Quantum Channel Capacities Per Unit Cost
Dawei Ding∗

Dmitri S. Pavlichin†

Mark M. Wilde‡

arXiv:1705.08878v2 [quant-ph] 12 Jun 2017

June 14, 2017

Abstract
Communication over a noisy channel is often conducted in a setting in which different input
symbols to the channel incur a certain cost. For example, for the additive white Gaussian noise
channel, the cost associated with a real number input symbol is the square of its magnitude.
In such a setting, it is often useful to know the maximum amount of information that can be
reliably transmitted per cost incurred. This is known as the capacity per unit cost. In this
paper, we generalize the capacity per unit cost to various communication tasks involving a
quantum channel; in particular, we consider classical communication, entanglement-assisted
classical communication, private communication, and quantum communication. For each task,
we define the corresponding capacity per unit cost and derive a formula for it analogous to that of
the usual capacity. Furthermore, for the special case in which there is a zero-cost quantum state,
we obtain expressions for the various capacities per unit cost in terms of an optimized relative
entropy involving the zero-cost state. For each communication task, we construct an explicit
pulse-position-modulation coding scheme that achieves the capacity per unit cost. Finally, we
compute capacities per unit cost for various quantum Gaussian channels and introduce the notion
of a blocklength-constrained capacity per unit cost.

1

Introduction

The main concerns of information theory are determining limitations on information processing and
how to attain them [CT06]. In the task of communication over a noisy channel, for example, the
usual goal is to compute the capacity of the channel, which is informally defined as the maximum
number of bits that can be reliably transmitted over the channel divided by the total number of
channel uses. As the number of channel uses is often directly proportional to the overall transmission
time, the capacity measures the maximum rate of information transmission per unit time. Hence,
the capacity is a limit to communication when given a certain time constraint.
However, we need not restrict ourselves to time constraints. We can seek limits to communication
with respect to other types of constraints, and in some practical settings these other constraints
are more relevant. For example, we can imagine a setting in which a satellite deep in space is
transmitting information back to Earth [PPR81]. In this case, the amount of time taken to transmit
the information is