the encoding and the decoding setting will change if we bring
entanglement to the system and how it affects the classical
zero-error capacity of a quantum channel.
If entanglement allowed between the communicating parties then the single-use and asymptotic entanglement-assisted
classical zero-error capacities are defined as

E(1)
C0
(N ) = log K E (N )
(156)
and


1
log K E N ⊗n .
n→∞ n

C0E (N ) = lim

(157)

where K E (N ⊗n ) is the maximum number of n-length mutually non-adjacent classical messages that the quantum channel
can transmit with zero error using shared entanglement.
Before we start to discuss the properties of the
entanglement-assisted zero-error quantum communication, we
introduce a new type of graph, called the hypergraph GH .
The hypergraph is very similar to our previously shown
confusability graph Gn . The hypergraph contains a set of
vertices and hyperedges. The vertices represent the inputs of

the quantum channel N , while the hyperedges contain all the
channel inputs which could cause the same channel output
with non-zero probability.
We will use some new terms from graph theory in this
subsection; hence we briefly summarize these definitions:
1) maximum independent set of Gn : the maximum number
of non-adjacent inputs (K),
2) clique of Gn : κi , the set of possible inputs of a given
output in a confusability graph (which inputs could result
in the same output with non-zero probability),
3) complete graph: if all the vertices are connected with one
another in the graph; in this case there are no non-adjacent
inputs; i.e., the channel has no zero-error capacity.
In Fig. 18(a) we show a hypergraph GH , where the inputs
of the channel are the vertices and the hyperedges represent
the channel outputs. Two inputs are non-adjacent if they are
in a different loop. The two non-adjacent inputs are depicted
by the greater grey shaded vertices. In Fig. 18(b) we give the
confusability graph Gn for a single channel use (n= 1), for
the same input set. The cliques in the Gn confusability graph
are depicted by κi .
Both the hypergraph and the confusability graph can be used
to determine the non-adjacent inputs. However, if the number
of inputs starts to increase, the number of hyperedges in the
hypergraph will be significantly lower than the number of
edges in the confusability graph of the same system. In short,
the entanglement-assisted zero-error quantum communication
protocol works as follows according to Fig. 19 [123]. Before
the communication, Alice and Bob share entanglement between themselves. The d-dimensional shared system between
Alice and Bob will be denoted by ρAB = | ΦAB i h ΦAB | ,
where
d−1
1 X
| ΦAB i = √
| ii A | ii B
(158)
d i=0
is a rank-d maximally entangled qudit state (also called as
edit). If Alice would like to send a message q∈ {1, . . . ,K},

30

Fig. 18: The hypergraph and the confusability graph of a given input system with four inputs. The hyperedges of the hypergraph
are labeled by the output. The number of non-adjacent inputs is two.

where K is the number of messages, to Bob, she has to measure
her half of the entangled system using a complete orthogonal
basis Bq = {| ψx0 i }, x0 ∈κq , where x0 is a vertice in the hypergraph GH from clique κq . The orthonormal representation of a
graph is a map: the vertice x0 represents the unit vector | ψx0 i
such that if xand x0 are adjacent then hψx | ψx0 i = 0 (i.e., they
are orthogonal in the orthonormal representation) and κq is
the clique corresponding to message q in the hypergraph GH .
The hypergraph has K cliques of size d, {κ1 , . . . ,κK } (i.e.,
each message q∈ {1, . . . ,K} is represented by a d-size clique
in the hypergraph GH .) After the measurement, Bob’s state will
∗
collapse to |ψx i . Bob will measure his state in Bq = {| ψx i }
∗
to get the final state |ψx0 i . Bob’s output is denoted by y.
Bob’s possible states are determined by those vertices x0 , for
which p ( y| x0 ) > 0, and these adjacent states are mutually
orthogonal; i.e., for any two x01 and x02 , ψx01 |ψx02 = 0.
Finally, Alice makes her measurement using Bq = {|ψx0 i},
∗
then Bob measures his state |ψx i in Bq = {|ψx0 i} to produce
∗
|ψx0 i .
In order to make the above explanations more plausible, let
us provide an example. Supposed Alice’s set contains K= 6
codewords and she shares a rank-four (i.e., d=4) maximally
entangled qudit state with Bob
3

1 X
ΦAB = √
| ii | ii ,
4 i=0 A B

(159)

however, in the general case d can be chosen as large as Alice
and Bob would like to use. Alice measures her system from
the maximally entangled state, and she chooses a basis among
the K possible states, according to which message q she wants
to send Bob. Alice’s measurement outcome is depicted by x,
which is a random value. Alice sends q and x to the classical
channel N. In the next phase, Bob performs a projective
measurement to decide which x value was made to the classical
channel by Alice. After Bob has determined it, he can answer

which one of the possible K messages had been sent by Alice
with the help of the maximally entangled system. Alice makes
her measurement on her side using one of the six possible
bases Bq = {| ψx0 i } on her half of the state ρAB . Her system
∗
collapses to | ψx i ∈Bq , while Bob’s system collapses to | ψx i ,
conditioned on x. Alice makes x to the classical channel N;
Bob will receive classical message y. From the channel output
y=N (x), where N is the classical channel between Alice and
Bob, Bob can determine the mutually adjacent inputs (i.e.,
those inputs which could produce the given output). If Bob
makes a measurement in basis Bq = {| ψx i }, then he will get
∗
|ψx0 i , where these states for a given set of x0 corresponding
to possible x are orthogonal states, so he can determine x
and the original message q. The channel output gives Bob the
information that some set of mutually adjacent inputs were
used on Alice’s side. On his half of the entangled system, the
states will be mutually orthogonal. A measurement on these
mutually orthogonal states will determine Bob’s state and he
can tell Alice’s input with certainty.
Using this protocol, the number of mutually non-adjacent
input messages is
K E ≥6,
(160)
while if Alice and Bob would like to communicate with zeroerror but without shared entanglement, then K= 5. As follows,
for the single-use classical zero-error capacities we get
(1)

C0 = log (5)
and

E(1)

C0


= log K E = log (6) ,

(161)
(162)

while for the asymptotic entanglement-assisted classical zeroerror capacity,

C0E ≥log K E = log (6) .
(163)
According to Alice’s K E = 6 messages, the hypergraph can be
partitioned into six cliques of size d= 4. The adjacent vertices

31

Fig. 19: The steps of the entanglement-assisted zero-error quantum communication protocol.

are denoted by a common loop. The overall system contains
6 × 4 = 24 basis vectors. These vectors are grouped into
K E = 6 orthogonal bases. Two input vectors are connected in
the graph if they are adjacent vectors; i.e., they can produce
the same output. The hypergraph GH of this system is shown
in Fig. 20. The mutually non-adjacent inputs are denoted
by the great shaded circles. An important property of the
entanglement-assisted classical zero-error capacity is that the
number of maximally transmittable messages is not equal
to the number of non-adjacent inputs. While the hypergraph
has five independent vertices, the maximally transmittable
messages are greater than or equal to six. The confusability
graph of this system for a single use of quantum channel
N would consist of 6 × 4 × 9 = 216 connections, while the
hypergraph has a significantly lower number (6 × 6 = 36) of
hyperedges. The adjacent vertices are depicted by the loops
connected by the thick lines. The six possible messages are
denoted by the six, four dimensional (i.e., each contains four
vertices) cliques {κ1 , . . . , κK }. The cliques (dashed circles)
show the set of those input messages which could result in
the same output with a given probability p> 0.

ist entanglement-assisted quantum communication protocol
which can send one of K messages with zero error; hence
for the entanglement-assisted asymptotic classical zero-error
capacity

1
log (K) ≤C0 = lim log K N ⊗n
n→∞ n


1
<C0E = lim logK E N ⊗n ≥log K E .
n→∞ n
(164)

We note, the cliques are defined in the Gn confusability graph representation, but we also included them on the
hypergraph GH . The adjacent vertices which share a loop
represent mutually orthogonal input states. For these mutually
orthogonal inputs the output will be the same.
The complete theoretical background of this example, i.e.,
the proof of the fact, that entanglement can increase the
asymptotic classical zero-error capacity C0 (N ) of a quantum
channel was described in [123].
We have seen in this subsection that shared entanglement
between Alice and Bob can help to increase the maximally
transmittable classical messages using noisy quantum channels
with zero error probability. According to the Cubitt-LeungMatthews-Winter theorem (CLMW theorem) [123] there ex-

C0 (N ) = log (7) ,

Entanglement is very useful in zero-error quantum communication, since with the help of entanglement the maximum
amount of perfectly transmittable information can be achieved.
As was show by Leung et al. [294], using special input
codewords (based on a special Pauli graph), entanglement
can help to increase the classical zero-error capacity to the
maximum achievable HSW capacity; that is, there exists
a special combination for which the entanglement-assisted
classical zero-error capacity C0E (N ) is
C0E (N ) = log (9) ,

(165)

while the classical zero-error capacity is
(166)

i.e., with the help of entanglement-assistance the number of
possible input messages (K) can be increased.
Another important discovery is that for this special input
system the entanglement-assisted classical zero-error capacity, C0E (N ), is equal to the maximal transmittable classical
information over N ; that is
C0E (N ) =C (N ) = log (9) .

(167)

In the asymptotic setting the maximum achievable capacities
as functions of block code length are summarized in Fig. 21.
The maximal amount of transmittable classical information
which can be sent through a noisy quantum channel N without

32

Fig. 20: The hypergraph of an entanglement-assisted zero-error quantum code. The non-adjacent inputs are depicted by the
great shaded circles. The adjacent vertices are depicted by loops connected by the thick lines.

Fig. 21: The asymptotic classical zero-error capacities without
entanglement and with entanglement assistance using a special
Pauli graph.

error increases with the length of the input block code, and
with the help of EPR input states (for this special Pauli graphbased code) the classical HSW capacity can be reached, which
is also the upper bound of the classical zero-error capacity.
H. Related Work
The classical world with the classical communication channel can be viewed as a special case of a quantum channel,
since classical information can be encoded into the qubits—
just as into classical bits. Classical information can also be
encoded in quantum states. In this section we summarize the
most important works related to the classical capacity of the
quantum channels.

a) The Early Days: At the end of the twentieth century,
the capacities of a quantum channel were still an open problem
in quantum information theory. Before the several, and rather
different, capacities of the quantum channel were recognized,
the ‘academic’ opinion was that quantum channels could be
used only for the transmission of classical information encoded
in the form of quantum states [231], [232]. As has been
found later, the classical capacity of the quantum channel
can be measured in several different settings. It was shown
that the classical capacity depends on whether the input states
are entangled or not, or whether the output is measured by
single or by joint measurement setting [64], [163], [274]. In
a specified manner, the classical capacity has been defined
for measuring the maximal asymptotic rate at which classical
information can be transmitted through the quantum channel,
with an arbitrarily high reliability [46], [469].
The first proposed capacity measure was the classical capacity of a quantum channel—denoted by C (N )—measures
the maximum transmittable classical information—in the form
of product or entangled quantum states. The idea of transmitting classical information through a quantum channel was
formulated in the 1970s. The Holevo bound was introduced
by Holevo in 1973, however the theorem which describes the
classical capacity of the quantum channel in an explicit way
appeared just about three decades later, in the mid 1990s.
The maximal accessible classical information from a quantum source firstly has been characterized by Levitin [295] and
Holevo [231], [232] in the early days, which were some of
the first and most important results in quantum information
theory regarding the classical capacity of quantum channels.
More information about the connection between the Holevo
bound and the accessible information (which quantifies the

33

information of the receiver after the measurement) can be
found in [231], [232]. Later this result was developed and
generalized by Holevo, Schumacher, and Westmoreland, and
became known in quantum information theory as the HSW
channel capacity [233], [469]. The HSW theorem uses the
Holevo information to describe the amount of classical information which can be transmitted through a noisy quantum
channel, and it makes possible to apply different measurement
constructions on the sender and on the receiver’s side. The
proofs of the HSW theorem, such as the direct coding theorem
and the converse theorem, with the complete mathematical
background can be found in the work of Holevo [233] and
of Schumacher and Westmoreland [469]. About the efficiency
problems of implementation and construction of joint POVM
(Positive Operator Valued Measure) measurement setting, as
it was shown in the same works of the authors.
One of the most important result on the mechanism of the
encoding of quantum information into physical particles was
discovered by Glauber in the very early years of quantum
information processing [183] and a great summarize from
more than four-decades later [182]. Also from this era and
field, important results on the encoding and decoding processes
of quantum information were shown in the works of Gordon
[185] and Helstrom [227]. About detection of quantum information and the process of measurement see [157], or the work
of Helstrom from 1976 [227], or Herbert’s work from 1982
[228]. Before their results, Levitin published a paper about the
quantum measure of the amount of information in 1969 [295],
which was a very important basis for further work.
b) Classical Capacity of a Quantum Channel: The
amount of classical information which can be transmitted
through a noisy quantum channel in a reliable form with
product input states, using the quantum channel many times,
was determined by the HSW theorem [233], [469]. This coding
theorem is an analogue to Shannon’s classical channel coding
theorem, however it extends its possibilities. The inventors of
the HSW theorem—Holevo, Schumacher and Westmoreland—
proved and concluded independently the same result. Holevo’s
result from 1998 can be found in [233], Schumacher and
Westmoreland’s results can be found in [469]. They, with
Hausladen et al. in 1995 [215], and in 1996 [216], have also
confirmed that the maximal classical information which can be
transmitted via pure quantum states is bounded by the Holevo
information.
A different approach to the proof of the HSW theorem
was presented by Nielsen and Chuang in 2000 [403]. An
interesting connection between the mathematical background
of the compressibility of quantum states and the HSW theorem
was shown by Devetak in 2003 [134], who proved that a part of
the mathematical background constructed for the compression
of quantum information can be used to prove the HSW
theorem. Another interesting approach for proving the HSW
theorem and bounds on the error probability was presented by
Hayashi and Nagaoka in 2003 [218]. The additivity property
of qubit channels which require four inputs to achieve capacity
was analyzed by Hayashi et al. in [219].
Very important connections regarding the transmission of
classical information over noisy quantum channels was derived

in the work of Schumacher and Westmoreland in 1997 [469],
and two years later, a very important work was published
on the relevance of optimal signal ensembles in the classical
capacity of a noisy quantum channels [473]. (We also suggest
their work on the characterizations of classical and quantum
communication processes [474].) The classical information
capacity of a class of most important practical quantum channels (Gaussian quantum channels) was shown by Wolf and
Eisert [548] or the work of Lupo et al. [313]. The generalized
minimal output entropy conjecture for Gaussian channels was
studied by Giovannetti et al. [180].
About the role of feedback in quantum communication, we
suggest the works of Bowen [79] and 2005 [80], the article of
Bowen et al. [81], and the work of Harrow [213]. The works
of Bowen provide a great introduction to the role of quantum
feedback on the classical capacity of the quantum channel, it
was still an open question before. As he concluded, the classical capacity of a quantum channel using quantum feedback is
equal to the entanglement-assisted classical capacity, the proof
was given in Bowen and Nagarajan’s paper [81].
We have also seen that the noise of a quantum channel
can be viewed as a result of the entanglement between the
output and the reference system called the purification state
(see purification in (77)). Some information leaks to the environment, and to the purification state, which purification state
cannot be accessed. As is implicitly woven into this section,
a noisy quantum channel can be viewed as a special case of
an ideal quantum communication channel. The properties of
the general quantum channel model and the quantum mutual
information function can be found in the work of Adami and
Cerf [4].
A great analysis of completely-positive trace preserving
(CPTP) maps was published by Ruskai et al. [451]. Further
information on the classical capacity of a quantum channel
can be found in [65], [233], [274], [403].
c) Entanglement-assisted Classical Capacity: In the
early 1970s, it was also established that the classical capacity of a quantum channel can be higher with shared
entanglement—this capacity is known as the entanglementassisted classical capacity of a quantum channel, which was
completely defined by Bennett et al. just in 1999 [66], and
is denoted by CE (N ). The preliminaries of the definition of
this quantity were laid down by Bennett and Wiesner in 1992
[58]. Later, in 2002 Holevo published a review paper about the
entanglement-assisted classical capacity of a quantum channel
[230].
Entanglement-assisted classical communication requires a
super-dense protocol-like encoding and decoding strategy [54].
About the classical capacity of a noiseless quantum channel
assisted by noisy entanglement, an interesting paper was
published by Horodecki et al. in 2001 [235]. In the same work
the authors have defined the ‘noisy version’ of the well-known
superdense coding protocol, which originally was defined by
Bennett in 1992 [58] for ideal (hence noiseless) quantum
channels. As can be found in the works of Bennett et al. from
1999 [66] and from 2002 [54], the entanglement-assisted classical capacity opened the possibility to transmit more classical
information using shared entanglement (in case of single-use

34

capacity). As can be checked by the reader, the treatment
of entanglement-assisted classical capacity is based on the
working mechanism of the well-known superdense coding
protocol—however, classical entanglement-assisted classical
capacity used a noisy quantum channel instead of an ideal
one.
Bennett, in two papers from 1999 [66] and 2002 [54]
showed that the quantum mutual information function (see
Adami and Cerf’s work [4]) can be used to describe the classical entanglement-assisted capacity of the quantum channel
i.e., the maximized quantum mutual information of a quantum
channel and the entanglement-assisted classical capacity are
equal. The connection between the quantum mutual information and the entanglement-assisted capacity can be found in the
works of Bennett et al. [54] and [66]. In the latter work, the
formula of the quantum-version of the well-known classical
Shannon formula was generalized for the classical capacity
of the quantum channel. In these two papers the authors
also proved that the entanglement-assisted classical capacity
is an upper bound of the HSW channel capacity. Holevo gave
an explicit upper bound on the classical information which
can be transmitted through a noisy quantum channel, it is
known as the Holevo-bound. The Holevo-bound states that
the most classical information which can be transmitted in
a qubit (i.e., two level quantum system) through a noiseless
quantum channel in a reliable form, is one bit. However, as
was shown later by Bennett et al. in 1999 [66], the picture
changes, if the parties use shared entanglement (known as
the Bennett-Shor-Smolin-Thapliyal, or the BSST- theorem). As
follows, the BSST-theorem gives a closer approximation to
the maximal transmittable classical information (i.e., to the
‘single-use’ capacity) over quantum channels, hence it can
be viewed as the true ‘quantum version’ of the well known
classical Shannon capacity formula (since it is a maximization
formula), instead of the ‘non entanglement-assisted’ classical
capacity. Moreover, the inventors of the BSST-theorem have
also found a very important property of the entanglementassisted classical capacity: its single-use version is equal
to the asymptotic version, which implies the fact that no
regularization is needed. (As we have seen in this section, we
are not so lucky in the case of general classical and private
classical capacities. As we will show in Section IV, we are
‘unlucky’ in the case of quantum capacity, too.) They have
also found that no classical feedback channel can increase the
entanglement-assisted classical capacity of a quantum channel,
and this is also true for the classical (i.e., the not entanglementassisted one) capacity of a quantum channel. These results
were also confirmed by Holevo in 2002 [230]. It was a very
important discovery in the history of the classical capacity
of the quantum channel, and due to the BSST-theorem, the
analogue with classical Shannon’s formula has been finally
completed. Later, it was discovered that in special cases the
entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel can be
improved [211], [422]. The Holevo information can be attained
even with pure input states, and the concavity of the Holevo
information also shown. The concavity can be used to compute
the classical HSW capacity of quantum channels, since the
maximum of the transmittable information can be computed

by a local maximum among the input states. Moreover, as was
shown by Bennett et al. in 2002, the concavity holds for the
entanglement-assisted classical capacity, too [54], [57]— the
concavity, along with the non-necessity of any computation
of an asymptotic formula, and the use of classical feedback
channels to improve the capacity, makes the entanglementassisted classical capacity the most generalized classical capacity—and it has the same role as Shannon’s formula in
classical information theory [57]. The fact that the classical
feedback channel does not increase the classical capacity and
the entanglement-assisted classical capacity of the quantum
channel, follows from the work of Bennett et al., and the proof
of the BSST-theorem [54]. Wang and Renner’s work [529]
introduces the reader to the connection between the singleuse classical capacity and hypothesis testing.
d) The Private Classical Capacity: The third classical
capacity of the quantum channel is the private classical
capacity, denoted by P (N ). The concept of private classical
capacity was introduced by Devetak in 2003 [134], and one
year later by Cai et al. in 2004 [98]. Private classical capacity
measures classical information, and it is always at least as large
as the single-use quantum capacity (or the quantum coherent
information) of any quantum channel. As shown in [138],
for a degradable quantum channel the coherent information
(see Section IV) is additive [138],—however for a general
quantum channel these statements do not hold. The additivity
of private information would also imply the fact that shared
entanglement cannot help to enhance the private classical
capacity for degradable quantum channels. The complete proof
of the private classical capacity of the quantum channel was
made by Devetak [134], who also cleared up the connection
between private classical capacity and the quantum capacity.
As was shown by Smith et al. [501], the private classical
capacity of a quantum channel is additive for degradable
quantum channels, and closely related to the quantum capacity
of a quantum channel (moreover, Smith has shown that the
private classical capacity is equal to the quantum coherent
information for degradable channels), since in both cases we
have to ‘protect’ the quantum states: in the case of private
classical capacity the enemy is called Eve (the eavesdropper),
while in the latter case the name of the enemy is ‘environment.’
As was shown in [134], the eavesdropper in private coding
acts as the environment in quantum coding of the quantum
state, and vice-versa. This ‘gateway’ or ‘dictionary’ between
the classical capacity and the quantum capacity of the quantum
channel was also used by Devetak [134], by Devetak and
Shor [138] and by Smith and Smolin [501], using a different
interpretation.
About the coherent communication with continuous quantum variables over the quantum channels a work was published
Wilde et al. in [536] and [537]. On the noisy processing
of private quantum states, see the work of Renes et al.
[448]. A further application of private classical information in
communicating over adversarial quantum channels was shown
by Leung et al. [292]. Further information about the private
classical capacity can be found in [83], [134], [137], [296],
[501], [502], [503]. Another important work on non-additive
quantum codes was shown by Smolin et al. [506]. A great

35

summary on the main results of Quantum Shannon Theory was
published by Wilde [538]. For further information on quantum
channel capacities and advanced quantum communications see
the book of Imre and Gyongyosi [245], and also [200]. We also
suggest the great work of Bennett et al. on the quantum reverse
Shannon theorem [57]. A work on the connection of secure
communication and Gaussian-state quantum Illumination was
published by Shapiro [481].
e) The Zero-Error Classical Capacity: The properties of
zero-error communication systems are discussed in Shannon’s
famous paper on the zero-error capacity of a noisy channel
[478], in the work of Körner and Orlitsky on zero-error
information theory [283], and in the work of Bollobás on
modern graph theory [77]. We also suggest the famous proof
of Lovász on the Shannon capacity of a graph [311]. The proof
of the classical zero-error capacity of quantum channel can be
found in Medeiros’s work [320]. Here, he has shown, that the
classical zero-error capacity of the quantum channel is also
bounded above by the classical HSW capacity. The important
definitions of quantum zero-error communication and the
characterization of quantum states for the zero-error capacity
were given by Medeiros et al., in [321]. On the complexity of
computation of zero-error capacity of quantum channels see
the work of Beigi and Shor [50]. The fact, that the zero-error
classical capacity of the quantum channel can be increased
with entanglement, was shown by Cubitt et al. in 2010 [123].
The role of entanglement in the asymptotic rate of zero-error
classical communication over quantum channels was shown
by Leung et al. in 2010 [294]. For further information about
the theoretical background of entanglement-assisted zero-error
quantum communication see [123] and for the properties of
entanglement, the proof of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem
in [51], [280].
IV. T HE Q UANTUM C APACITY OF A Q UANTUM C HANNEL
Having discussed the general model of quantum channels
and introduced various classical capacities in this section
we focus on the quantum information transfer over quantum
channels. Two new quantities will be explained. By means
of fidelity F one can describe the differences between two
quantum states e.g. between the input and output states of
a quantum channel. On the other hand quantum coherent
information represents the quantum information loss to the
environment during quantum communication similarly as mutual information did for a classical channel N. Exploiting
this latter quantity we can define the maximal quantum
information transmission rate through quantum channels –
the quantum capacity Q (N ) analogously to Shannon’s noisy
channel theorem. As we have seen Section III, the classical
capacity of a quantum channel is described by the maximum
of quantum mutual information and the Holevo information.
The quantum capacity of the quantum channels is described by
the maximum of quantum coherent information. The concept
of quantum coherent information plays a fundamental role
in the computation of the LSD (Lloyd-Shor-Devetak) channel
capacity [134], [303], [487] which measures the asymptotic
quantum capacity of the quantum capacity in general.

This section is organized as follows. First, we discuss the
transmission of quantum information over a nosy quantum
channel. Next, we define the quantum coherent information
and overview its main properties. Finally the formula for the
measure of maximal transmittable quantum information over
a quantum channel will be introduced. The description of
the most relevant works can be found in the Related Work
subsection.

A. Preserving Quantum Information
The encoding and decoding quantum information have
many similarities to the classical case, however, there exist
some fundamental differences, as we will reveal in this section. In the case of quantum communication, the source is
a quantum information source and the quantum information
is encoded into quantum states. When transmitting quantum
information, the information is encoded into non-orthogonal
superposed or entangled quantum states chosen from the
ensemble {ρk } according to a given probability {pk }. If
the states {ρk } are pure and mutually orthogonal, we talk
about classical information; that is, in this case the quantum
information reduces to classical.
Formulating the process more precisely (see Fig. 22) the
encoding and the decoding mathematically can be described
by the operators E and D realized on the blocks of quantum
states. The input of the encoder consists of m pure quantum
states, and the encoder maps the m quantum states into the
joint state of n intermediate systems. Each of them is sent
through an independent instance of the quantum channel N
and decoded by the decoder D, which results in m quantum
states again. The output of the decoder D is typically mixed,
according to the noise of the quantum channel. The rate of the
code is equal to m/n.
Theoretically quantum states have to preserve their original superposition during the whole transmission, without the
disturbance of their actual properties. Practically, quantum
channels are entangled with the environment which results
in mixed states at the output. Mixed states are classical
probability weighted sum of pure states where these probabilities appear due to the interaction with the environment
(i.e., noise). Therefore, we introduce a new quantity, which
is able to describe the quality of the transmission of the
superposed states through the quantum channel. The fidelity
(see Appendix) for two pure quantum states is defined as
2

F (| ϕi, | ψi ) =|hϕ | ψi| .

(168)

The fidelity of quantum states can describe the relation of
Alice pure channel input
state | ψiPand the received mixed
Pn−1
n−1
quantum system σ= i=0 pi ρi = i=0 pi | ψi i h ψi | at the
channel output as
F (|ψi, σ) = hψ| σ| ψi =

n−1
X
i=0

2

pi |hψ|ψi i| .

(169)

36

Fig. 22: Transmission of quantum information through the quantum channel. The encoder produces a joint state of n intermediate
systems. The encoded qubits are passed through the independent instances of the quantum channel.

Fidelity can also be defined for mixed states σ and ρ
between A and P are affected, as we illustrated in Fig. 24.
 q
2 X  q
2 The resultant output system is denoted by B.
√ √
√
√
F (ρ, σ) = T r
σρ σ
=
pi T r
σi ρi σi
.
i

(170)
Let us assume that we have a quantum system denoted by
A and a reference system P. Initially, the quantum system
A and the reference system P are in a pure entangled state,
denoted by ψ P A . The density matrix ρA of system A can
be expressed by a partial trace over P, as follows

ρA =T rP ψ P A ψ P A .
(171)
The entanglement between the initial quantum system and the
reference state is illustrated in Fig. 23.
Fig. 24: After system A is sent through the quantum channel
N , both the quantum system A and the entanglement between
A and P are affected.

Fig. 23: Initially, the quantum system and the reference system
are in a pure entangled state.

Now, we can study the preserved entanglement between the
two systems A and P. Entanglement fidelity FE measures the
fidelity between the initial pure system ψ P A and the mixed
output quantum system ρP B as follows

= ψP A
In the next step, ρA will be transmitted through the quantum
channel N , while the reference state P is isolated from
the environment (see Section II), hence it has not been not
modified during the transmission. After the quantum system
ρA is transmitted through the quantum channel, the final state
will be


ρP B = I P ⊗N A
ψP A ψP A ,
(172)
where I P is the identity transformation realized on the reference system P. After the system A is sent through the quantum
channel, both the quantum system A and the entanglement


ψ P A , ρP B


I P ⊗N A
ψP A ψP A ψP A .

FE =FE (ρA , N ) =F

(173)

It is important to highlight the fact that FE depends on ψ P A
i.e., on the reference system. The sender’s goal is to transmit
quantum information, i.e., to preserve entanglement between A
and the inaccessible reference system P. Alice can apply many
independent channel uses of the same noisy quantum channel
N to transmit the quantum information. Similar to encoding
classical information into the quantum states, the quantum
messages can be transmitted over copies of a quantum channel.
In this case, we have n copies of a quantum channel N .

37

B. Quantum Coherent Information
In case of the classical capacity C (N ), the correlation
between the input and the output is measured by the Holevo
information and the quantum mutual information function. In
case of the quantum capacity Q (N ), we have a completely
different correlation measure with completely different behaviors: it is called the quantum coherent information. There is
a very important distinction between the maximized quantum mutual information and maximized quantum coherent
information: the maximized quantum mutual information of
a quantum channel N is always additive (see Section II), but
the quantum coherent information is not.
The SE entropy exchange between the initial system P A
and the output system P B is defined as follows. The entropy
that is acquired by P A when input system A is transmitted
through the quantum channel N can be expressed with the
help of the von Neumann entropy function as follows
SE =SE (ρA :N (ρA )) = S (ρP B ) ,

(174)

or in other words the von Neumann entropy of the output system ρP B . As can be observed, the value of entropy exchange
depends on ρA and N and is independent from the purification
system P. Now, we introduce the environment state E, and
we will describe the map of the quantum channel as a unitary
transformation. The environment is initially in a pure state | 0i .
After the unitary transformation UA→BE has been applied to
the initial system A | 0i , it becomes
UA→BE (A | 0i ) =BE.

(175)

From the entropy of the final state of the environment ρE ,
the entropy exchange SE can be expressed as
S (ρP B ) = S (ρE ) =SE .

Icoh (ρA :N (ρA )) = S (N (ρA )) −SE (ρA :N (ρA ))
(177)

= S (ρB ) −S (ρE ) ,
where SE (ρA :N (ρA )) is the entropy exchange as defined in
(174).
Using the definition of quantum coherent information (177),
it can be verified that quantum coherent information takes its
maximum if systems A and P are maximally entangled and
the quantum channel N is completely noiseless. This can be
presented easily
S (ρB ) = S (ρA ) ,
(178)
since the input state ρA is maximally mixed, and
S (ρP B ) = 0,

and similarly, for the ‘effect’ of the environment E, we will
get

E (ρA ) =ρE =T rB U ρA U † .
(181)
The results of (180) and (181) are summarized in Fig. 25.
It can be concluded that the quantum coherent information
measures the capability of transmission of entanglement over a
quantum channel. For the exact value of quantum coherent information of some important quantum channels see Section V.
C. Connection between Classical and Quantum Information
As it has been shown by Schumacher and Westmoreland
[463], the Icoh quantum coherent information also can be
expressed with the help of Holevo information, as follows
Icoh (ρA :N (ρA )) = (XAB −XAE ) ,

(179)

(182)

where

(176)

SE measures the increase of entropy of the environment E,
or with other words, the entanglement between P A and E,
after the unitary transformation UA→BE had been applied to
the system. This entropy exchange SE is analogous to the
classical conditional entropy; however in this case we talk
about quantum instead of classical information.
Using the notations of Fig. 24, the quantum coherent
information can be expressed as
= S (ρB ) −S (ρP B )

because ψ P A ψ P A will remain pure after the state has
been transmitted through the ideal quantum channel. If the
input system ψ P A ψ P A is not a maximally entangled
state, or the quantum channel N is not ideal, then the value
of quantum coherent information will decrease.
Considering another expressive picture, quantum coherent
information measures the quantum capacity as the difference
between the von Neumann entropies of two channel output
states. The first state is received by Bob, while the second one
is received by a ‘second receiver’ - called the environment.
If we express the transformation of a quantum channel as the
partial trace of the overall system, then

N (ρA ) =T rE U ρA U † ,
(180)

XAB = S (NAB (ρAB )) −

X

pi S (NAB (ρi ))

(183)

pi S (NAE (ρi ))

(184)

i

and
XAE = S (NAE (ρAE )) −

X
i

measure the Holevo quantities between Alice and
P Bob, and
between
Alice
and
environment
E,
where
ρ
=
AB
i pi ρi and
P
ρAE = i pi ρi are the average states. The definition of (182)
also draws a very important connection: the amount of transmittable quantum information can be derived by the Holevo
information, which measures classical information.
As follows, the single-use quantum capacity Q(1) (N ) can
be expressed as
Q(1) (N )= max (XAB −XAE )
allpi ,ρi

= max S NAB
allpi ,ρi

−S NAE

n
X

!!
pi (ρi )

i=1
n
X
i=1

n
X

pi S (NAB (ρi ))

i=1

!!
pi (ρi )

−

+

n
X

pi S (NAE (ρi )),

i=1

(185)
where N (ρi ) represents the i-th output density matrix obtained from the quantum channel input density matrix ρi .

38

Fig. 25: The conceptional meaning of quantum coherent information. The unitary transformation represents the channel and
the environment. The first receiver is Bob, the second is the environment. The state of the environment belonging to the unitary
transformation is represented by dashed line. The outputs can be computed as the partial traces of the joint system.

The asymptotic quantum capacity Q (N ) can be expressed
by

1 (1)
Q
N ⊗n
n→∞ n

1
= lim
max Icoh ρA :N ⊗n (ρA )
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi
1
= lim
max (XAB −XAE ) .
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi

does not remain true for the latter. The quantum coherent
information is defined as follows
Icoh (N ) = S (ρB ) −S (ρE ) ,

Q (N )= lim

(186)

The quantum capacity Q (N ) of a quantum channel N can
also be expressed by XAB , the Holevo quantity of Bob’s output
and by XAE , the information leaked to the environment during
the transmission.
1) Quantum Coherent Information and Quantum Mutual
Information: Finally let us make an interesting comparison
between quantum coherent information and quantum mutual
information. For classical information transmission, the quantum mutual information can be expressed according to Section
2
I (A:B) = S (ρA ) +S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ) .
(187)
However, in case of quantum coherent information (177) the
term S (ρA ) vanishes. The channel transformation N modifies
Alice’s original state ρA , hence Alice’s original density matrix
cannot be used to express S (ρA ), after Alice’s qubit has
been sent through the quantum channel N . After the channel
has modified Alice’s quantum state, the initially sent qubit
vanishes from the system, and we will have a different density
matrix, denoted by ρB =N (ρA ). The coherent information can
expressed as S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ), where ρB is the transformed
state of Bob, and S (ρAB ) is the joint von Neumann entropy.
As follows, we will have S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ), which is equal
to the negative conditional entropy S ( A| B), (see Section II)
thus
Icoh (ρA :N (ρA )) = S (ρB ) −S (ρAB ) = −S ( A| B) . (188)
This imporatnt result is summarized in Fig. 26.
As we have seen in this section, there is a very important
difference between the maximized quantum mutual information and the maximized quantum coherent information of a
quantum channel. While the former is always additive, it

(189)

where ρB refers to the output of the quantum channel N , while
ρE is the state of the environment. The term S (ρB ) measures
how much information Bob has, while S (ρE ) measures how
much information environment has. As follows, the quantum
coherent information Icoh (N ) measures that ‘how much more
information Bob has than the environment’ about the original
input quantum state.
2) Quantum Coherent Information of an Ideal Channel:
Now, we have arrived at the question of whether the Q (N )
quantum capacity of N , as defined previously by the Icoh
quantum coherent information, is an appropriate measure to
describe the whole quantum capacity of a quantum channel.
The answer is yes for an ideal channel. If we have a completely
noiseless channel, then channel NAB =I leads us to coherent
information
Q (I)=Icoh (I)
= S (NAB (ρ)) −S (NE (| 0i h 0| ))

(190)

= S (ρ) .
This equation can be used to calculate the Q (NAB ) quantum
capacity of a quantum channel (i.e., without maximization)
only when we have a completely noiseless idealistic channel
NAB =I. It also implies the following: to achieve the maximal coherent information for an idealistic quantum channel
NAB =I, the input quantum states have to be maximally mixed
states or one half of an EPR state, since in these cases, the
von Neumann entropies will be maximal.
On the other hand, if the environment of the communication
system interacts with the quantum state, the quantum capacity
could vanish, but not the classical capacity of the channel.
In this case, the quantum channel NAB =I can transmit pure
orthogonal states faithfully, but it cannot transmit the superposed or entangled states. Furthermore, if the interaction is
more significant, it could result in an extremely noisy quantum
channel for which the C (NAB ) classical capacity of NAB
could also vanish.

39

Fig. 26: The expression of quantum coherent information. The source entropy of Alice’s state vanishes after the state is passed
to Bob.

D. The Lloyd-Shor-Devetak Formula
The concept of quantum coherent information can be used
to express the asymptotic quantum capacity Q (N ) of quantum
channel N called the Lloyd-Shor-Devetak (LSD) capacity as
follows

1
Q (N )= lim Q(1) N ⊗n
n→∞ n

1
= lim
max Icoh ρA :N ⊗n (ρA )
(191)
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi
1
= lim
max (S (ρB ) −S (ρE )) ,
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi
where Q(1) (N ) represents the single-use quantum capacity.
The asymptotic quantum capacity can also be expressed using the Holevo information, since as we have seen previously,
the quantum coherent information can be derived from the
Holevo information
1
Q (N ) = lim
max (XAB −XAE ) ,
(192)
n→∞ n allpi ,ρi
where XAB denotes the classical information sent from Alice
to Bob, and XAE describes the classical information passed
from Alice to the environment during the transmission.
Quantum coherent information plays a fundamental role
in describing the maximal amount of transmittable quantum
information through a quantum channel N , and - as the Holevo
quantity has deep relevance in the classical HSW capacity of
a quantum channel - the quantum coherent information will
play a crucial role in the LSD capacity of N .
E. The Assisted Quantum Capacity
There is another important quantum capacity called assisted
capacity which measures the quantum capacity for a channel
pair that contains different channel models – and it will have
relevance in the superactivation of quantum channels [497]. If
we have a quantum channel N , then we can find a symmetric
channel A, that results in the following assisted quantum
capacity
QA (N ) =Q (N ⊗A) .
(193)

We note, that the symmetric channel has unbounded dimension
in the strongest case, and this quantity cannot be evaluated in
general. QA (N ) makes it possible to realize the superactivation of zero-capacity (in terms of LSD capacity) quantum
channels. For example if we have a zero-capacity Horodecki
channel and a zero-capacity symmetric channel, then their
combination can result in positive joint capacity [497].
F. The Zero-Error Quantum Capacity
Finally, let us shortly summarize the quantum counterpart of
classical zero-error capacity. In the case of quantum zero-error
(1)
capacities Q0 (N ) and Q0 (N ), the encoding and decoding
process differs from the classical zero-error capacity: the
encoding and decoding are carried out by the coherent encoder
and coherent POVM decoder, whose special techniques make
it possible to preserve the quantum information during the
transmission [211], [241].
The single-use and asymptotic quantum zero-error capacity
is defined in a similar way
(1)

Q0 (N ) = log (K (N )) ,

(194)

and


1
log K N ⊗n ,
(195)
n
where K (N ⊗n ) is the maximum number of n-length mutually
non-adjacent quantum messages that the quantum channel can
transmit with zero error. The quantum zero-error capacity
is upper bounded by LSD channel capacity Q (N ); that is,
the following relation holds between the quantum zero-error
capacities:
Q0 (N ) ≤Q (N ) .
(196)
Q0 (N ) = lim

n→∞

G. Relation between Classical and Quantum Capacities of
Quantum Channels
Before introducing some typical quantum channel maps
let us summarize the main properties of various capacities
in conjunction with a quantum channels. First of all, the
quantum capacity of N cannot exceed the maximal classical
capacity that can be measured with entangled inputs and joint

40

measurement; at least, it is not possible in general. On the other
hand, for some quantum channels, it is conjectured that the
maximal single-use classical capacity - hence the capacity that
can be reached with product inputs and a single measurement
setting - is lower than the quantum capacity for the same
quantum channel.
For all quantum channels
C (N ) ≥Q (N ) ,

(197)

where C (N ) is the classical capacity of the quantum channel
that can be achieved with entangled input states and a joint
measurement setting.
On the other hand, it is conjectured that for some quantum
channels,
C (N ) <Q (N )
(198)
holds as long as the classical capacity C (N ) of the quantum
channel is measured by a classical encoder and a single
measurement setting. (As we have seen in Section III, the
classical capacities of a quantum channel can be measured in
different settings, and the strongest version can be achieved
with the combination of entangled inputs and joint measurement decoding.)
The fundamental differences between classical and quantum
capacities are summarized in Table I.
It can be concluded from the table that in case of a
quantum communication channel we have to count with so
many capacities. Each of these capacities is based on different
correlation measures: the classical correlation between the
input and the output is measured by the quantum mutual
information and the Holevo information. The private classical
capacity is measured by the private information, which is
the maximization of the difference of two quantum mutual
information functions. For entanglement assisted capacity the
correlation between input and output is also measured by the
maximized quantum mutual information, however in this case
we do not have to compute the asymptotic version to get
the true capacity. Finally, the quantum correlation between
the input and output is measured by the quantum coherent
information.
H. Related Work
In this section we summarize the most important works
regarding on the quantum capacity of the quantum channels.
The quantum capacity is one of the most important result of
quantum information theory. The classical capacity of quantum
channels was discovered in early years, in the beginning of
the 1970s, and the researchers from this era —such as Holevo
and Levitin—suggested that physical particles can encode only
classical information [295], [231], [232]. The first step in the
encoding of quantum information into a physical particle was
made by Feynman, in his famous work from 1982 [160].
However, the researchers did not see clearly and did not understand completely the importance of quantum capacity until
the late 1990s. As we have shown in Section III, a quantum
channel can be used to transmit classical information and the
amount of maximal transmittable information depends on the
properties of the encoder and decoder setting, or whether the

input quantum states are mixed or pure. Up to this point, we
have mentioned just the transmission of classical information
through the quantum channel—here we had broken this picture. The HSW theorem was a very useful tool to describe the
amount of maximal transmittable classical information over a
noisy quantum channel, however we cannot use it to describe
the amount of maximal transmittable quantum information.
1) Quantum Coherent Information: The computation of
quantum capacity is based on the concept of quantum coherent
information, which measures the ability of a quantum channel
to preserve a quantum state. The definition of quantum coherent information (in an exact form) was originally introduced by
Schumacher and Nielsen in 1996 [468]. This paper is a very
important milestone in the history of the quantum capacity,
since here the authors were firstly shown that the concept
of quantum coherent information can be used to measure
the quantum information (hence not the classical information)
which can be transmitted through a quantum channel. The
first,—but yet not complete—definitions of the quantum capacity of the quantum channel can be found in Shor’s work
from 1995 [491], in which Shor has introduced a scheme for
reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, and in
Schumacher’s articles from one year later [467, 468]. Shor’s
paper from 1995 mainly discusses the problem of implementation of quantum error correcting schemes - the main focus
was not on the exact definition of quantum capacity. Later,
Shor published an extended version with a completed proof in
2002 [487]. To transmit quantum information the parties have
to encode and decode coherently. An interesting engineering
problem is how the receiver could decode quantum states in
superposition without the destruction of the original superposition [536]. The quantum capacity of a quantum channel
finally was formulated completely by the LSD-theorem, named
after Lloyd, Shor and Devetak [134], [303], [487], and they
have shown that the rate of quantum communication can be
expressed by the quantum coherent information. The LSDchannel capacity states that the asymptotic quantum capacity
of the quantum channel is greater than (or equal to in some
special cases) the single-use capacity; hence it is not equal to
the quantum coherent information.
More information about the properties of fidelity and about
the connection with other distance measures can be found in
Fuch’s works [164], [166]. An important article regarding the
fidelity of mixed quantum states was published by Jozsa in
1994 [257]. Fidelity also can be measured between entangled
quantum states—a method to compute the fidelity of entanglement was published by Schumacher in 1996 [467]. Here, the
upper bound of the quantum capacity was also mentioned,
in the terms of quantum coherent information. Nielsen in
2002 [396] defined a connection between the different fidelity
measures.
2) Proofs on Quantum Capacity: The exact measure of
quantum capacity was an open question for a long time. The
fact that the quantum capacity cannot be increased by classical
communication was formally proven by Bennett et al. [62],
who discussed the mixed state entanglement and quantum
error correction. Barnum, in 2000 [43], defined the connection
between the fidelity and the capacity of a quantum channel,

41

Capacity
Classical
Private Classical
Entanglement Assisted Classical
Quantum

Type of information
Classical information
Private information
Classical information
Quantum information

Correlation measure
Holevo information
Private information
Quantum mutual information
Quantum Coherent Information

Capacity formula
HSW formula
Li-Winter-Zou-Guo, Smith-Smolin formula
Bennett-Shor-Smolin-Thapliyal formula
LSD formula

TABLE I: The measure of classical and quantum capacities.

and here he also showed the same result as Bennett et al. did
in 1996, namely that the quantum capacity cannot increased
by classical communication [62]. The works of Barnum et al.
[43] and Schumacher et al. [470] from the late 1990s gave very
important results to the field of quantum information theory,
since these works helped to clarify exactly the maximum
amount of transmittable quantum information over very noisy
quantum channels [538].
Seth Lloyd gave the first proof in 1997 on the quantum
capacity of a noisy quantum channel. The details of Lloyd’s
proof can be found in [303], while Shor’s results in detail
can be found in [487]. On the basis of Shor’s results, a proof
on the quantum capacity was given by Hayden et al. in 2008
[224]. The next step in the history of the quantum capacity
of the quantum channel was made by Devetak [134]. Devetak
also gave a proof for the quantum capacity using the private
classical capacity of the quantum channel, and he gave a
clear connection between the quantum capacity and the private
classical capacity of the quantum channel. As in the case
of the discoverers of the HSW-theorem, the discoverers gave
different proofs. The quantum capacity of a quantum channel
is generally lower than the classical one, since in this case
the quantum states encode quantum information. The quantum
capacity requires the transmission of arbitrary quantum states,
hence not just ‘special’ orthogonal states—which is just a
subset of a more generalized case, in which the states can
be arbitrary quantum states. On the several different encoder,
decoder and measurement settings for quantum capacity see
the work of Devetak and Winter [137], Devetak and Shor’s
work [138], and the paper of Hsieh et al. [241]. In this
paper we have not mentioned the definition of unit resource
capacity region and private unit resource capacity region,
which can be found in detail in the works of Hsieh and
Wilde [242], and Wilde and Hsieh [537]. In 2005, Devetak
and Shor published a work which analyzes the simultaneous
transmission of classical and quantum information [138].
On the quantum capacities of bosonic channels a work was
published by Wolf, Garcia and Giedke, see [549]. In 2007,
Wolf and Pérez-Garcı́a published a paper on the quantum
capacities of channels with small environment, the details can
be found in [550]. They have also determined the quantum
capacity of an amplitude damping quantum channel (for the
description of amplitude damping channel, see Section V), for
details see the same paper from 2007 [550]. The properties of
quantum coherent information and reverse coherent information were studied by Patrón in 2009 [422].
The proofs of the LSD channel capacity can be found in
[134], [303], [487]. The quantum communication protocols
based on the transmission of quantum information were intensively studied by Devetak [135], and the work of the same

authors on the generalized framework for quantum Shannon
theory, from 2008 [139].
V. Q UANTUM C HANNEL M APS AND C APACITIES
Here, we give a brief survey of some important quantum
channel maps and study some capacity formulas. For the
corresponding definitions related to the state-vector description
we advise to the reader to [245].
A. Channel Maps
1) The Pauli Channel: The Pauli channel model having an
input state ρ can be formulated [456] as
ρ → CP (ρ) = (1 − p)ρ + px XρX + py Y ρY + px ZρZ, (199)
where that X, Y and Z are single-qubit Pauli determined by


0 1
X=
,
(200)
1 0


0 −i
X=
,
(201)
i 0


1 0
Z=
.
(202)
0 −1
Note that the depolarizing probability p = px + py + pz is the
sum of px , py and pz representing the depolarizing probability
of Pauli X, Y and Z errors, respectively. The probabilities of
the errors at time instant t are dependent to relaxation time
T1 and dephasing time T2 as

1
1 − e−t/T2 ,
px = py =
4

1
pz =
1 + e−t/T1 − 2e−t/T2 .
(203)
4
2) The Depolarizing Channel: The last discussed unital
channel model is the depolarizing channel which performs the
following transformation
I
N (ρi ) =p + (1−p) ρi ,
(204)
2
where p is the depolarizing parameter of the channel, and if
Alice uses two orthogonal states ρ0 and ρ1 for the encoding
then the mixed input state is
!
X
ρ=
pi ρi =p0 ρ0 + (1−p0 ) ρ1 .
(205)
i

After the unital channel has realized the transformation N on
state ρ, we will get the following result
!
X
N
pi ρi =N (p0 ρ0 + (1−p0 ) ρ1 )
(206)
i
1
=p I+ (1−p) (p0 ρ0 + (1−p0 ) ρ1 ) .
2

42

3) The Damping Channel: Let us consider the influences
of an environment to a single qubit of a quantum system,
where for example the qubit is realised by using a two-level
atom having the ground state |0i and the excited state |1i.
The atom may have a spontaneous dissipation/absorption of
energy to/from the environment, which makes the atom change
its state from the ground state |0i to the excited state |1i
or vice versa. The transition of the state is refered to as the
decoherence process. As a result, the state of the qubit when
there is no interaction with the environment is as follows [445]

where we have the corresponding Kraus matrices as


1 √ 0
EAD1 =
,
1 − pl
0
0
0

EAD2 =

|0i|1iE → |0i|1iE ,
|1i|0iE → |1i|0iE ,
(207)

where |0iE and |1iE represent the low and high basis states
of the environment. Accordingly, if the dissipation/absorption
occurs, we have
|1i|0iE → |0i|1iE ,
|0i|1iE → |1i|0iE .

ρ → CP D (ρ) = EP D1 ρ EP† D1 + EP D2 ρ EP† D2 ,



|0i|0iE → |0i|0iE ,

|1i|1iE → |1i|1iE ,

Influences from the environment may results in random
phase kicks on a single qubit. In such scenario, the decoherence process reflecting phase changes of the qubit is modelled
as the phase damping channel CP D (ρ) as

(208)

The transition represented by Eq. (208) is may be formulated
as:
p
√
1 − pl |1i|0iE + pl |0i|1iE ,
|1i|0iE →
p
√
|0i|1iE →
1 − po |0i|1iE + po |1i|0iE , (209)
where pl and po is the probability of the atom losing its
energy to the environment or obtaining its energy from the
environment, respectively. We may generalise the channel
model of Eq. (209) by alternating the basis states by the
superposition states to lead to
(α|0i + β|1i) |0iE →


p
√
α|0i + β 1 − pl |1i |0iE + β pl |0i|1iE ,

√

pl
0

(213)

(214)


.

(215)

In order to reflect changes of the qubit in both phase and
amplitude, the combination of amplitude and phase damping
channel may be used. However, in general it is not affordable
to classically simulate N -qubit combined channel, which
requires to have a 2N -dimensional Hilbert space. For the sake
of facilitating efficient classical simulations, the combined
amplitude and phase damping channel may be approximated
using a Pauli channel model.
4) The Dephasing Channel Model: The second type of
decoherence map discussed is unitary and results in relative
phase differences between the computational basis states: the
channel map which realizes it is called the dephasing map. In
contrast to the amplitude damping map, it realizes a unitary
transformation. The unitary representation
P of the dephasing
quantum channel for a given input ρ= i,j ρij | ii h j| can be
expressed as
X
N (ρ) =
ρii | Ei i h Ei | ,
(216)
i

where | Ei i are the environment states. The dephasing quantum channel acts on the density operator ρ as follows
N (ρi ) =pσZ ρσZ + (1−p) ρi ,

(217)

where σZ is the Pauli Z-operator. The image of the dephasing
(α|0i + β|1i) |1iE →


channel
map is similar to that of the phase flip channel map,
p
√
α po |1i|0iE + α 1 − po |0i + β|1i |1iE .however, the shrinkage of the original Bloch sphere is greater.
The dephasing channel transforms an arbitrary superposed
It should be noted that the coefficient α and β may be
pure quantum state α | 0i +β | 1i into a mixture
used representing the (N − 1) qubit states orthogonal to the


2
states |0i and |1i of the considered qubit. Moreover, if it can
|α|
αβ ∗ e−γ(t)
N (ρ) →ρ0 =
,
(218)
2
be assumed that each qubit interacts independently with the
α∗ βe−γ(t) |β|
environment, the associated decoherence process in the N where γ (t) is a positive real parameter, which characterizes
qubit system may be considered as temporally and spatially
the coupling to the environment, using the time parameter t.
uncorrelated. Accordingly, the process where the qubit loses
5) The Pancake Map: To give an example for physically
its energy can be modelled by an amplitude damping channel
not allowed (nonphysical, non-CP) transformations, we discuss
CAD having an input state ρ [177]:
the pancake map. The non-CP property means, that there
†
†
ρ → CAD (ρ) = EAD1 ρ EAD1
+ EAD2 ρ EAD2
, (210) exists no Completely Positive Trace Preserving map, which
preserves some information along the equatorial spanned by
where Kraus matrices EAD used for characterising the ampli- the x and y axes of the Bloch sphere, while it completely
tude damping channel are as follows:
demolishes any information along the z axis. This map is


called the pancake map, and it realizes a physically not allowed
1 √ 0
EAD1 =
,
(211)
(non-CP) transformation. The effect of the pancake map is
1 − pl
0
similar to the bit-phase flip channel, however, this channel

√ 
defines a non-CP transform: it ‘smears’ the original Bloch
0
pl
EAD2 =
.
(212) sphere along the equatorial spanned by the x and y axes. On
0
0

43

the other hand, the pancake map—besibdes the fact that is a
non-physical map—can be used theoretically to transfer some
information, and some information can be transmitted through
these kinds of channel maps. The reason behind decoherence
is Nature. She cannot be perfectly eliminated from quantum
systems in practice. The reduction of decoherence is also a
very complex task, hence it brings us on the engineering side
of the problem: the quantum systems have to be designed
in such a way that the unwanted interaction between the
quantum states and the environment has to be minimal [491],
[492]. Currently - despite the efficiency of these schemes the most important tools to reduce decoherence are quantum
error-correcting codes and decoupling methods.
Fig. 27: The classical and quantum capacities of the erasure
quantum channel as a function of erasure probability [Imre13].

B. Capacities
Next, we study the classical and quantum capacities of the
following quantum channels:
1) erasure quantum channel,
2) phase-erasure quantum channel,
3) mixed erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel,
4) amplitude damping channel.
First we derive the classical capacities of these channels
in closed forms. Then we give the quantum capacities and
compare them.
1) Erasure Quantum Channel: The erasure quantum channel Np erases the input state ρ with probability p or transmits
the state unchanged with probability (1−p)
Np (ρ) → (1−p) ρ+ (p | ei h e| ) ,

(219)

where | ei is the erasure state. The classical capacity of the
erasure quantum channel Np can be expressed as
C (Np ) = (1−p) log (d) ,

(220)

where d is the dimension of the input system ρ. As follows
from (220), the classical capacity of Np vanishes at p= 1,
while if 0≤p< 1 then the channel Np can transmit some
classical information.
The quantum capacity of the erasure quantum channel Np
is
Q (Np ) = (1 − 2p) log (d) .
(221)
Q (Np ) vanishes at p=1/2, but it can transmit some quantum
information if 0≤p<1/2.
In Fig. 27, the classical (dashed line) and quantum capacity
(solid line) of the erasure quantum channel as a function of
erasure probability are shown.
2) Phase-Erasure Quantum Channel: The phase-erasure
quantum channel Nδ erases the phase of the input quantum
state with probability p without causing any disturbance in
the amplitude. Using input density matrix ρ, the map of the
phase-erasure quantum channel can be expressed as
ρ+ZρZ †
⊗ | 1i h 1| , (222)
2
where Z realizes the phase transformation on the input quantum system ρ, while the second qubit is used as a flag qubit.
N (ρ) → (1−p) ρ⊗ | 0i h 0| +p

The classical capacity of the Nδ phase-erasure quantum
channel using phase erasing probability q is
C (Nδ ) = 1,

(223)

since the phase error has no effect on the distinguishability
of orthogonal input quantum states | 0i and | 1i . On the other
hand, if we talk about quantum capacity Q (Nδ ) of Nδ the
picture changes:
Q (Nδ ) = (1−q) log (d) .

(224)

3) Mixed Erasure/Phase-Erasure Quantum Channel: From
the erasure quantum channel and the phase-erasure quantum
channel a third type of quantum channel can be constructed
– the mixed erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel. This
channel erases the input quantum system with probability
p, erases the phase with probability q, and leaves the input
unchanged with probability 1−p−q≥0. Using (220) and (223),
the classical capacity of the mixed erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel, Np+q , can be expressed as
C (Np+q ) = (1−p) log (d) =C (Np ) .

(225)

Furthermore, combining (221) and (224), the quantum capacity of the mixed erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel,
Np+q , we get
Q (Np+q ) = (1−q−2p) log (d) .

(226)

The classical (dashed line) and quantum capacities (solid
line) of the mixed erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel as
a function of total erasure probability p+q are illustrated in
Fig. 28.
4) Amplitude damping Quantum Channel: Finally, we give
the quantum capacity of the amplitude damping channel. The
classical capacity of the amplitude damping quantum channel
can be expressed as
C (Aγ ) = max H (τ ) + [−H (τ (γ)) +H (τ (1−γ))] , (227)
τ

where τ ∈ [0, 1] is a special parameter called the population parameter, and H is the Shannon entropy function, and

44

VI. P RACTICAL I MPLEMENTATIONS OF Q UANTUM
C HANNELS
In this section, we focus on the physical and experimental
implications of quantum channels in different scenarios.

Fig. 28: The classical and quantum capacities of the mixed
erasure/phase-erasure quantum channel as a function of total
erasure probability [Imre13].

H (τ ) = −τ log (τ ) − (1−τ ) log (1−τ ). As follows from (227)
the classical capacity C (Aγ ) of the amplitude damping channel completely vanishes if γ= 1, otherwise (if 0≤γ< 1) the
channel can transmit classical information. On the other hand
for the quantum capacity Q (Aγ ) the capacity behaves differ.
The quantum capacity of this channel can be expressed as
a maximization:
Q (Aγ ) = max [H (τ (γ)) −H (τ (1−γ))] .
τ

(228)

The classical (dashed line) and the quantum capacity (solid
line) of the amplitude damping quantum channel as a function
of the damping parameter γ are shown in Fig. 29.

Fig. 29: The classical and quantum capacities of the amplitude
damping quantum channel as a function of the damping
parameter [Imre13].
It can be concluded that the working mechanism of the
amplitude damping channel is similar to the erasure channel
(see (220) and (221)), since if the damping parameter value
is equal to or greater than 0.5, the quantum capacity of the
channel completely vanishes. We obtained the same result
for the erasure channel; however in that case the erasure
probability p was the channel parameter.

A. Realistic Material: Asymmetric Depolarising Channel
A quantum depolarizing channel characterised by the probability px , py and pz can be directly used for modelling
quantum systems employing diverse materials. In other words,
the quantum depolarizing channel can be used for modelling the imperfections in quantum hardware, namely, qubit
flips resulting from quantum decoherence and quantum gates.
Furthermore, a quantum depolarizing channel can also be
invoked for modelling quantum-state flips imposed by the real
transmission medium, including free-space wireless channels
and optical fiber links, when qubits are transmitted across these
media. For the sake of simpliciy, most recent studies of the
quantum channel capacity [54], [66], [85], [539] as well as
of quantum error correction (QEC) schemes considered the
symmetric polarizing channel [34], [442], [540], where the
constituent flip probabilities obey px = py = pz = p/3.
By contrast, popular materials invoked for producing quantum
devices often exhibit asymmetric behaviour, where a phase flip
is orders of magnitude more likely than a bit flip [308], which
can be modelled by an asymmetric quantum depolarizing
channel [75], [259], [426], [517], [519]. In such asymmetric
depolarizing channels, an extra parameter α termed as the
channel’s ratio of asymmetry is introduced for reflecting the
ratio of the phase flip probability pz and the bit flip probability
px as [156], [456]
−t



−t

−

2t



e T1 − e 2T1 T2
pz
.
(229)
=1+2
α =
−t
px
1 − e T1
Note that the bit flip probability px as well as the simultaneous bit-and-phase flip probability py may be considered to
be equal [156], [456] while time instant t may be interpreted
as the coherent operation duration of a physical quantum gate
[541]. If the coherent operation duration t is relatively short,
formulated as t << T1 , we can invoke the approximation of
α ≈ 2T2 /T1 −1 [426]. As a result, the phase flip probability pz
can be directly determined from the values of α and px . Note
that in the case of having α = 1, the depolarising channel is the
symmetric depolarizing channel, where the condition of having
px = py = pz = p/3 is satisfied. In practice the channel’s
ratio of asymmetry has popular values of α = 102 , 104 , 106
[34], [442], [540], which correspond to the typical materials
of Table II, which are used for producing quantum devices.
B. Acting Time in Asymmetric Channels
In the asymmtric depolarizing chanel, when the acting time
2
t of the channels under investigation is small, the value of
α in Eq. (229) may be calculated by
α=1+2

1 − et/T1 (1−T1 /T2 )
,
et/(T1 −1)

(230)

2 t is the evolution time of the quantum system with the presence of
decoherence, which can be considered to be equal to the duration of a physical
quantum gate.

45

System (Material)
P:Si [517]
GaAs Quantum Dots [426]
Super conducting (flux qubits) [75]
Trapped ions [259]
Solid State NMR [519]

T1
1 hour
10ms
1µs
100 ms
> 1 min

T2
1ms
> 1µs
100 ns
1 ms
>1s

α
106
104
102
102
102

TABLE II: Estimated asymmetric ratio α representing various
quantum depolarizing channels associated with various quantum devices.

Then, the bit flip probability px is calculated upon the asymmetric level α and the depolarizing probability of p as:
p
px =
.
(231)
α+2
As a result, the phase flip probability pz can be determined
from the values of α and px . Since, the phase flip probability
dominates over the bit flip one, the bit flip probability px and
the bit-and-phase flip probability py may be considered to be
equal.
We may use the precalculated α values in Table II for
characterising the quantum channel. Since this way does not
take in consideration the absolute values of t, T1 , T2 , it may
not closely characterise different systems manufactured by
different materials in Table II that are associated with the same
value of α. The absolute values of t, T1 , T2 may be used for
calculating the depolarizing probabilities of px , pz and py as
follows [156]:
1

(232)
pz (t) =

 ,
−t
−2t
−t
2T1 − T2
T1
4 1 + e − 2e
px (t)

=
=

py (t),
1

(233)
−t

.

4(1 − e T1 )
Accordingly, the encoding and decoding gate operation
times pertaining to different materials are listed in Table III.
C. Implementation of Quantum Channel in FSO-based Quantum Key Distribution
Depending on the specific form of the electromagnetic plane
wave pertaining to the monochromatic laser signal generating
photons, photons may be linearly polarized (LP) or elliptically
polarized (EP) [417]. In the context of considering Quantum
Key Distribution (QKD) systems, we only consider LP photons
having polarizations of say 00 , 900 , −450 , 450 [564]. Accordingly, the basis associated with the polarization of 00 , 900 can
be characterised by:
|00 i =

1|00 i + 0i|900 i,

(234)

|900 i =

0|00 i + i|900 i.

(235)

The relationship between the two bases can also be expressed by:
|00 i =

1
i
√ |450 i + √ |−450 i,
2
2

(236)

i
1
√ |450 i − √ |−450 i.
2
2

|900 i =

(237)

An FSO quantum transmission channel is used for carrying
the photon stream to from the source (S) to the destination
(D). Since the FSO channel imposes deleterious effects, such
as diffraction, atmospheric turbulence and extinction [515],
only a certain fraction γ of the photon stream transmitted
by S arrives at D. In other words, the term γ invoked for
characterising the power transfer properties of the FSO channel
over a distance L imposed on the QKD system’s performance
is approximated by [170], [453], [480]
γ

= µe−αL ,

(238)

where µ represents the diffraction losses or the normalised
version of the fraction γ, while α is the extinction coefficient.
The value of µ depends on the Fresnel number of
2

πd1 d2
,
(239)
Df0 =
4λL
where d1 is the transmit aperture diameter and d2 is the
receiver’s aperture diameter, while λ is the wavelength of the
optical signal.
In the near-field region having Df0 >> 1, the parameter µ
is bounded by [479], [480]
µN F,LB

≤

µ ≤ µN F,U B ,

(240)

where the upper bound µN F,U B can be calculated by [480]
µN F,U B

=

min(Df0 , 1),

(241)

while the lower bound µN F,LB is given by [480]
q


8 Df0 Z 1
−D(d2 x)
µN F,LB =
exp
(242)
π
2
0
q




p
× arccos(x) − x 1 − x2 J1 4x Df0 dx,
where J1 (.) is the first-order Bessel function. The sphericalwave structure function D(ρ) of Eq. (242) is calculated for
the worse-case scenario of having d1 = d2 as [480]:
5/12 5/3
2
D(ρ) = 51σR
Df0
ρ ,
(243)
2
where σR
is the Rytov variance [261] of
 7/6
2π
2
σR = 1.24
Cn2 L11/6 ,
λ

(244)

with Cn2 ranging from 10−13 to 10−17 representing the
altitude-dependent index of the refractive structure parameter
[566].
By contrast, in the far-field region having Df0 << 1, the
value of µ can be calculated by [479]
q


8 Df0 Z 1
−D(d2 x)
exp
(245)
µF F =
π
2
0

  q 
p
× arcos−1 (x) − x 1 − x2 J1 4x Df0 dx,

46

Quantum Systems
Electrons from a gold atom
Trapped indium atoms
Optical micro cavity
Electron spin
Electron quantum dot
Nuclear spin

Time per gate Operation (sec)
10−14
10−14
10−14
10−7
10−6
10−3

Coherence time
10−8
10−1
10−5
10−3
10−3
104

Maximal number of coherence steps
106
1013
109
104
103
107

TABLE III: Maximal number of computational steps that can be performed without losing coherence

where the spherical-wave structure function D(ρ) of Eq. (245)
can be calculated by
 2
2π
D(ρ) = 1.09
Cn2 Lρ5/3 .
(246)
λ

Fraction γ of collected photons

quantum-related applications in the area of quantum communications [143], [263], [313], [314], [421], [457]. However, a
crucial obstacle to the practical realisation of quantum communications systems is the presence of quantum perturbations.
Their deleterious effects can be mitigated by Quantum Error
As a result, when a more accurate value range of γ is sought, Correction Codes [54]. It was suggested that the employment
of entanglement assistance is capable of further improving
the following bounds should be used (see Fig. 30)
the performance of QECCs [442], [540] in the context of
γLB ≤ γ ≤ γU B ,
(247) the so-called symmetric depolarizing channel, which has been
routinely used in theoretical studies. In the symmetric depolarwhere the upper bound γU B is determined by:
izing channel characterised by the gross depolarizing proba
γN F,U B : if Df0 > Tnear

bility p, each transmitted qubit may independently experience
(γN F,U B + γF F )/2 : if Tf ar ≤ Df0 ≤ Tnear , either a bit flip (X), a phase flip (Z), or both (Y ) at a
γU B =

γF F : if Df0 < Tf ar
probability of px = py = pz = p/3. By contrast, the materials
(248) considered at the time of writing for building quantum devices,
while the lower bound γLB is calculated by:
including trapped ions [460] and solid state Nuclear Magnetic

0
Resonance [519], exhibit asymmetric depolarization property
γN F,LB : if Df > Tnear

0
(γN F,LB + γF F )/2 : if Tf ar ≤ Df ≤ Tnear , defined as the ratio of the phase flip probability over the
γLB =

bit flip probability, where the grade of asymmetry is in the
γF F : if Df0 < Tf ar
2
6
(249) range spanning from α = 10 to α = 10 [333-337]. QECCs
where the region having Tf ar ≤ Df0 ≤ Tnear is the transition designed for the asymmetric depolarizing channel were termed
as asymmetric QECCs in [338-343], where a limited range
region between the near-field and far-field regimes.
of α values was assumed and no entanglement assistance
was addressed. In [344], a more general framework covering
Bounds of fraction γ
both symmetric and asymmetric depolarizing channels was
100
γ NF,UB
proposed for Entanglement Assisted QECCs (EAQECCs).
To benchmark the design of the EAQECCs, the Entanγ NF,LB
-1
glement
Assisted Quantum Channel’s (EAQC) capacity was
10
γ FF
investigated in [85], [539]. Accordingly, the so-called Hashing
γ UB
bound is advocated for setting a lower limit on the achievable
γ LB
quantum depolarizing channel capacity, which has been used
-2
10
for benchmarking the performance of various QECC schemes
in [34], [345], [540]. Furthermore, the powerful Extrinsic
Information Transfer (EXIT) chart technique [346-350] that
10-3
was originally introduced for analysing the convergence behaviour of iterative decoding and detection in conventional
communication systems was recently further developed for
10-4
analysing the iterative decoding convergence of QECCs [345].
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
In [344], entanglement assisted quantum coding schemes and
Distance L [km]
the associated quantum depolarizing channel capacity were
Fig. 30: Bounds of γ characterised by Eq. (247) for a transition
considered for both asymmetric and symmetric quantum deregion of (Tf ar = 0.5 ≤ Df0 ≤ Tnear = 5).
polarizing channels.
E. Quantum Network Coding for Entanglement Distribution
D. Quantum Channel Codes for Approaching Quantum Channel Capacity
The appealing parallelism of quantum computing relying
on quantum bits has inspired researchers to consider various

In the classical domain, network coding [351, 352] is
capable of increasing the throughput, while minimising the
amount of energy required per packet as well as the delay
of packets travelling through the network [353, 354]. This is

47

achieved by allowing the intermediate nodes of the network
to combine multiple data packets received via the incoming
links before transmission to the destination [355]. Due to its
merits, the concept of the network coding has been applied in
diverse disciplines [356].
Inspired by its classical counterpart [352, 357, 358], the
question arises if the quantum version of network coding
exists. Due to the inherent nature of quantum communications,
namely that cloning is impossible, negative answers to this
cardinal question were suggested in [359, 360]. However,
further studies of Quantum Network Coding (QNC) confirm
that given the availability of extra resources, such as preshared
entanglement [361-368] or the abundance of low-cost classical
communications [360, 369-371], QNC can indeed be made
feasible.
Entanglement consitutes a valuable enabler of various
quantum protocols that are essential for various applications
of quantum communications, such as quantum teleportation
[372], remote state preparation [373], quantum remote measuring [374] and secret sharing [375]. Entanglement refers to the
fact that two or more photons have a very special connection,
whereby changing for example the spin of a photon will
instantaneously change that of its entangled couterpart. Anecdotally, this phenomenon is referred to as a ”spooky action
at a distance” by Einstein [153] due to the fact that unlike
in electromagnetism, interactions between entangled photons
occur instantaneously, regardless of how far apart the photons
are. By contrast, electromagnetic interactions are bounded by
the speed of light [246].
In such quantum protocols, the entangled qubits have to be
distributed to distant nodes. A particularly popular application
of the entanglement distribution is QKD [376], which has
been gradually finding its way into different practical scenarios, such as satellite communications [377, 378], terrestrial
communications [379, 380] and over handheld communication
[381, 382]. These advances lay the foundations of the quantum
Internet [383-385]. Entanglement distribution over a largescale network consisting of multiple-hops and multiple-nodes
can be realised by Entanglement Swapping (ES) [386-388] or
by QNC [363, 365, 389]. ES may be deemed to be similar
to the classic Decode-and-Forward (DF) techniques, which
is outperformed by the classical Network Coding (NC) in a
number of practical scenarios [390-392]. This leads to another
intriguing and crucial question, namely whether the QNC is
similarly capable of providing a better performance than ES.
In order to answer the second question, Satoh et al. [363]
provided quantitative comparisons between the QNC and the
ES. Explicitly, it was shown that the fidelity-performance
of the ES-based system is superior to that of the QNCbased system in a quantum communication network having
M = 2 pairs of source-to-target users that are connected via
a backbone link having N = 1 hop. However, Nguyen et
al. [393] generalised the QNC of [363, 365] to large-scale
quantum communication networks, in order to demonstrate the
benefits of large-scale QNC over ES.

VII. C ONCLUSIONS
Quantum channels extend the possibilities of classical communication channels allowing us to transmit classical information, entanglement assisted classical information, private
classical information and quantum information. Contrary to
classical channels, quantum channels can be used to construct
more advanced communication primitives. Quantum entanglement or the superposed states carry quantum information,
which cannot be described classically. Quantum channels
can be implemented in practice easily e.g. via optical fiber
networks or by wireless optical channels, and make it possible
to send various types of information. The errors are a natural
interference from the noisy environment, and the can be
much diverse due to the extended set of quantum channel
models. In the near future, advanced quantum communication
and networking technologies driven by quantum information
processing will revolutionize the traditional methods. Quantum
information will help to resolve still open scientific and technical problems, as well as expand the boundaries of classical
computation and communication systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Abeyesinghe, P. Hayden, G. Smith, and A. J.Winter, “Optimal
superdense coding of entangled states,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, pp. 3635–3641, (2006).
[2] Abramson, N.: The Aloha system-another alternative for computer
communications. AFIPS Conf. Proc. 36, pp. 295-298, (1970).
[3] M. Ackermann, J. Blömer, and C. Sohler. Clustering for metric and
non-metric distance measures. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual
ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA ’08), pages
799–808. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, (2008).
[4] C. Adami and N. J. Cerf, On the von Neumann capacity of noisy
quantum channels, arXiv:quant-ph/9609024v3 (1996).
[5] P. Agarwal. Range searching. In J. E. Goodman and J. O’Rourke,
editors, Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, 2nd
edition., chapter 36. Chapman & Hall/CRC, (2004).
[6] P. Agarwal, J. Pach, and M. Sharir. State of the union (of geometric
objects): A review. In J. Goodman, J. Pach, and R. Pollack, editors,
Computational Geometry: Twenty Years Later. American Mathematical Society, (2007).
[7] D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with
constant error. In STOC ’97: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual
ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 176-188, New York,
NY, USA, ACM, (1997).
[8] R. Ahlswede and A. J. Winter. Strong converse for identication
via quantum channels. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory,
48(3):569-579, arXiv:quant-ph/0012127, (2002).
[9] R. Alicki and M. Fannes, ”Note on multiple additivity of minimal
entropy output of extreme SU(d)-covariant channels”, Open Systems
and Information Dynamics 11, 339 - 342 (2004).
[10] S. Aluru. Quadtrees and octrees. In D. Metha and S. Sahni, editors,
Handbook of Data Structures and Applications, chapter 19. Chapman
& Hall/CRC, (2005).
[11] S. Amari and H. Nagaoka: Methods of Information Geometry. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 191. AMS, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, (2000).
[12] S. Amari and H. Nagaoka: Methods of Information Geometry. Translated from the 1993 Japanese original by Daishi Harada. Translations
of Mathematical Monographs, 191. AMS, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, (2000).
[13] N. Amato, M. T. Goodrich, and E. A. Ramos. A randomized algorithm
for triangulating a simple polygon in linear time. Discrete Comput.
Geom., 26:245– 265, 2001.
[14] G. Amosov. Remark on the additivity conjecture for the quantum
depolarizing channel, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408004, (2004).
[15] G. Amosov, ”The strong superadditivity conjecture holds for the
quantum depolarizing channel in any dimension”, Phys. Rev. A 75,
2104 - 2117 (2007).

48

[16] G. Amosov, A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, ”On some additivity
problems in quantum information theory”, Problems in Information
Transmission 36, 305 - 313 (2000).
[17] L. Arge, G. Brodal, and L. Georgiadis. Improved dynamic planar point
location. In Proc. 47th Annu. IEEE Sympos. Found. Comput. Sci.,
pages 305–314, (2006).
[18] S. Arimoto. An algorithm for calculating the capacity of an arbitrary
discrete memoryless channel. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 18:14–20,
(1972).
[19] P. Arrighi, V. Nesme, & R. Werner, Unitarity plus causality implies
localizability, Proceedings of the Quantum Information Processing
2010 conference (QIP2010). (2010).
[20] T. Asano, N. Katoh, N. Tamaki, and T. Tokuyama. Angular Voronoi
diagram with applications. In Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Voronoi Diagram in Science and Engineering, pages 32–39,
Banff, Canada, (2006).
[21] T. Asano, N. Katoh, N. Tamaki, and T. Tokuyama. Voronoi diagram
with respect to criteria on vision information. In Proceedings of
4th International Symposium on Voronoi Diagram in Science and
Engineering, pages 25–32, Wales, UK, (2007).
[22] T. Asano. Aspect-ratio voronoi diagram and its complexity bounds.
Information Processing Letters, 105(1. 31):26–31, (2007).
[23] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger. Experimental tests of realistic
local theories via Bell’s theorem, Physical Review Letters, 47(7):460463, (1981).
[24] G. Aubrun, S. Szarek, and E. Werner, “Hastings’ additivity counterexample via Dvoretzky’s theorem,” ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1003.4925.
(2010).
[25] K. M. R. Audenaert. A sharp continuity estimate for the von Neumann entropy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical,
40(28):8127, (2007).
[26] F. Aurenhammer and R. Klein. Voronoi Diagrams. In J. Sack and G.
Urrutia (Eds), Handbook of Computational Geometry, Chapter V, pp.
201–290. Elsevier Science Publishing, (2000).
[27] F. Aurenhammer and H. Edelsbrunner. An optimal algorithm for
constructing the weighted Voronoi diagram in the plane. Pattern
Recogn., 17:251–257, (1984).
[28] F. Aurenhammer, “Power diagrams: properties, algorithms and applications,” SIAM J. Comput., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 78–96, (1987).
[29] F. Aurenhammer. Voronoi diagrams: A survey of a fundamental
geometric data structure. ACM Comput. Surv., 23:345–405, (1991).
[30] F. Aurenhammer and O. Schwarzkopf. A simple on-line randomized
incremental algorithm for computing higher order Voronoi diagrams.
Internat. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 2:363–381, (1992).
[31] F. Aurenhammer, F. Hoffmann, and B. Aronov. Minkowski-type theorems and least-squares clustering. Algorithmica, 20:61–76, (1998).
[32] K. Azuma, N. Sota, R. Namiki, S. Kaya Ozdemir, T. Yamamoto, M.
Koashi, Optimal entanglement generation for efficient hybrid quantum
repeaters, Physical Review A 80, 060303(R) (2009).
[33] Z. Babar, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Near-capacity code design for
entanglement-assisted classical communication over quantum depolarizing channels,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, pp.
4801–4807, (2013).
[34] Z. Babar, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Exit-chart-aided near-capacity
quantum turbo code design,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 64, pp. 866–875 (2015).
[35] L. Bacsardi, Using Quantum Computing Algorithms in Future Satellite
Communication, ACTA ASTRONAUTICA 57: pp. 224-229. (2005)
[36] L. Bacsardi, Satellite Communication Over Quantum Channel, ACTA
ASTRONAUTICA 61:(1-6) pp. 151-159. (2007)
[37] L. Bacsardi, S. Imre, Quantum Based Information Transfer in Satellite
Communication, Satellite Communications, SCIYO, 2010. pp. 421436.
[38] L. Bacsardi, On the Way to Quantum-Based Satellite Communication,
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE 51:(08) pp. 50-55. (2013)
[39] M. Badoiu, S. Har-Peled, and P. Indyk. Approximate clustering via
core-sets. In Proceedings 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 250–257, (2002).
[40] Y-K. Bai, S. Li and H. Zheng, “Method for measuring two-qubit
entanglement of formation by local operations and classical communication”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 8633, doi: 10.1088/03054470/38/40/010 (2005).
[41] Banerjee, Arindam; Merugu, Srujana; Dhillon, Inderjit S.; Ghosh,
Joydeep “Clustering with Bregman divergences”. Journal of Machine
Learning Research 6: 1705–1749. (2005).
[42] H. Barnum, C. Caves, C. Fuchs, R. Jozsa, and B. Schumacher. On
quantum coding for ensembles of mixed states. Journal of Physics A:

Mathematical and General, 34(35):6767, (2001).
[43] H. Barnum, Emanuel Knill, and Michael A. Nielsen. On quantum
fidelities and channel capacities. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 46:1317-1329, (2000).
[44] H. Barnum, C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, R. Jozsa, and B. Schumacher,
“Noncommuting mixed states cannot be broadcast,” Phys. Rev. Lett.,
vol. 76, pp. 2818–2821, eprint quant-ph/9511010, (1996).
[45] H. Barnum, C. A. Fuchs, R. Jozsa, and B. Schumacher, “A general
fidelity limit for quantum channels,” eprint quant-ph/9603014, (1996).
[46] H. Barnum, M. A. Nielsen, and B. Schumacher, “Information transmission through noisy quantum channels,” eprint quant-ph/9702049,
(1997).
[47] H. Barnum, J. Smolin, and B. Terhal, “Results on quantum channel
capacity,” submitted to Phys. Rev A (eprint quant-ph/9711032). (1997).
[48] S. D. Barrett, T. M. Stace, Fault tolerant quantum computation
with very high threshold for loss errors, Physical Review Letters,
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.200502, http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2456.
(2010).
[49] F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, “Photon number resolution enables quantum receiver for realistic coherent optical communications,”
Nature Photonics, vol. 9, p. 48, (2014).
[50] S. Beigi and P. W. Shor, On the Complexity of Computing Zero-Error
and Holevo Capacity of Quantum Channels, arXiv:0709.2090 [quantph] (2007).
[51] J. Bell, “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 38: 447-452 (1966).
[52] P. Benioff, The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum
mechanical hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing
machines. Journal of Statistical Physics, 22:563–591. (1980).
[53] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key
distribution and coin tossing,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 560,
pp. 7–11, (2014).
[54] C. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thapliyal, “Entanglement assisted capacity of a quantum channel and the reverse shannon
theorem,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, pp. 2637–2655, (2002).
[55] C. H. Bennett, P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, P. W. Shor, and A. Winter, “Remote preparation of quantum states,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 51, pp. 56–74, (2005).
[56] C. Bennett, A. Harrow, and S. Lloyd. Universal quantum data compression via nondestructive tomography. Physical Review A, 73(3):032336,
(2006).
[57] C. Bennett, I. Devetak, A. Harrow, P. Shor, A. Winter, Quantum
Reverse Shannon Theorem, (2009), arXiv:0912.5537
[58] C. Bennett and S. Wiesner. Communication via one- and two-particle
operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states.Phys.Rev.Lett.,69:28812884, (1992).
[59] Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, and MarieHelene Skubiszewska, Practical Quantum Oblivious Transfer” in Advances in Cryptology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 576., 351366 (1992).
[60] C. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and William
K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical Review Letters,
70(13):1895-1899, (1993).
[61] C. Bennett. Quantum Information and Computation. Physics Today,
48(10):24-30, (1995).
[62] C. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters,
“Mixed state entanglement and quantum error correction”. Phys. Rev.
A, 54(5):3824– 3851, (1996).
[63] C. Bennett, H. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher. Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations. Physical Review A,
53(4):2046-2052, (1996).
[64] C. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, “Capacities of
quantum erasure channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 78, no. 16, pp. 3217–
3220, (1997).
[65] C. Bennett and P. W. Shor, “quantum information theory”, IEEE Trans.
Info. Theory 44, 2724 - 2742 (1998).
[66] C. Bennett, P. Shor, J. Smolin, and A. Thapliyal, “Entanglementassisted classical capacity of noisy quantum channels,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 83, pp. 3081–3084, Oct. 11 (1999).
[67] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W.
Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters. Quantum nonlocality without
entanglement. Phys.Rev. A, 59(2):1070–1091, (1999).
[68] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography and its
application to provably secure key expansion, public-key distribution,
and coin-tossing,” 1983 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory, pp. 91–91 (1983).

49

[69] I. Bengtsson, K. Zyczkowski, Entanglement & geometry of quantum
states, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom,
(2006).
[70] Berces M, Imre S.:Extension and analysis of modifiedsuperdensecodinginmulti-userenvironment, IEEE 19th International Conference
on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES2015), pp. 291-294. (2015).
[71] T. Berger. Rate distortion theory: A mathematical basis for data compression. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, (1971).
[72] M. Bern. Triangulation and mesh generation. In J. E. Goodman
and J. O’Rourke, editors, Handbook of Discrete and Computational
Geometry, 2nd edn., chapter 25. Chapman & Hall/CRC, (2004).
[73] M. Bern and P. Plasman. Mesh generation. In J.-R. Sack and J. Urrutia,
editors, Handbook of Computational Geometry, 2nd edn., chapter 6.
Elsevier, (1999).
[74] N. K. Bernardes, L. Praxmeyer, P. van Loock, Rate analysis for a
hybrid quantum repeater, arXiv:1010.0106v1, (2010).
[75] P. Bertet, I. Chiorescu, G. Burkard, K. Semba, C. J. P. M. Harmans, D.
P. DiVincenzo, and J. E. Mooij, “Dephasing of a superconducting qubit
induced by photon noise,” Physical Review Lettes, vol. 95 (2005).
[76] D. Bohm. Quantum Theory. Courier Dover Publications, (1989).
[77] B. Bollobas, Modern graph theory. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.,
New York, (1998).
[78] C. Bonato, S. Bonora, A. Chiuri, P. Mataloni, G. Milani, G. Vallone,
and P. Villoresi, Phase control of a path-entangled photon state by a
deformable membrane mirror, JOSA B, Vol. 27, Issue 6, pp. A175A180, doi:10.1364/JOSAB.27.00A175, (2010).
[79] G. Bowen. Quantum feedback channels. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory,50(10):2429-2434, arXiv:quant-ph/0209076, (2004).
[80] G. Bowen. Feedback in quantum communication. International Journal of Quantum Information, 3(1):123-127, arXiv:quant-ph/0410191,
(2005).
[81] G. Bowen and R. Nagarajan. On feedback and the classical capacity of
a noisy quantum channel. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory,
51(1):320-324, arXiv:quant-ph/0305176, (2005).
[82] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge
University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 8RU, UK,
(2004).
[83] K. Bradler, P. Hayden, and P. Panangaden. Private information via the
Unruh effect, Journal of High Energy Physics 08, 074 (2009).
[84] K. Bradler, An infinite sequence of additive channels: the classical
capacity of cloning channels. arXiv:0903.1638, (2009).
[85] K. Bradler, P. Hayden, D. Touchette, and M. M. Wilde, Trade-off
capacities of the quantum Hadamard channels, arXiv:1001.1732v2,
(2010).
[86] F. Brandao and J. Oppenheim, “Public Quantum Communication and
Superactivation,” arXiv:1005.1975. (2010).
[87] F. Brandao, J. Oppenheim and S. Strelchuk, ”When does noise increase
the quantum capacity?”, arXiv:1107.4385v1 [quant-ph] (2011).
[88] S. Braunstein, C. Fuchs, D. Gottesman, and H. Lo. A quantum
analog of Huffman coding. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory,
46(4):1644-1649, (2000).
[89] L. Bregman, “The relaxation method of finding the common points of
convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex
programming”. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical
Physics 7: 200–217. doi:10.1016/0041 5553(67)90040-7. (1967).
[90] H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters: the
role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication. Physical
Review Letters, 81:5932 5935, (1998).
[91] G. Brodal and R. Jacob. Dynamic planar convex hull. In Proc. 43rd
Annu. IEEE Sympos. Found. Comput. Sci., pages 617–626, (2002).
[92] L. de Broglie. Recherches sur la théorie des quanta. PhD thesis, Paris,
(1924).
[93] D. Bruss, L. Faoro, C. Macchiavello and M. Palma, ”Quantum entanglement and classical communication through a depolarizing channel”,
J. Mod. Opt. 47 325 (2000).
[94] B. Buckley, G. Fuchs, L. Bassett, and D. Awschalom, Spin-Light
Coherence for Single-Spin Measurement and Control in Diamond.
Science, Online October 14 2010 DOI: 10.1126/Science.1196436.
(2010).
[95] C. Buckley. A divide-and-conquer algorithm for computing 4dimensional convex hulls. In Lecture Note in Computer Science,
volume 333, pages 113–135. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, (1988).
[96] J. Burbea and C. Rao, “On the convexity of some divergence measures based on entropy functions,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 489–495, (1982).
[97] D. Bures, “An extension of kakutani’s theorem on infinite product
measures to the tensor product of semifinite w*-algebras,” Transactions

on American Mathematical Society, vol. 135, pp. 199–212, (1969).
[98] N. Cai, A. Winter, and R. Yeung, “Quantum privacy and quantum
wiretap channels,” Problems of Information Transmission, vol. 40, no.
4, pp. 318–336, (2004).
[99] R. Calderbank and P. Shor, Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,
Physical Review A, 54:1098, (1996).
[100] R. Calderbank, E. Rains, P. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum
error correction and orthogonal geometry. Physical Review Letters,
78(3):405-408, (1997).
[101] A. R. Calderbank, E. Rains, P. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4). IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 44:1369-1387, (1998).
[102] N. Cerf and C. Adami. Negative entropy and information in quantum
mechanics. Physical Review Letters, 79:5194-5197, (1997).
[103] J. Chan. Dynamic planar convex hull operations in near-logarithmaic
amortized time. J. ACM, 48:1–12, (2001).
[104] K. Chen. On k-median clustering in high dimensions. In Proceedings
of the 17th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
(SODA ’06), pages 1177–1185, (2006).
[105] Chen, Shuai, Chen, Yu-Ao, Strassel, Thorsten, Yuan, Zhen-Sheng,
Zhao, Bo, Schmiedmayer, Jorg, and Pan, Jian-Wei, Deterministic and
Storable Single-Photon Source Based on a Quantum Memory, Physical
Review Letters 97, 173004 (2006).
[106] K. Chen. On k-median and k-means clustering in metric and
Euclidean spaces and their applications. Manuscript, available
at:http://ews.uiuc.edu/∼kechen/, (2007).
[107] K. Clarkson and P. Shor. Applications of random sampling in computational geometry, II. Discrete Comput. Geom., 4:387–421, (1989).
[108] K. Clarkson, R. E. Tarjan, and C. J. Van Wyk. A fast Las Vegas
algorithm for triangulating a simple polygon. Discrete Comput. Geom.,
4:423–432, (1989).
[109] B. Collins and I. Nechita, ,,Random quantum channels I: graphical
calculus and the Bell state phenomenon”, arXiv:0905.2313, (2009).
[110] B. Collins and I. Nechita, ,,Random quantum channels II: Entanglement of random subspaces, Renyi entropy estimates and additivity
problems”, arXiv:0906.1877, (2009).
[111] B. Collins and I. Nechita, ,,Gaussianization and eigenvalue statistics
for Random quantum channels (III)”, arXiv:0910.1768, (2009).
[112] T. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein. Introduction
to Algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (2001).
[113] B. Cornwell, Group Theory In Physics: An Introduction, Academic
Press, (1997).
[114] J. Cortese, ”The Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland Channel Capacity
for a Class of Qudit Unital Channels”, LANL ArXiV e-print quantph/0211093, (2002).
[115] J. Cortese, “Classical Communication over Quantum Channels”. PhD
Thesis by. John A. Cortese. California Institute of Technology (2003).
[116] T. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, (1991).
[117] I. Csiszar, and J. Korner, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24, 339. (1978).
[118] I. Csiszar and J. Korner. Information Theory: Coding Theorems for
Discrete Memoryless Systems. Probability and mathematical statistics.
Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, (1981).
[119] T. Cubitt, M. Beth Ruskai and G. Smith, The Structure of Degradable
Quantum Channels J. Math. Phys. 49, 102104 (2008).
[120] T. Cubitt and J. Cirac, Engineering Correlation and Entanglement
Dynamics in Spin Systems Physical Review Letters 100, 180406
(2008).
[121] T. Cubitt, J. X. Chen, and A. Harrow, Superactivation of the Asymptotic Zero-Error Classical Capacity of a Quantum Channel, arXiv:
0906.2547. (2009).
[122] T. Cubitt, G. Smith, Super-Duper-Activation of Quantum Zero-Error
Capacities, arXiv:0912.2737v1. (2009).
[123] T. Cubitt, D. Leung, W. Matthews and A. Winter, Improving ZeroError Classical Communication with Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.
104, 230503, arXiv:0911.5300, (2010).
[124] L. Czekaj and P. Horodecki. Nonadditivity effects in classical capacities of quantum multiple-access channels. arXiv:0807.3977, (2008).
[125] L. Czekaj and P. Horodecki. Nonadditivity effects in classical capacities of quantum multiple-access channels. arXiv:0807.3977, (2008).
[126] N. Datta, A. S. Holevo, Yu. M. Sukhov, On a Sufficient Additivity
Condition in quantum information theory, Probl. Peredachi Inf., Volume 41. Issue 2, Pages 9–25 (2004).
[127] N. Datta, A. S. Holevo, and Y. Suhov, A quantum channel with additive minimum output entropy, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403072,
(2004).
[128] N. Datta, A. S. Holevo, and Y. Suhov. Additivity for transpose

50

depolarizing channels, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412034, (2004).
[129] N. Datta and M. B. Ruskai, ,,Maximal output purity and capacity for
asymmetric unital qudit channels”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 9785 –
9802 (2005).
[130] N. Datta, M. Fukuda and A. S. Holevo, ,,Complementarity and
additivity for covariant channels”, Quant. Info. Proc. 5, 179 - 207
(2006).
[131] V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Babbush, V.
Smelyanskiy, J. Martinis, and H. Neven, “What is the computational
value of finite-range tunneling?,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 6, p. 031015,
(2016).
[132] E. Desurvire, Classical and quantum information theory, Cambridge
University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK,
(2009).
[133] D. Deutsch. Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the
universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London A, 400(1818):97-117, July (1985).
[134] I. Devetak and A. Winter. Classical data compression with quantum
side information. Physical Review A, 68(4):042301, (2003).
[135] I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, and A. J. Winter. A family of quantum
protocols. Physical Review Letters, 93:239503, (2004).
[136] I. Devetak, “The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of
a quantum channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, pp. 44–55,
arXiv:quant-ph/0304127, (2005).
[137] I. Devetak and A. Winter. Distillation of secret key and entanglement
from quantum states. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 461:207-235,
(2005).
[138] I. Devetak and P. Shor. The capacity of a quantum channel for
simultaneous transmission of classical and quantum information. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 256:287-303, (2005).
[139] I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, and A. Winter. A resource framework for
quantum Shannon theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
54(10):4587- 4618, (2008).
[140] S. J. Devitt, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, High Performance Quantum
Computing, arXiv:0810.2444 (2008).
[141] P. A. M. Dirac. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (International
Series of Monographs on Physics). Oxford University Press, USA,
(1982).
[142] D. DiVincenzo, P. Shor, and J. Smolin, “Quantum-channel capacity
of very noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. A., vol. 57, pp. 830–839, eprint
quant-ph/9706061, (1998).
[143] I. Djordjevic, “Quantum LDPC Codes from Balanced Incomplete
Block Designs,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 12, pp. 389–391
(2008).
[144] J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn. Quantum technology: The second
quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society
of London Series A, 361(1809):1655-1674, (2003).
[145] L. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long-distance quantum
communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature 414,
413 (2001).
[146] R. Duan, Y. Feng, Z. F. Ji, and M. S. Ying, “Distinguishing Arbitrary Multipartite Basis Unambiguously Using Local Operations and
Classical Communication”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230502 (2007).
[147] R. Duan, Superactivation of zero-error capacity of noisy quantum
channels.arXiv:0906.2527, (2009).
[148] F. Dupuis, P. Hayden, and K. Li. A father protocol for quantum broadcast channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(6):29462956, arXiv:quant ph/0612155. (2010).
[149] W. Dür and H.J. Briegel, Entanglement purification and quantum error
correction. Rep. Prog. Phys, 70:1381–1424, (2007).
[150] W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters
based on entanglement purification. Physical Review A, 59(1):169–
181, (1999).
[151] Electronic Engineering Times Portal, MEMS shown to enable
quantum
computing,
http://www.eetimes.com/electronicsnews/4211424/MEMS-enables-quantum computing, Mark Saffman’s
group at University of Wisconsin-Madison, (2010).
[152] A. Einstein. Über einen die erzeugung und verwandlung des lichtes
betreenden heuristischen gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik, 17:132148, (1905).
[153] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Physical Review
47(10). 777-780. (1935).
[154] J. Eisert and M. M. Wolf, “Gaussian quantum channels,”, arXiv:quantph/0505151. (2005).
[155] P. Elias. The efficient construction of an unbiased random sequence.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43(3):865-870, (1972).

[156] Z. W. E. Evans, A. M. Stephens, J. H. Cole, L. C. L. Hollenberg,
“Error correction optimisation in the presence of X/Z asymmetry,”
ArXiv, (2007).
[157] M. Fannes. A continuity property of the entropy density for spin
lattices. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 31:291, (1973).
[158] A. Fedrizzi, R. Ursin, T. Herbst, M. Nespoli, R. Prevedel, T. Scheidl,
F. Tiefenbacher, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, “High-fidelity transmission of entanglement over a high-loss free-space channel,” Nature
Physics, vol. 5, pp. 389–392, (2009).
[159] D. Feldman, M. Monemizadeh, and C. Sohler. A PTAS for k-means
clustering based on weak coresets. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM
Symposium on Computational Geometry (SCG’07), pages 11–18,
(2007).
[160] R. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers. International Journal
of Theoretical Physics, 21:467–488. (1982).
[161] K. Fischer and B. Gartner. The smallest enclosing ball of balls:
combinatorial structure and algorithms. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Application, 14(4-5):341–378, (2004).
[162] G. Frahling and C. Sohler. Coresets in dynamic geometric data streams.
In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of
Computing (STOC’05), pages 209–217, New York, NY, USA, ACM,
(2005).
[163] C. Fuchs, “Information Tradeoff Relations for Finite-Strength Quantum Measurements”, LANL ArXiV e-print quant-ph/0009101. (2000).
[164] C. Fuchs. Distinguishability and Accessible Information in Quantum
Theory. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico, December 1996.
arXiv:quant-ph/9601020, (1996).
[165] C. Fuchs, N. Gisin, R. B. Griffiths, C.-S. Niu, and A. Peres, Phys. Rev.
A 56, 1163. (1997).
[166] C. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf. Cryptographic distinguishability measures for quantum mechanical states. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(4):1216-1227,. arXiv:quant-ph/9712042, (1998).
[167] T. Fujiwara and T. Hashizume, “Additivity of the capacity of depolarizing channels”. Phys. Lett. A, 299:469–475, (2002).
[168] M. Fukuda, C. King, D. K. Moser, Comments on Hastings’ Additivity
Counterexamples, Communications in Mathematical Physics, DOI
10.1007/s00220-010-0996-9, (2010).
[169] M. Fukuda and C. King. Entanglement of random subspaces via
the Hastings bound. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 51(4):042201,
(2010).
[170] M. Gabay and S. Arnon, “Quantum key distribution by a free-space
MIMO system,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 24, pp. 3114–
3120 (2006).
[171] F. Gaitan, Quantum Error Correction and Fault Tolerant Quantum
Computing, CRC Press, ISBN 9780849371998, p.312 (2008).
[172] M. Galambos, L. Bacsardi, S. Imre, Modeling the superdense coding
in satellite-satellite and ground-satellite communications, Proc of 10th
Asian Conference on Quantum Information Science, Tokyo, Japán,
.08.27-2010.08.31.pp. 205-206 (2010).
[173] W. Gao, et al. “Teleportation-based realization of an
optical quantum two-qubit entangling gate.” PNAS Early
Edition.DOI:10.1073/pnas.1005720107, (2010).
[174] M. Gardner, Mathematical Games: The fantastic combinations of John
Conway’s new solitaire game ”Life”, Scientific American 223: 120–
123. (1970).
[175] W. Gerlach and Otto Stern. Das magnetische moment des silberatoms.
Zeitschrift für Physik, 9:353-355, (1922).
[176] A. Ghilen, M. Azizi, and R. Bouallegue, “Enhancing the Security
of IEEE 802.11i Standard by Integrating a Quantum Scheme for
Authentication and Encryption Key Distribution,” Wireless Personal
Communications, vol. 95, pp. 1655–1675, (2017).
[177] J. Ghosh, A. G. Fowler, and M. R. Geller, “Surface code with decoherence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures,” Phys. Rev.
A, vol. 86, p. 062318 (2012).
[178] V. Giovannetti, S. Guha, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, J H. Shapiro, B J. Yen,
H P. Yuen, Classical capacity of free-space optical communication,
Quantum Information & Computation, Volume 4 Issue 6, Dec Pages
489-499 (2004).
[179] V. Giovannetti and R. Fazio. Information-capacity description of spinchain correlations. Physical Review A, 71(3):032314, (2005).
[180] V. Giovannetti, A. S. Holevo, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, Generalized
minimal output entropy conjecture for one-mode Gaussian channels:
definitions and some exact results, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 415305,
8, 796–800, (2010).
[181] V. Giovannetti, R. Garcı́a-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, A. S. Holevo, Ultimate
classical communication rates of quantum optical channels, Nature
Photonics, 8, 796–800, (2014).

51

[182] R. J. Glauber. One hundred years of light quanta. In Karl Grandin,
editor, Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 2005, pages 90-91. Nobel
Foundation, (2005).
[183] R. J. Glauber. The quantum theory of optical coherence. Physical
Review, 130(6):2529-2539, (1963).
[184] J. Goodman and J. O’Rourke, editors. Handbook of Discrete and
Computational Geometry, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004.
[185] J. P. Gordon. Noise at optical frequencies; information theory. In P. A.
Miles, editor, Quantum Electronics and Coherent Light; Proceedings
of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course XXXI,
pages 156-181, Academic Press New York, (1964).
[186] D. Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating
the quantum Hamming bound. Physical Review A, 54(3):1862-1868,
(1996).
[187] D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction. PhD
thesis, California Institute of Technology (arXiv:quant-ph/9705052),
(1997).
[188] D. Gottesman, An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction, Quantum
Computation: A Grand Mathematical Challenge for the Twenty-First
Century and the Millennium, ed. S. J. Lomonaco, Jr., pp. 221-235,
(2002).
[189] M. Grassl, T. Beth, and T. Pellizzari. Codes for the quantum erasure
channel. Phys.Rev.A,56:33-38, quant-ph/9610042. (1997).
[190] D. Griffiths. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
(1995).
[191] G. Grössing, A. Zeilinger, Quantum cellular automata. Complex Syst.,
2:197–208. (1988).
[192] S. Guha, J. Shapiro. Classical information capacity of the Bosonic
broadcast channel. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pages 1896-1900, Nice, France, (2007).
[193] S. Guha, J. Shapiro, B. Erkmen. Classical capacity of bosonic
broadcast communication and a minimum output entropy conjecture.
Physical Review A, 76(3):032303, (2007).
[194] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Information Geometric Superactivation of
Classical Zero-Error Capacity of Quantum Channels, Progress in
Informatics, Quantum Information Technology, Quantum Information
Science Theory Group, National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan,
Print ISSN : 1349-8614, Online ISSN : 1349-8606; (2011.)
[195] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Algorithmic Superactivation of Asymptotic
Quantum Capacity of Zero-Capacity Quantum Channels, Information
Sciences, ELSEVIER, ISSN: 0020-0255. (2011).
[196] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Quantum Cryptographic Protocols and Quantum Security, in ”Cryptography: Protocols, Design and Applications”,
Nova Science Publishers, USA. (2011).
[197] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Quantum Cellular Automata Controlled SelfOrganizing Networks, in ”Cellular Automata”, Book Chapter, INTECH, New York, USA, ISBN 978-953-7619-X-X; (2011).
[198] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Quasi-Superactivation of Classical Capacity of
Zero-Capacity Quantum Channels, Journal of Modern Optics, Taylor
& Francis, 0950-0340 (Print), 1362-3044 (Online). 2012.
[199] L. Gyongyosi, S. Imre: Superactivation of Quantum Channels is Limited by the Quantum Relative Entropy Function, Quantum Information
Processing, Springer, ISSN: 1570-0755 (print version), ISSN: 15731332 (electronic version). 2012.
[200] L. Gyongyosi, Information Geometric Superactivation of Asymptotic Quantum Capacity and Classical Zero-Error Capacity of ZeroCapacity Quantum Channels, PhD Thesis, Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, 2013.
[201] L. Gyongyosi, The Correlation Conversion Property of Quantum
Channels, Quantum Information Processing, Springer, ISSN: 15700755 (print version), ISSN: 1573-1332 (electronic version). (2013).
[202] L. Gyongyosi, A Statistical Model of Information Evaporation of
Perfectly Reflecting Black Holes, International Journal of Quantum
Information (IJQI), ISSN 0219-7499 (print), 1793-6918 (online), 2014.
[203] L. Gyongyosi: The Private Classical Capacity of a Partially Degradable Quantum Channel, Physica Scripta - Special Issue on Quantum
Information, Institute of Physics (IOP), Online ISSN: 1402-4896 Print
ISSN: 0031-8949, 2014.
[204] L. Gyongyosi: The Structure and Quantum Capacity of a Partially
Degradable Quantum Channel, IEEE Access, ISSN: 2169-3536, 2014.
[205] L. Gyongyosi: Quantum Information Transmission over a Partially
Degradable Channel, IEEE Access, ISSN: 2169-3536 (2014).
[206] Quantum Imaging of High-Dimensional Hilbert Spaces with Radon
Transform, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications
(IJCTA), Special Issue on Quantum Circuits (Wiley), 2017.
[207] A. Hagar, ”Quantum Computing”, The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

[208]
[209]

[210]

[211]
[212]
[213]
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]

[220]
[221]
[222]
[223]
[224]
[225]
[226]
[227]
[228]
[229]
[230]
[231]

[232]
[233]
[234]

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/qt-quantcomp,
(2011).
M. Hamada. Information rates achievable with algebraic codes on
quantum discrete memoryless channels. IEEE Transactions in Information Theory, 51(12):4263–4277, arXiv:quant-ph/0207113, (2005).
L. Hanzo, H. Haas, S. Imre, D. O’Brien, M. Rupp, L. Gyongyosi.
Wireless Myths, Realities, and Futures: From 3G/4G to Optical and
Quantum Wireless, Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume: 100, Issue:
Special Centennial Issue, pp. 1853-1888. (2012).
S. Har-Peled and A. Kushal. Smaller coresets for k-median and kmeans clustering. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium on
Computational Geometry (SCG’05), pages 126–134, New York, NY,
USA, ACM, (2005).
A. Harrow. Coherent communication of classical messages. Physical
Review Letters, 92:097902, (2004).
A. Harrow and H. Lo. A tight lower bound on the classical communication cost of entanglement dilution. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory,
A. Harrow and H. Lo. A tight lower bound on the classical communication cost of entanglement dilution. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 50(2):319-327, (2004).
M. Hastings, “A Counterexample to Additivity of Minimum Output
Entropy” Nature Physics 5, 255, arXiv:0809.3972, (2009).
P. Hausladen, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and W. Wootters.
Sending classical bits via quantum its. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 755:698-705, (1995).
P. Hausladen, R. Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and W.
K. Wootters. Classical information capacity of a quantum channel.
Physical Review A, 54(3):1869-1876, (1996).
M. Hayashi and K. Matsumoto. Variable length universal entanglement
concentration by local operations and its application to teleportation
and dense coding. arXiv:quant-ph/0109028, (2001).
M. Hayashi and H. Nagaoka, “General formulas for capacity of
classical-quantum channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol.49, No.7, pp.1753-1768 (2003).
M. Hayashi, H. Imai, K. Matsumoto, M. B. Ruskai, and T. Shimono.
Qubit channels which require four inputs to achieve capacity: Implications for additivity conjectures. QUANTUM INF.COMPUT., 5:13,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403176, (2005).
M. Hayashi. Quantum Information: An Introduction. Springer-Verlag,
(2006).
P. Hayden and A. Winter. Communication cost of entanglement
transformations. Physical Review A, 67(1):012326, (2003).
P. Hayden and A. Winter, ,,Counterexamples to the maximal p-norm
multiplicativity conjecture for all p > 1”, Commun. Math. Phys. 284,
263 – 280 (2008).
P. Hayden, M. Horodecki, J. Yard, and A. Winter, “A decoupling
approach to the quantum capacity,” Open Syst. Inf. Dyn., vol. 15, pp.
7–19, arXiv:quant-ph/0702005. (2008).
P. Hayden, P. Shor, and A. Winter. Random quantum codes from
Gaussian ensembles and an uncertainty relation. Open Systems &
Information Dynamics, 15:71-89, (2008).
W. Heisenberg. Über quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer
und mechanischer beziehungen. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 33:879-893,
(1925).
A. Hellemans, “Teleporting what matters,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 41,
pp. 18, 20–, (2004).
C. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory “Academic,
New York”. (1976).
N. Herbert. Flash - a superluminal communicator based upon a new
kind of quantum measurement. Foundations of Physics, 12(12):11711179, (1982).
F. Hiai and D. Petz. The proper formula for relative entropy and its
asymptotics in quantum probability. Communications in Mathematical
Physics, 143(1):99–114, (1991).
A. Holevo. On entanglement assisted classical capacity. Journal of
Mathematical Physics, 43(9):4326-4333, (2002).
A. Holevo. Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by
a quantum communication channel. Problemly Peredachi Informatsii,
9(3):3–11, (1973). English Translation: Probl. Inform. Transm., 9, 177–
183, (1975).
A. Holevo, Information theoretical aspects of quantum measurements.
Probl. Info. Transm., 9(2):31–42, (1973).
A. Holevo, “The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal
states”, IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 44, 269 - 273 (1998).
R. Horn and C. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press,
(1986).

52

[235] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, D. Leung, and B. Terhal.
Classical capacity of a noiseless quantum channel assisted by noisy
entanglement. Quantum Information and Computation, 1(3):70-78,
arXiv:quant-ph/0106080, (2001).
[236] M. Horodecki, P. Shor, and M. Ruskai. Entanglement breaking channels. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 15(6):629-641, arXiv:quantph/0302031, (2003).
[237] M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim and A. Winter, “Partial quantum information”, Nature 436, 673-676 | doi:10.1038/nature03909. (2005).
[238] M. Horodecki, Jonathan Oppenheim, and Andreas Winter. Quantum
state merging and negative information. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 269:107-136, (2007).
[239] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki.
Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2):865-942,
(2009).
[240] M. Horodecki. Limits for compression of quantum information carried
by ensembles of mixed states. Physical Review A, 57(5):3364-3369,
(1998).
[241] M.Hsieh, I. Devetak, and A. Winter. Entanglement-assisted capacity of
quantum multiple-access channels. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 54(7):3078-3090, (2008).
[242] M. Hsieh and M. Wilde. Trading classical communication, quantum
communication, and entanglement in quantum Shannon theory. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 56(9):4705-4730, (2010).
[243] https://www.idquantique.com
[244] S. Imre, F. Balázs: Quantum Computing and Communications – An
Engineering Approach, Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd, (2005).
[245] S. Imre, L. Gyongyosi: Advanced Quantum Communications – An
Engineering Approach, Published by Wiley-IEEE Press, (2013).
[246] S. Imre, Quantum communications: explained for communication
engineers, IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE 51:(08) (2013).
[247] M. Isenburg, Y. Liu, J. Shewchuk, and J. Snoeyink. Streaming
computation of delaunay triangulations. In SIGGRAPH ’06: ACM
SIGGRAPH 2006 Papers, pages 1049 1056, New York, NY, USA,
ACM, (2006).
[248] C. Isham, Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists, World Scientific, Second Edition, Page 187, (1999).
[249] A. E. Ivanova, S. A. Chivilikhin, and A. V. Gleim, “Quantum random number generator based on homodyne detection,” NanosystemsPhysics Chemistry Mathematics, vol. 8, pp. 239–242, (2017).
[250] R. Janardan and T. C. Woo. Design and manufacturing. In J. E.
Goodman and J. O’Rourke, editors, Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, 2nd edn., chapter 55. Chapman & Hall/CRC,
(2004).
[251] E. T. Jaynes. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge
University Press, (2003).
[252] E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical
Review, 106:620, (1957).
[253] E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics II. Physical
Review, 108:171, (1957).
[254] L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, R. Van Meter, M. D.
Lukin, Quantum Repeater with Encoding, arXiv:0809.3629 (2008).
[255] Paul Jouguet, Sebastien Kunz-Jacques, Anthony Leverrier, Philippe
Grangier, Eleni Diamanti, Experimental demonstration of longdistance continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Nature Photonics 7, 378-381 (2013).
[256] R. Jozsa and S. Presnell. Universal quantum information compression
and degrees of prior knowledge. Proceedings of the Royal Society
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 459(2040):30613077, (2003).
[257] R. Jozsa. Fidelity for mixed quantum states. Journal of Modern Optics,
41(12):2315-2323, (1994).
[258] R. Jozsa, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. Universal quantum information compression. Physical Review Letters,
81(8):1714-1717, (1998).
[259] F. Schmidt-Kaler, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, T. Deuschle, A. Kreuter, G.
Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, H. Hffner, and R. Blatt, “The
coherence of qubits based on single Ca+ ions,” Journal of Physics
B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 36, pp. 623–636 (2003).
[260] K. Kato, M. Oto, H. Imai, and K. Imai, “Voronoi diagrams for pure
1-qubit quantum states, quant-ph/0604101, (2006).
[261] Karp, S., Gagliardi, R.M., Moran, S.E., Stotts, L.B. (Eds.), Optical
channels: fibers, clouds, water and the atmosphere. Plenum Press
(1988).
[262] P. Kaye and M. Mosca. Quantum networks for concentrating entanglement. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):6939,
(2001).

[263] J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White,
D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Yu Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro,
A. Dunsworth, I.-C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P.
Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, John M. Martinis,
“State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting
quantum circuit,” Nature, vol. 519, pp. 66–69 (2015).
[264] J. Kerckhoff, et al., Designing Quantum Memories with Embedded
Control: Photonic Circuits for Autonomous Quantum Error Correction,
Physical Review Letters 105, 040502 (2010).
[265] A. Khanmohammadi, R. Enne, M. Hofbauer, and H. Zimmermanna,
“A monolithic silicon quantum random number generator based on
measurement of photon detection time,” IEEE Photonics Journal, vol.
7, pp. 1–13, (2015).
[266] G. Kimura. The Bloch vector for n-level systems. Physics Letter A,
314(339), (2003).
[267] Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023 - 1030 (2008).
[268] C. King and M. B. Ruskai, ,,Minimal entropy of states emerging from
noisy quantum channels”, IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 47, 192 - 209
(2001).
[269] C. King, M. Nathanson, and M. B. Ruskai, ,,Qubit Channels Can
Require More Than Two Inputs to Achieve Capacity”, LANL ArXiV
e-print quant-ph/0109079, (2001).
[270] C. King. Additivity for unital qubit channels. J. Math. Phys., 43:4641–
4653, (2002).
[271] C. King, ,,Maximal p-norms of entanglement breaking channels”,
Quantum Info. and Comp. 3, no.2, 186 - 190 (2003).
[272] C. King, ,,The capacity of the quantum depolarizing channel”, IEEE
Trans. Info. Theory 49, no.1, 221 - 229 (2003).
[273] C. King, K. Matsumoto, M. Nathanson, and M. B. Ruskai. Properties
of conjugate channels with applications to additivity and multiplicativity. Markov Processes and Related Fields, 13(2):391-423, J. T. Lewis
memorial issue, (2007).
[274] C. King, Remarks on the Additivity Conjectures for Quantum. Channels, www.mathphys.org/AZschool/material/AZ09-king.pdf, (2009).
[275] C. King and M. B. Ruskai, ,,Capacity of Quantum Channels Using
Product Measurements”, LANL ArXiV e-print quant-ph/0004062,
(2000).
[276] A. Kitaev. U. Nauk., 52(53), (1997).
[277] R. Klesse. A random coding based proof for the quantum coding
theorem. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 15:21-45, (2008).
[278] E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature.
March 3. (2005).
[279] E. H. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum
computation. Science, 279:342-345, quant-ph/9610011, (1998).
[280] S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in
quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17,
59{87 (1967).
[281] R. Kohout, Sarah Croke, and Daniel Gottesman. Streaming universal
distortion-free entanglement concentration, arXiv:0910.5952, (2009).
[282] Boris Korzh, Charles Ci Wen Lim, Raphael Houlmann, Nicolas Gisin,
Ming Jun Li, Daniel Nolan, Bruno Sanguinetti, Rob Thew and Hugo
Zbinden, Provably secure and practical quantum key distribution over
307 km of optical fibre, Nature Photonics 9, 163-168 (2015)
[283] J. Körner and A. Orlitsky, Zero-error information theory. IEEE Trans.
Info. Theory, 44(6):2207–2229, (1998).
[284] L. Kraft, “A device for quantizing, grouping, and coding amplitude
modulated pulses”, Cambridge, MA: MS Thesis, Electrical Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1949).
[285] S. Kullback, R.A. Leibler, “On Information and Sufficiency”. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics 22 (1): 79–86. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694.
MR39968. (1951).
[286] S. Kullback Information theory and statistics (John Wiley and Sons,
NY). (1959).
[287] S. Kullback, “Letter to the Editor: The Kullback–Leibler distance”.
The American Statistician 41 (4): 340–341. JSTOR 2684769. (1987).
[288] S. Kullback, “Letter to the Editor: The Kullback–Leibler distance”.
The American Statistician 41 (4): 340–341. JSTOR 2684769. (1987).
[289] T. Ladd, P. van Loock, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, and Y. Yamamoto,
Hybrid quantum repeater based on dispersive CQED interactions
between matter qubits and bright coherent light, New Journal of
Physics 8, 184 (2006).
[290] R.Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. Paz, and W. Zurek, Perfect quantum error
correcting code. Physical Review Letters, 77(1):198-201, (1996).
[291] R. Landauer. Is quantum mechanics useful? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Physical and Engineering Sciences,
353(1703):367-376, (1995).
[292] D. Leung, G. Smith. Communicating over adversarial quantum chan-

53

[293]
[294]
[295]
[296]
[297]

[298]
[299]

[300]
[301]
[302]
[303]
[304]
[305]
[306]
[307]
[308]
[309]
[310]
[311]
[312]
[313]
[314]

[315]

[316]
[317]
[318]
[319]

nels using quantum list codes. IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 54, 2, 883-887
(2008).
D. Leung and G. Smith. Continuity of quantum channel capacities,
Communications in Mathematical Physics 292, 201-215 (November
2009).
D. Leung, L. Mancinska, W. Matthews, M. Ozols, A. Roy, Entanglement can increase asymptotic rates of zero-error classical communication over classical channels, arXiv:1009.1195v2 (2010).
L. Levitin, ,,On the quantum measure of the amount of information”,
Proceedings of the Fourth all-union conference on Information Theory
(in Russian), Tashkent, 111 - 115 (1969).
K. Li, A. Winter, X. Zou, and G. Guo, “Private classical capacity of
Quantum Channels is Not Additive,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 103,
no. 12, p. 120501, arXiv:0903.4308, (2009).
M. Li, S-M. Fei and X. Li-Jost, “Quantum Entanglement: Separability,
Measure, Fidelity of Teleportation, and Distillation”, Advances in
Mathematical PhysicsVolume 2010, Article ID 301072, 57 pagesdoi:10.1155/2010/301072. (2010).
J. Li, X.-B. Chen, G. Xu, Y.-X. Yang, and Z.-P. Li, “Perfect quantum
network coding independent of classical network solutions,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 19, pp. 115–118,(2015).
Z. Li, G. Xu, X. Chen, X. Sun, and Y.-X. Yang, ”Multi-User Quantum
Wireless Network Communication Based on Multi-Qubit GHZ State”,
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2470 - 2473,
December 2016.
J. Li, J. Xiong, Q. Zhang, L. Zhong, Y. Zhou, J. Li, and X. Lu, “A onetime pad encryption method combining full-phase image encryption
and hiding,” Journal Of Optics, vol. 19, (2017).
Sheng-Kai Liao et al., Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,
Nature 549, 43-47 (2017)
Q. Liao, Y. Guo, and D. Huang, “Cancelable remote quantum fingerprint templates protection scheme,” Chinese Physics B, vol. 26, (2017).
S. Lloyd, “Capacity of the noisy quantum channel,” Phys. Rev. A, vol.
55, pp. 1613–1622, (1997).
S. Lloyd, J.H. Shapiro, F.N.C. Wong, P. Kumar, S.M. Shahriar, and
H.P. Yuen. In-frastructure for the quantum Internet, ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review, 34(5):9–20, (2004)
H. Lo and S. Popescu. Concentrating entanglement by local actions:
Beyond mean values. Physical Review A, 63(2):022301, (2001).
H. Lo. Quantum coding theorem for mixed states. Optics Communications, 119(5-6):552-556, September (1995).
H. Lo and Sandu Popescu. Classical communication cost of entanglement manipulation: Is entanglement an interconvertible resource?
Physical Review Letters, 83(7):1459-1462, (1999).
L. Loffe, and M. Mezard, “Asymmetric quantum error-correcting
codes,” Physical Review A, vol. 75, no. 3, p. 032345, PRA. (2007).
P. van Loock, N. Lütkenhaus, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Quantum
repeaters using coherent-state communication, Physical Review A 78,
062319 (2008).
S. G. R. Louis, W. J.Munro, T. P. Spiller, and K. Nemoto, Loss in
hybrid qubit-bus couplings and gates, Physical Review A 78, 022326
(2008).
L . Lovász. On the Shannon capacity of a graph. IEEE Trans. Info.
Theory, 25(1):1 – 7, (1979).
M. Lukin, J. Taylor, Quantum physics: Quantum leaps in the solid
state, Nature 467, 278–279 (16 September 2010) doi:10.1038/467278a.
(2010).
C. Lupo, S. Pirandola, P. Aniello, S. Mancini, On the classical capacity
of quantum Gaussian channels, arXiv:1012.5965v2, (2011).
L. Ma, A. Mink, H. Xu, O. Slattery, and X. Tang, “Experimental
demonstration of an active quantum key distribution network with over
GBPS clock synchronization,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 11,
pp. 1019–1021 (2007).
L. Ma, T. Chang, A. Mink, O. Slattery, B. Hershman, and X. Tang,
“Experimental demonstration of a detection-time-bin-shift polarization
encoding quantum key distribution system,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 12, pp. 459–461 (2008).
X. Ma, X. Yuan, Z. Cao, B. Qi, and Z. Zhang, “Quantum random
number generation,” Npj Quantum Information, vol. 2, (2016).
K. Matsumoto and F. Yura, Entanglement cost of antisymmetric states
and additivity of capacity of some quantum channels. Journal of Phys.
A, 37:L167–L171, (2004).
J. P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. Introducing Quantum Theory. Totem
Books, third edition, (2004).
McMillan, Brockway, “Two inequalities implied by unique decipherability”, IEEE Trans. Information Theory 2 (4): 115–116,
doi:10.1109/TIT.1956.1056818. (1956).

[320] R. Medeiros and F. M. de Assis, “Quantum zero-error capacity”, Int.
J. Quant. Inf. 3, 135 (2005);
[321] R. Medeiros, R. Alleaume, G. Cohen, and F. M. de Assis, “Quantum
states characterization for the zero-error capacity”, quant-ph/0611042.
[322] D. Meyer, From quantum cellular automata to quantum lattice gases.
Journal of Statistical Physics, 85:551–574. (1996).
[323] S. Michalakis, ,,Multiplicativity of the maximal output 2-norm for
depolarized Werner-Holevo channels”, J. Math. Phys. 48, no. 12,
122102, (2007).
[324] D. Miller, D. Maslov, & G. Dueck, Synthesis of quantum multiplevalued circuits, Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing,
vol. 12, no. 5-6, pp. 431–450. (2006).
[325] C. Misner, K. Thorne, and W. Zurek. J. Wheeler, Relativity, and
quantum information. Physics Today, (2009).
[326] , Moore Gordon E. Cramming more components onto integrated
circuits. Electronics. (1965).
[327] G. Morley, M. Warner, A. Stoneham, P. Greenland, J. van Tol, C.
Kay & G. Aeppli, The initialization and manipulation of quantum
information stored in silicon by bismuth dopants, Nature Materials 9,
725 (2010).
[328] M. Mosonyi and N. Datta. Generalized relative entropies and the
capacity of classical-quantum channels. Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 50(7):072104, (2009).
[329] J. Mullins. The topsy turvy world of quantum computing. IEEE
Spectrum, 38(2):42-49, (2001).
[330] W. J. Munro, R. Van Meter, S. G. R. Louis, and K. Nemoto, HighBandwidth Hybrid Quantum Repeater, Physical Review Letters 101,
040502 (2008).
[331] W. J. Munro, K. A. Harrison, A. M. Stephens, S. J. Devitt,
K. Nemoto, From quantum fusiliers to high-performance networks
arXiv:0910.4038 (2009).
[332] W. J. Munro, K. A. Harrison, A. M. Stephens, S. J. Devitt, and K.
Nemoto, From quantum multiplexing to high-performance quantum
networking, Nature Photonics, 10.1038/nphoton.2010.213, (2010).
[333] M. Tyryshkin, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, A. Ardavan, G. A.
D. Briggs, J. W. Ager, and S. A. Lyon, “Coherence of spin qubits
in silicon,” Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter, vol. 18, pp. S783–
S794, May 31 2006.
[334] J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby,
M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard,
“Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor
quantum dots,” SCIENCE, vol. 309, pp. 2180–2184, Sep. 30 2005.
[335] P. Bertet, I. Chiorescu, G. Burkard, K. Semba, C. J. P. M. Harmans,
D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. E. Mooij, “Dephasing of a superconducting
qubit induced by photon noise,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 95 2005.
[336] F. Schmidt-Kaler, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, T. Deuschle, A. Kreuter, G.
Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, H. Hffner, and R. Blatt, “The
coherence of qubits based on single Ca+ ions,” Journal of Physics
B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 36, pp. 623–636, Feb.
14 2003.
[337] L. Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C. Yannoni, M. Sherwood,
and I. Chuang, “Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring
algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance,” Nature, vol. 414, pp.
883–887, Dec. 20 2001.
[338] L. Loffe, and M. Mezard, “Asymmetric quantum error-correcting
codes,” Physical Review A, vol. 75, no. 3, p. 032345, 2007. PRA.
[339] Z. W. E. Evans, A. M. Stephens, J. H. Cole, L. C. L. Hollenberg,
“Error correction optimisation in the presence of X/Z asymmetry,”
ArXiv, 2007.
[340] L. Wang, K. Feng, S. Ling, and C. Xing, “Asymmetric quantum codes:
Characterization and constructions,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 56, pp. 2938–2945, June 2010.
[341] M. Ezerman, S. Ling, and P. Sole, “Additive asymmetric quantum
codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, pp. 5536–
5550, Aug 2011.
[342] M. Ezerman, S. Jitman, S. Ling, and D. Pasechnik, “CSS-like constructions of asymmetric quantum codes,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 59, pp. 6732–6754, Oct 2013.
[343] G. PersonNameProductIDLa GuardiaLa Guardia, “On the construction
of asymmetric quantum codes,” International Journal of Theoretical
Physics, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2312–2322, 2014.
[344] H. V. Nguyen, Z. Babar, D. Alanis, P. Botsinis, D. Chandra, S. X. Ng,
and L. Hanzo, “Exit-chart aided quantum code design improves the
normalised throughput of realistic quantum devices,” IEEE Access.
[345] Z. Babar, P. Botsinis, D. Alanis, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The road
from classical to quantum codes: A hashing bound approaching design
procedure,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 146–176, 2015.

54

[346] S. ten Brink, “Convergence of iterative decoding,” Electronics Letters,
vol. 35, pp. 806–808, May 13, 1999.
[347] S. ten Brink and G. Kramer, “Design of repeat-accumulate codes
for iterative detection and decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 51, pp. 2764–2772, Nov 2003.
[348] S.-J. Lee, A. Singer, and N. Shanbhag, “Linear turbo equalization
analysis via BER transfer and EXIT charts,” IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, vol. 53, pp. 2883–2897, Aug 2005.
[349] J. Karjalainen, M. Codreanu, A. Tolli, M. Juntti, and T. Matsumoto,
“EXIT chart-based power allocation for iterative frequency domain
MIMO detector,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59,
pp. 1624–1641, April 2011.
[350] F. Babich, A. Crismani, M. Driusso, and L. Hanzo, “Design criteria
and genetic algorithm aided optimization of three-stage-concatenated
spacetime shift keying systems,” Signal Processing Letters, IEEE, vol.
19, pp. 543–546, Aug 2012.
[351] R. Ahlswede, N. Cai, and R. Yeung, “Network information flow
theory,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory,
1998, p. 186, Aug. 1998.
[352] R. Ahlswede, N. Cai, S.-Y. Li, and R. Yeung, “Network information
flow,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 46, pp. 1204
–1216, July 2000.
[353] P. Chou and Y. Wu, “Network coding for the internet and wireless
networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 24, pp. 77 –85,
Sept. 2007.
[354] E. Soljanin, “Network multicast with network coding [lecture notes],”
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 25, pp. 109 –112, Sept. 2008.
[355] Y. Chen and S. Kishore, “On the tradeoffs of implementing randomized network coding in multicast networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 58, pp. 2107 –2115, July 2010.
[356] C. Fragouli and E. Soljanin, “Network coding fundamentals,” Foundation and Trends in Networking, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–133, 2007.
[357] R. W. Yeung and N. Cai, “Network error correction, Part I: Basic
concepts and upper bounds,” Communications in Information and
Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2006.
[358] R. W. Yeung and N. Cai, “Network error correction, Part II: Lower
bounds,” Communications in Information and Systems, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 37–54, 2006.
[359] M. Hayashi, K. Wama, H. Nishimura, R. Raymond, and S. Yamashita,
Quantum network coding, vol. 4393 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pp. 610–621. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2007.
[360] D. Leung, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, “Quantum network
communication-the butterfly and beyond,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 3478–3490, 2010.
[361] M. Mahdian and R. Bayramzadeh, “Perfect k-pair quantum network
coding using superconducting qubits,” Journal of Superconductivity
and Novel Magnetism, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 345–348, 2015.
[362] L. Jing, C. Xiu-Bo, X. Gang, Y. Yi-Xian, and L. Zong-Peng, “Perfect
quantum network coding independent of classical network solutions,”
Communications Letters, IEEE, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 115–118, 2015.
[363] T. Satoh, K. Ishizaki, S. Nagayama, and R. Van Meter, “Analysis of
quantum network coding for realistic repeater networks,” Phys. Rev.
A, vol. 93, p. 032302, Mar 2016.
[364] T. Shang, X.-J. Zhao, and J.-W. Liu, “Quantum network coding based
on controlled teleportation,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 18,
no. 5, pp. 865–868, 2014.
[365] T. Satoh, F. Le Gall, and H. Imai, “Quantum network coding for
quantum repeaters,” Physical Review A, vol. 86, no. 3, 2012.
[366] A. Jain, M. Franceschetti, and D. A. Meyer, “On quantum network
coding,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 52, no. 3, 2011.
[367] W. J. Munro, K. A. Harrison, A. M. Stephens, S. J. Devitt, and K.
Nemoto, “From quantum multiplexing to high-performance quantum
networking,” Nature Photonics, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 792–796, 2010.
[368] M. Hayashi, “Prior entanglement between senders enables perfect
quantum network coding with modification,” Physical Review A, vol.
76, no. 4, 2007.
[369] H. Kobayashi, F. Le Gall, H. Nishimura, and M. Rotteler, “Constructing quantum network coding schemes from classical nonlinear
protocols,” in Information Theory Proceedings (ISIT), 2011 IEEE
International Symposium on, pp. 109–113.
[370] H. Kobayashi, F. L. Gall, H. Nishimura, and M. Rtteler, “Perfect
quantum network communication protocol based on classical network
coding,” in 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 2686–2690, June 2010.
[371] H. Kobayashi, F. Le Gall, H. Nishimura, and M. Roetteler, General
Scheme for Perfect Quantum Network Coding with Free Classical
Communication, vol. 5555 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.

622–633. 2009
[372] R. Pakniat, M. K. Tavassoly, and M. H. Zandi, “Entanglement swapping and teleportation based on cavity QED method using the nonlinear
atom-field interaction: Cavities with a hybrid of coherent and number
states,” OPTICS COMMUNICATIONS, vol. 382, pp. 381–385, JAN 1
2017.
[373] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, B. M.
Terhal, and W. K. Wootters, “Remote state preparation,” Phys. Rev.
Lett., vol. 87, p. 077902, Jul 2001.
[374] Y.-S. Ra, H.-T. Lim, and Y.-H. Kim, “Remote preparation of threephoton entangled states via single-photon measurement,” Phys. Rev. A,
vol. 94, p. 042329, Oct 2016.
[375] H. Lu, Z. Zhang, L.-K. Chen, Z.-D. Li, C. Liu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, X.
Ma, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, “Secret sharing of a quantum state,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, p. 030501, Jul 2016.
[376] H. P. Yuen, “Security of quantum key distribution,” IEEE Access, vol.
4, pp. 724–749, 2016.
[377] J.-P. Bourgoin, B. L. Higgins, N. Gigov, C. Holloway, C. J. Pugh,
S. Kaiser, M. Cranmer, and T. Jennewein, “Free-space quantum key
distribution to a moving receiver,” Optics Express, vol. 23, no. 26, pp.
33437–33447, 2015.
[378] M. T. Gruneisen, M. B. Flanagan, B. A. Sickmiller, J. P. Black, K. E.
Stoltenberg, and A. W. Duchane, “Modeling daytime sky access for a
satellite quantum key distribution downlink,” Optics Express, vol. 23,
no. 18, pp. 23924–23934, 2015.
[379] G. Vallone, D. G. Marangon, M. Canale, I. Savorgnan, D. Bacco,
M. Barbieri, S. Calimani, C. Barbieri, N. Laurenti, and P. Villoresi,
“Adaptive real time selection for quantum key distribution in lossy
and turbulent free-space channels,” Physical Review A, vol. 91, no. 4,
2015.
[380] A. Carrasco-Casado, N. Denisenko, and V. Fernandez, “Correction
of beam wander for a free-space quantum key distribution system
operating in urban environment,” Optical Engineering, vol. 53, no.
8, 2014.
[381] G. Vest, M. Rau, L. Fuchs, G. Corrielli, H.Weier, S. Nauerth, A. Crespi,
R. Osellame, and H. Weinfurter, “Design and evaluation of a handheld
quantum key distribution sender module,” IEEE Journal of Selected
Topics in Quantum Electronics, vol. 21, pp. 131–137, May 2015.
[382] M. Rau, T. Heindel, S. Unsleber, T. Braun, J. Fischer, S. Frick, S.
Nauerth, C. Schneider, G. Vest, S. Reitzenstein, M. Kamp, A. Forchel,
S. Hoefling, and H. Weinfurter, “Free space quantum key distribution
over 500 meters using electrically driven quantum dot single-photon
sources-a proof of principle experiment,” New Journal of Physics, vol.
16, 2014.
[383] W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, “Inside quantum
repeaters,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics,
vol. 21, pp. 78–90, May 2015.
[384] C. Y. Chen, G. J. Zeng, F. j. Lin, Y. H. Chou, and H. C. Chao,
“Quantum cryptography and its applications over the internet,” IEEE
Network, vol. 29, pp. 64–69, September 2015.
[385] A. Hellemans, “Two steps closer to a quantum internet [news],” IEEE
Spectrum, vol. 53, pp. 11–13, January 2016.
[386] N. L. Piparo and M. Razavi, “Long-distance trust-free quantum key
distribution,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics,
vol. 21, pp. 123–130, May 2015.
[387] A. Delteil, Z. Sun, W.-b. Gao, E. Togan, S. Faelt, and A. Imamoglu,
“Generation of heralded entanglement between distant hole spins,”
NATURE PHYSICS, vol. 12, pp. 218+, MAR 2016.
[388] B. T. Kirby, S. Santra, V. S. Malinovsky, and M. Brodsky, “Entanglement swapping of two arbitrarily degraded entangled states,”
PHYSICAL REVIEW A, vol. 94, JUL 20 2016.
[389] T. Shang, J. Li, Z. Pei, and J.-w. Liu, “Quantum network coding for
general repeater networks,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 14,
no. 9, pp. 3533–3552, 2015.
[390] H. V. Nguyen, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Irregular convolution and
unity-rate coded network-coding for cooperative multi-user communications,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12,no.
3, pp. 1231–1243, 2013.
[391] Q. You, Y. Li, and Z. Chen, “Joint relay selection and network coding
for error-prone two-way decode-and-forward relay networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, pp. 3420–3433, Oct 2014.
[392] T. X. Vu, P. Duhamel, and M. D. Renzo, “On the diversity of
networkcoded cooperation with decode-and-forward relay selection,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, pp. 4369–
4378, Aug 2015.
[393] H. Nguyen, Z. Babar, D. Alanis, P. Botsinis, D. Chandra, A. Izhar,
S. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Towards the quantum internet: Generalised

55

[394]
[395]
[396]
[397]

[398]
[399]
[400]
[401]
[402]
[403]
[404]
[405]
[406]
[407]
[408]
[409]
[410]
[411]
[412]
[413]
[414]
[415]
[416]
[417]
[418]
[419]

[420]

[421]
[422]
[423]
[424]

quantum network coding for large-scale quantum communication networks,” IEEE Access, 8 2017.
J. von Neumann, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. University of
Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, USA. (1966).
J. von Neumann. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Princeton University Press, (1996).
M. Nielsen. A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum
dynamical operation. Physics Letters A, 303(4):249 - 252, (2002).
F. Nielsen, J.-D. Boissonnat, and R. Nock. On Bregman Voronoi
diagrams. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium
on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’07), pages 746–755, Philadelphia, PA,
USA, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, (2007).
F. Nielsen, J. D. Boissonnat, R. Nock, Bregman Voronoi Diagrams:
Prop erties, arXiv:0709.2196v1, (2007).
F. Nielsen, R. Nock: Bregman Sided and Symmetrized Centroids. ICPR
2008, ICPR’08, (arXiv:0711.3242), (2008).
F. Nielsen, R. Nock: On the smallest enclosing information disk. Inf.
Process. Lett. IPL’08, 105(3): 93-97 (2008).
F. Nielsen, R. Nock: Quantum Voronoi Diagrams and Holevo Channel
Capacity for 1-Qubit Quantum States, ISIT 2008, (2008).
F. Nielsen, R. Nock: Approximating Smallest Enclosing Balls with
Application to Machine Learning, International Journal on Computational Geometry and Applications (IJCGA’09), (2009).
M. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information, Cambridge University Press, (2000).
M. Nielsen. Quantum information theory. PhD thesis, University of
New Mexico, quant-ph/0011036. (1998).
M. Nielsen. Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations.
Physical Review Letters, 83(2):436-439, (1999).
R. Nock, F. Nielsen: Fitting the Smallest Enclosing Bregman Ball.
ECML 2005, ECML’05, pages 649-656, (2005).
T. Ogawa and Hiroshi Nagaoka. Making good codes for classicalquantum channel coding via quantum hypothesis testing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 53(6):2261-2266, (2007).
H. Ohno and D. Petz, Generalized Pauli channels, Acta Math. Hungary
124, 165-177. (2009).
M. Ohya, D. Petz, and N. Watanabe. “On capacities of quantum
channels”. Prob. Math. Stats., 17:170–196, (1997).
D. Oi, The Geometry of Single-Qubit Maps, arXiv:quantph/0106035v1 (2001)
K. Onishi and H. Imai: Voronoi Diagram in Statistical Parametric
Space by Kullback-Leibler Divergence. Proceedings of the 13th ACM
Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp.463–465, (1997).
K. Onishi and H. Imai: Voronoi Diagram in Statistical Parametric
Space by Kullback-Leibler Divergence. Proceedings of the 13th ACM
Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp.463–465, (1997).
K. Onishi and H. Imai: Voronoi Diagram in Statistical Parametric
Space by Kullback-Leibler Divergence. Proceedings of the 13th ACM
Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp.463–465, (1997).
J. Oppenheim, For quantum information, two wrongs can make a right,
Science, 321, 1783 (2008), arXiv:1004.0052v1 (2008).
M. Oto, H. Imai and K. Imai: Computational Geometry on 1-qubit
Quantum States. Proc. International Symposium on Voronoi Diagrams
in Science and Engineering (VD 2004), Tokyo, pp.145–151, (2004).
M. Ozawa. Quantum measuring processes of continuous observables.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, 25(1):79-87, (1984).
J. Pade. (auth.), Quantum Mechanics for Pedestrians 1: Fundamentals. Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer International
Publishing, 1 ed., (2014).
R. Panigrahy, “Minimum enclosing polytope in high dimensions,”
arXiv cs.CG/0407020, (2004).
Botsinis, Panagiotis, Alanis, Dimitrios, Ng, Soon Xin and Hanzo,
Lajos Low-Complexity Soft-Output Quantum-Assisted Multi-User
Detection for Direct-Sequence Spreading and Slow SubcarrierHopping Aided SDMA-OFDM Systems. IEEE Access, PP, (99),
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2322013 (2014).
Botsinis, Panagiotis, Ng, Soon Xin and Hanzo, Lajos Fixed-complexity
quantum-assisted multi-user detection for CDMA and SDMA. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, (no. 3), pp. 990-1000,
doi:10.1109/TCOMM.2014.012514.130615 (2014).
G. D. Paparo and M. A. Martin-Delgado, “Google in a quantum
network,” Scientific Reports, vol. 2, (2012).
R. Garcı́a-Patrón, S. Pirandola, S. Lloyd, and J. H. Shapiro. Reverse coherent information. Physical Review Letters, 102(21):210501, (2009).
B. Pelletier, “Informative barycentres in statistics,” Annals of the
Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 767–780, (2005).
C. Perez-Delgado, D. Cheung, Models of quantum cellular automata,

Physical Review A 76, 032320, (2005).
[425] S. Perseguers, M. Lewenstein, A. Acı́n and J.I. Cirac, Quantum
random networks, Nature Physics, Advanced Online Publication,
DOI:10.1038/NPHYS1665, (2010).
[426] J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby,
M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard,
“Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor
quantum dots,” SCIENCE, vol. 309, pp. 2180–2184 (2005).
[427] D. Petz, Bregman divergence as relative operator entropy, Acta Math.
Hungar, 116, 127-131. (2007).
[428] D. Petz, Quantum information theory and Quantum Statistics,
Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Hiv: 6. (2008).
[429] D. Petz and V.E. S Szabó, From quasi-entropy to skew information,
Int. J. Math. 20, 1421-1430. (2009).
[430] D. Petz, A. Szántó and M. Weiner, Complementarity and the algebraic
structure of 4-level quantum systems, J. Infin. Dim. Anal., Quantum
Probability and Related Topics 12, 99-116. (2009).
[431] D. Petz, Complementarity and the algebraic structure of finite quantum
systems, J. of Physics: Conference Series 143, 012011. (2009).
[432] D. Petz and J. Pitrik, Markov property of Gaussian states of canonical
commutation relation algebras, J. Math. Phys. 50, 113517 (2009).
[433] D. Petz, From f-divergence to quantum quasi-entropies and their use,
Entropy 12(2010), 304-325. (2010).
[434] D. Petz, Algebraic complementarity in quantum theory, J. Math. Phys.
51, 015215 (2010).
[435] D. Petz and C. Sudár, “Geometries of quantum states,” Journal of
Mathematical Physics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2662–2673, (1996).
[436] Physorg Portal, Quantum memory for communication networks of
the future, http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-quantum-memorynetworks-future.html, (2010).
[437] Physorg Portal, Single-photon source may meet the needs of quantum
communication systems, http://www.physorg.com/news82281692.html
(2006).
[438] Physorg
Portal,
Researchers
convert
quantum
signals
to
telecom
wavelengths,
increase
memory
times,
http://www.physorg.com/news204728305.html (2010).
[439] Physorg Portal, Quantum Communication in Random Networks,
http://www.physorg.com/news194080900.html (2010).
[440] J. Pierce. The early days of information theory. IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, IT-19(1):3-8, (1973).
[441] M. Planck. Ueber das gesetz der energieverteilung im normalspectrum.
Annalen der Physik, 4:553-563, (1901).
[442] D. Poulin, J. Tillich, and H. Ollivier, “Quantum serial turbo codes,”
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, pp. 2776–2798,
(2009).
[443] J. Preskill. Lecture notes on Quantum Information Processing.
http://www.theory.alteh.edu/people/preskill/ph229/#leture. (1998).
[444] J. Preskill. Reliable quantum computers. Proceedings of the
Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
454(1969):385-410, (1998).
[445] J. Preskill, Lecture Notes for Physics 229:Quantum Information and
Computation. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015.
[446] M. Radmark, M. Zukowski, and M. Bourennane, Experimental Test
of Fidelity Limits in Six-Photon Interferometry and of Rotational
Invariance Properties of the Photonic Six-Qubit Entanglement Singlet
State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150501, (2009).
[447] V. Rajan. Optimality of the Delaunay triangulation in Rd. Discrete &
Computational Geometry, 12:189–202, (1994).
[448] J. Renes, G. Smith. Noisy processing and the distillation of private
quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 020502 (2007).
[449] R. Renka. Algorithm 772: Stripack: Delaunay triangulation and
Voronoi diagram on the surface of a sphere. ACM Transactions on
Mathematical Software, 23(3):416–434, (1997).
[450] S. Richter, R. Werner, Ergodicity of quantum cellular automata.
Journal of Statistical Physics, 82:963–998. (1996).
[451] M. Ruskai, S. Szarek, and E. Werner, ”An Analysis of CompletelyPositive Trace Preserving Maps on 2 by 2 Matrices”, LANL ArXiV
e-print quant-ph/0101003, (2001).
[452] K. Sadakane, H. Imai, K. Onishi, M. Inaba, F. Takeuchi, and K. Imai.
Voronoi diagrams by divergences with additive weights. In Symposium
on Computational Geometry, pages 403–404, (1998).
[453] M. Safari and M. Uysal, “Relay-assisted quantum-key distribution over
long atmospheric channels,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 27,
pp. 4508–4515 (2009).
[454] J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd Edition). Addison Wesley, (1994).
[455] N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, N. Gisin, Quantum

56

[456]

[457]
[458]
[459]
[460]

[461]
[462]
[463]

[464]
[465]
[466]
[467]
[468]
[469]
[470]
[471]
[472]

[473]
[474]
[475]
[476]
[477]
[478]
[479]
[480]
[481]
[482]
[483]

repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics arXiv:0906.2699
(2009).
P. K. Sarvepalli, A. Klappenecker, and M. Rotteler, “Asymmetric quantum codes: constructions, bounds and performance,” Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, vol. 465, no. 2105, pp. 1645–1672 (2009).
Schindler et al., “A quantum information processor with trapped ions,”
New Journal of Physics, vol. 15 (2013).
E. Schrödinger. Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem. Annalen der
Physik, 79:361-376, (1926).
E. Schrödinger. Discussion of probability relations between separated
systems. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31:555563, (1935).
F. Schmidt-Kaler, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, T. Deuschle, A. Kreuter, G.
Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, H. Hffner, and R. Blatt, “The
coherence of qubits based on single Ca+ ions,” Journal of Physics
B-Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 36, pp. 623–636, Feb.
14 2003.
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, ”Indeterminate-length quantum
coding”, Physical Review A 64, 2304-2316, (2001).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland. Approximate quantum error
correction. Quantum Information Processing, 1(1/2):5-12, (2002).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, ”Relative Entropy in quantum
information theory” 2000, LANL ArXiV e-print quant-ph/0004045,
to appear in Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A
Millenium Volume , S. Lomonaco, editor (American Mathematical
Society Contemporary Mathematics series), (2000).
B. Schumacher and R. Jozsa, ”A new proof of the quantum noiseless
coding theorem”, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2343-2349 (1994).
B. Schumacher, P. Hausladen, M. D. Westmoreland and W. K. Wootters
”Sending classical bits via quantum bits,” Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 755, 698-705 (1995).
B. Schumacher , ”Quantum coding”, Physical Review A 51, 2738-2747
(1995).
B. Schumacher, ”Sending entanglement through noisy quantum channels”, Physical Review A 54, 2614-2628 (1996).
B. Schumacher and M. A. Nielsen, ”Quantum data processing and
error correction”, Physical Review A 54, 2629-2629 (1996).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, “Sending classical information
via noisy quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 131–138,
(1997).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, ”Quantum privacy and quantum
coherence”, Physical Review Letters 80, 5695-5697 (1998).
B. Schumacher, H. Barnum and M. A. Nielsen) ”Information transmission through a noisy quantum channel”, Physical Review A 57,
4153-4175 (1998).
B. Schumacher, C. M. Caves, M. A. Nielsen, and H. Barnum, ”Information theoretic approach to quantum error correction and reversible
measurement”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 454,
277-304 (1998).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, ”Optimal Signal Ensembles”,
LANL ArXiV e-print quant-ph/9912122, (1999).
B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, ”Characterizations of classical
and quantum communication processes”, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
10, 1719-1736 (1999).
R. Seidel. Convex hull computations. In J. E. Goodman and J.
O’Rourke, editors, Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, 2nd ed., chapter 22. Chapman & Hall/CRC, (2004).
T. Shang, X.-J. Zhao, and J.-W. Liu, “Quantum network coding based
on controlled teleportation,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 18,
pp. 865–868 (2014).
C. Shannon, ,,A mathematical theory of communication”, Bell System
Tech. J. 27, 379 - 423, 623 - 656 (1948).
C. Shannon, “The zero-error capacity of a noisy channel,” IEEE Trans.
Information Theory, pp. 8–19, (1956).
J. H. Shapiro, “Normal-mode approach to wave propagation in the
turbulent atmosphere,” Appl. Opt., vol. 13, pp. 2614–2619 (1974).
J. H. Shapiro, “Near-field turbulence effects on quantum-key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 67, p. 022309 (2003).
Jeffrey H. Shapiro, Secure Communication using Gaussian-State Quantum Illumination, , arXiv:0903.3150 (2009).
M. Sharir. Algorithmic motion planning. In J. E. Goodman and J.
O’Rourke, editors, Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, 2nd edn., chapter 47. Chapman & Hall/CRC, (2004).
M. Sharir. Almost tight upper bounds for lower envelopes in higher
dimensions. Discrete and Computational Geometry, 12(1):327–346,
(1994).

[484] J. Shewchuck. Delaunay refinement algorithms for triangular mesh
generation. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl., 22:21–74, (2002).
[485] P. Shirley, M. Ashikhmin, M. Gleicher, S. Marschner, E. Reinhard, K.
Sung, W. Thompson, and P. Willemsen. Fundamentals of Computer
Graphics, 2nd edn. A.K. Peters, (2005).
[486] M. Shirokov, ,,The Holevo capacity of finite dimensional channels and
the additivity problem”, Commun. Math. Phys. 262, 137 - 159 (2006).
[487] P.
Shor,
“The
quantum
channel
capacity
and
coherent
information.”
lecture
notes,
MSRI
Workshop
on
Quantum
Computation,
Available
online
at
http://www.msri.org/publications/ln/msri/2002/quantumcrypto/shor/1/.
(2002).
[488] P. Shor. Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking
quantum channels. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43(9):4334-4340,
arXiv:quant-ph/0201149, (2002).
[489] P. Shor. Quantum Information, Statistics, Probability (Dedicated to A.
S. Holevo on the occasion of his 60th Birthday): The classical capacity
achievable by a quantum channel assisted by limited entanglement.
Rinton Press, Inc., arXiv:quant-ph/0402129, (2004).
[490] P. W. Shor. Equivalence of additivity questions in quantum information
theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 246(3):453-472,
arXiv:quant-ph/0305035. (2004).
[491] P. Shor. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer
memory. Physical Review A, 52(4):R2493-R2496, (1995).
[492] P. Shor. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. Annual IEEE Symposium
on Foundations of Computer Science, page 56, (1996).
[493] P. Shor and J. Smolin, Quantum Error-Correcting Codes Need Not
Completely Reveal the Error Syndrome, arXiv:quant-ph/9604006v2,
(1996).
[494] P. Shor. Polynomial time algorithms for prime factorization and
discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAMJ. Comp.,26(5):14841509, (1997).
[495] G. Smith, D. Leung. Typical entanglement in stabilizer states. quantph/0510232. Phys. Rev. A 74, 062314 (2006).
[496] G. Smith, J. Smolin. Degenerate quantum codes for Pauli channels.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030501 (2007).
[497] G. Smith, J. Yard, Quantum Communication with Zero-capacity Channels. Science 321, 1812-1815 (2008).
[498] G. Smith, J. Smolin. Additive extensions of a quantum channel. IEEE
Information Theory Workshop Proceedings (2008).
[499] G. Smith, J. Renes, J. Smolin. Structured codes improve the BennettBrassard-84 quantum key rate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 170502 (2008).
[500] G. Smith, J. Smolin, A. Winter. The quantum capacity with symmetric
side channels. IEEE Trans. Info. Theory 54, 9, 4208-4217 (2008).
[501] G. Smith. The private classical capacity with a symmetric side channel
and its application to quantum cryptography. Phys. Rev. A 78, 022306
(2008).
[502] G. Smith, John Smolin. Can non-private channels transmit quantum
information? Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010501 (2009).
[503] G. Smith and J. A. Smolin, “Extensive Nonadditivity of Privacy,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 103, no. 12, p. 120503, Sep. arXiv:0904.4050.
(2009).
[504] G. Smith: Quantum Channel Capacities, Information Theory Workshop
(ITW), 2010 IEEE, Aug. 30 2010-Sept. 3 2010. page(s): 1 - 5
arXiv:1007.2855, (2010).
[505] G. Smith, J. A. Smolin and J. Yard, Gaussian bosonic synergy: quantum communication via realistic channels of zero quantum capacity,
arXiv:1102.4580v1, (2011).
[506] J. Smolin, G. Smith, S. Wehner. A simple family of nonadditive
quantum codes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130505 (2007).
[507] A. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Physical Review
Letters, 77(5):793-797, (1996).
[508] M. Steiner, P. Neumann, J. Beck, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup,
Universal enhancement of the optical readout fidelity of single electron
spins at nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 81, 035205,
(2010).
[509] A. M. Stephens, Z.W. Evans, S.J. Devitt, A.D. Greentree, A.G.
Fowler, W.J. Munro, J.L. O’Brien, K. Nemoto and L.C.L. Hollenberg,
A Deterministic optical quantum computer using photonic modules,
Physical Review A. 78, 032318, (2008).
[510] W. F. Stinespring. Positive functions on C*-algebras. Proceedings of
the American Mathematical Society, 6:211-216, (1955).
[511] Hiroki Takesue, Toshihiko Sasaki, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Masato
Koashi, Experimental quantum key distribution without monitoring
signal disturbance, Nature Photonics 9, 827-831 (2015).
[512] W. Thomson (1st Baron Kelvin). Nineteenth-century clouds over the
dynamical theory of heat and light. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin

57

Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 2(6):1, (1901).
[513] T. Toffoli, & N. Margolus, Invertible cellular automata: A review.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 45:229–253. (1990).
[514] G. Toth, & C. Lent, Quantum computing with quantum-dot cellular
automata. Physical Review A, 63:052315. (2001).
[515] P. V. Trinh, N. T. Dang, and A. T. Pham, “All-optical relaying fso systems using edfa combined with optical hard-limiter over atmospheric
turbulence channels,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, pp.
4132–4144 (2015).
[516] K. Tsujino, D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, S. Inoue, M. Fujiwara, M. Takeoka,
and M. Sasaki, “Quantum receiver beyond the standard quantum limit
of coherent optical communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 106, p.
250503 (2011).
[517] A. M. Tyryshkin, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, A. Ardavan, G.
A. D. Briggs, J. W. Ager, and S. A. Lyon, “Coherence of spin qubits
in silicon,” Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter, vol. 18, pp. S783–
S794, (2006).
[518] W. G. Unruh, Maintaining coherence in quantum computers. Physical
Review A, 51(2):992-997, (1995).
[519] L. Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C. Yannoni, M. Sherwood,
and I. Chuang, “Experimental realization of Shor’s quantum factoring
algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance,” Nature, vol. 414, pp.
883–887 (2001).
[520] R. Van Meter, T. Ladd, W.J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Communication
Links for Distributed Quantum Computation, IEEE Transactions on
Computers, 56(12), 1643-1653 ( 2008).
[521] R. Van Meter, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, System
Design for a Long-Line Quantum Repeater, IEEE/ACM Transactions
on Networking 17, 1002 (2009).
[522] R. Van Meter, T. Satoh, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, Path
Selection for Quantum Repeater Networks, Networking Science, Vol.
3, Issue 1-4, pp 82-95 (2013).
[523] R. Van Meter, Quantum Networking, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, ISBN
1118648927, 9781118648926 (2014).
[524] V.Vedral, “The Role of Relative Entropy in Quantum Information
Theory”. Rev. Mod. Phys, 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.197. (2000).
[525] V.Vedral and M. B. Plenio, “Basics of quantum computation”. Prog.
Quant. Electron., 22, 1–39. (1998).
[526] K. Vollbrecht, & J. Cirac, Quantum simulators, continuous-time
automata, and translationally invariant systems. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
100:010501, (2008).
[527] G. Voronoi. Nouvelles applications des parametres continusa la theorie
des formes quadratiques. Premier M’emoire: Sur quelques propri’et’es
des formes quadratiques positives parfaites. J. Reine Angew. Math.,
133:97–178, (1907).
[528] G. Voronoi. Nouvelles applications des parametres continusa la theorie des formes quadratiques. Deuxi‘eme M’emoire: Recherches sur
les parall’ello‘edres primitifs. J. Reine Angew. Math., 134:198–287,
(1908).
[529] L. Wang and R. Renner. One-shot classical-quantum capacity and
hypothesis testing. arXiv:1007.5456, (2010).
[530] J. Watrous, Lecture Notes in Quantum Computation, University of
Calgary, (2006).
[531] J. Watrous, On one-dimensional quantum cellular automata. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science, pp 528–537. (1995).
[532] R. Wein, J. van den Berg, and D. Halperin. The visibility-Voronoi
complex and its applications. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl., 36:66–87,
(2007).
[533] E. Welzl. Constructing the visibility graph for n line segments in O(n2)
time. Inform. Process. Lett., 20:167–171, (1985).
[534] E. Welzl. Partition trees for triangle counting and other range searching
problems. In Proc. 4th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pages
23–33, (1988).
[535] E. Welzl. Smallest enclosing disks (balls and ellipsoids). In H. Maurer,
editor, New Results and New Trends in Computer Science, number 555
in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 359–370, (1991).
[536] M. Wilde, H. Krovi, and T. A. Brun. Coherent communication with
continuous quantum variables. Physical Review A, 75(6):060303(R),
(2007).
[537] M. Wilde and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Public and private resource trade-offs
for a quantum channel. arXiv:1005.3818. (2010).
[538] M. Wilde, From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory,
arxiv.org/abs/1106.1445, (2011).
[539] M. Wilde and M.-H. Hsieh, “The quantum dynamic capacity formula
of a quantum channel,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 11, pp.
1431–1463 (2012).

[540] M. Wilde, M.-H. Hsieh, and Z. Babar, “Entanglement-assisted quantum
turbo codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, pp.
1203–1222 (2014).
[541] P. Williams, H. Clearwater, Ultimate Zero and One Computing at the
Quantum Frontier. New York, USA : COPERNICUS Springer-Verlag
New York (2000).
[542] A. Winter. The capacity of the quantum multiple access channel. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 47:3059-3065, (2001).
[543] A. Winter and Serge Massar. Compression of quantum-measurement
operations. Physical Review A, 64(1):012311, (2001).
[544] A. J. Winter. “Extrinsic” and “intrinsic” data in quantum measurements: asymptotic convex decomposition of positive operator valued
measures. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 244(1):157-185,
(2004).
[545] A. Winter, ,,The maximum output p-norm of quantum channels is not
multiplicative for any p > 2”, ArXiv:0707.0402, (2007).
[546] A. Winter. Coding theorem and strong converse for quantum channels.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(7):2481-2485, (1999).
[547] A. Winter. Coding Theorems of Quantum Information Theory. PhD
thesis, Universitat Bielefeld, arXiv:quant-ph/9907077, (1999).
[548] M. Wolf and J. Eisert, Classical information capacity of a class of
quantum channels. New Journal of Physics, 7(93), (2005).
[549] M. M. Wolf, D. P-Garcia, G. Giedke, Quantum Capacities of Bosonic
Channels, arXiv:quant-ph/0606132v1, (2006).
[550] M. Wolf and David Pérez-Garcı́a. Quantum capacities of channels with
small environment. Physical Review A, 75(1):012303, (2007).
[551] W. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned.
Nature, 299:802–803, doi:10.1038/299802a0. (1982).
[552] M. Worboys and M. Duckham. GIS, a Computing Perspective, 2nd
edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, (2004).
[553] L. Jian-Wu, C. Zi, S. Jin-Jing, and G. Ying, “Quantum secret sharing
with quantum graph states,” Acta Physica Sinica, vol. 65, (2016).
[554] WorldWideScience.org, Sample records for quantum computer development from WorldWideScience.org, http://worldwidescience.org/
(2011).
[555] J. Yard. Simultaneous classical-quantum capacities of quantum multiple access channels. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA,arXiv:quant-ph/0506050.(2005).
[556] J. Yard, I. Devetak, and P. Hayden. Capacity theorems for quantum
multiple access channels. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory, pages 884-888, Adelaide, Australia,
(2005).
[557] J. Yard, P. Hayden, and I. Devetak. Quantum broadcast channels,
arXiv:quant-ph/0603098., (2006).
[558] J. Yard, P. Hayden, and I. Devetak. Capacity theorems for quantum multiple-access channels: Classical-quantum and quantumquantum capacity regions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
54(7):3091-3113, (2008).
[559] B. Yen and J. Shapiro. Multiple-access bosonic communications.
Physical Review A, 72(6):062312, (2005).
[560] R. Yeung. A First Course in Information Theory. Information Technology: Transmission, Processing, and Storage. Springer (Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers), New York, New York, USA, (2002).
[561] J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai,
W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, Y.-H. Gong, Y. Xu,
S.-L. Li, F.-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Yin, Z.-Q. Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D.
He, Y.-L. Zhou, X.-X. Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L.
Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W.
Pan, “Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers,”
Science, vol. 356, no. 6343, pp. 1140–1144, (2017).
[562] S. Yoshizawa and K. Tanabe, “Dual differential geometry associated
with Kullback-Leibler information on the Gaussian distributions and
its 2-parameter deformations,” SUT Journal of Mathematics, vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 113–137, (1999).
[563] Z-S. Yuan, Y. Chen, B. Zhao, S. Chen, J. Schmiedmayer, J. Pan, Experimental demonstration of a BDCZ quantum repeater node, Nature
454, 1098-1101, doi:10.1038/nature07241; (2008).
[564] A. Zeilinger, “Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics,”
Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 71, pp. S288–S297 (1999).
[565] Xiao-Song Ma, Thomas Herbst, Thomas Scheidl, Daqing Wang, Sebastian Kropatschek, William Naylor, Bernhard Wittmann, Alexandra
Mech, Johannes Kofler, Elena Anisimova, Vadim Makarov, Thomas
Jennewein, Rupert Ursin and Anton Zeilinger, Quantum teleportation
over 143 kilometres using active feed-forward, Nature 489, 269-273
(2012).
[566] W. Zhang, S. Hranilovic, and C. Shi, “Soft-switching hybrid fso/rf links
using short-length raptor codes: design and implementation,” IEEE

58

Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 27, pp. 1698–1708
(2009).
[567] Zhang Y, Djordjevic IB, Gao X., On the quantum-channel capacity for
orbital angular momentum-based free-space optical communications,
Opt Lett. 37(15):3267-9 (2012).
[568] Q. Zhang, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, ”Quantum Game
Theory for Beam Alignment in Millimeter Wave Device-to-Device
Communications,” in Proc. of the IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM), Washington, DC, USA, December 2016.
[569] W. Zhang, D.-S. Ding, Y.-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo,
“Quantum Secure Direct Communication with Quantum Memory,”
Physical Review Letters, vol. 118, (2017).

A PPENDIX
A. Partial Trace
If we have a density matrix which describes only a subset
of a larger quantum space, then we talk about the reduced
density matrix. The larger quantum system can be expressed
as the tensor product of the reduced density matrices of the
subsystems, if there is no correlation (entanglement) between
the subsystems. On the other hand, if we have two subsystems
with reduced density matrices ρA and ρB , then from the
overall density matrix denoted by ρAB the subsystems can
be expressed as ρA =T rB (ρAB ) and ρB =T rA (ρAB ), where
T rB and T rA refers to the partial trace operators. So, this
partial trace operator can be used to generate one of the subsystems from the joint state ρAB = | ψA i h ψA | ⊗ | ψB i h ψB | ,
then
ρA =T rB (ρAB ) =T rB (| ψA i h ψA | ⊗ | ψB i h ψB | )
= | ψA i h ψA | T r (| ψB i h ψB | ) = | ψA i h ψA | hψB | ψB i .
(A.1)
Since the inner product is trivially hψB | ψB i = 1, therefore
T rB (ρAB ) = hψB | ψB i | ψA i h ψA | = | ψA i h ψA | =ρA .
(A.2)
In
the
calculation,
we
used
the
fact
that
T r (| ψ1 i h ψ2 | ) = hψ2 | ψ1 i. In general, if we have to
systems A= | ii h k| and B= | ji h l| , then the partial trace
can be calculated as
T rB (A⊗B) =AT r (B) ,

(A.3)

since
T r2 (| ii h k| ⊗ | ji h l| )= | ii h k| ⊗T r (| ji h l| )
= | ii h k| ⊗ hl | ji

(A.4)

= hl | ji | ii h k| ,
T

where | ii h k| ⊗ | ji h l| = | ii | ji (| ki | li ) .
In this expression
we have used
the fact that


T
AB T ⊗ CDT = (A⊗C) B T ⊗DT = (A⊗C) (B⊗D) .
B. Quantum Entanglement
A quantum system ρAB is separable if it can be written
as a tensor product of the two subsystems ρAB =ρA ⊗ρB .
Beside product states ρA ⊗ρB which represent a composite
system consisting of several independent states merged by
means of tensor product ⊗ similarly to classical composite
systems, quantum mechanics offers a unique new phenomenon
called entanglement. For example the so called Bell states (or

EPR states, named after Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) are
entangled ones:
| β00 i = √12 (| 00i + | 11i ) ,
| β01 i = √12 (| 01i + | 10i ) ,
| β10 i = √12 (| 00i − | 11i ) ,
| β11 i = √12 (| 01i − | 10i ) .

(A.5)

C. Fidelity
Theoretically, quantum states have to preserve their original superposition during the whole transmission, without the
disturbance of their actual properties. Practically, quantum
channels are entangled with the environment which results
in mixed states at the output. Mixed states are classical
probability weighted sum of pure states where these probabilities appear due to the interaction with the environment
(i.e., noise). Therefore, we introduce a new quantity, which
is able to describe the quality of the transmission of the
superposed states through the quantum channel. The quantity
which measures this distance is called the fidelity. The fidelity
for two pure quantum states is defined as
2

F (|ϕi, |ψi) = |hϕ|ψi| .

(A.6)

The fidelity of quantum states can describe the relation of
Alice pure channel input
state | ψiPand the received mixed
Pn−1
n−1
quantum system σ= i=0 pi ρi = i=0 pi | ψi i h ψi | at the
channel output as
F (|ψi, σ) = hψ| σ| ψi =

n−1
X

2

pi |hψ|ψi i| .

(A.7)

i=0

Fidelity can also be defined for mixed states σ and ρ
2 X  q
2
 q
√ √
√
√
σρ σ
=
pi T r
σi ρi σi
.
F (ρ, σ) = T r
i

(A.8)

Next we list the major properties of fidelity
0≤F (σ, ρ) ≤1,

(A.9)

F (σ, ρ) =F (ρ, σ) ,

(A.10)

F (ρ1 ⊗ρ2 , σ1 ⊗σ2 ) =F (ρ1 , σ1 ) F (ρ2 , σ2 ) ,

F U ρU † , U σU † =F (ρ, σ) ,

(A.11)
(A.12)

F (ρ, aσ1 +(1−a)σ2 ) ≥aF (ρ, σ1 ) +(1−a)F (ρ, σ2 ) , a∈ [0, 1] .
(A.13)

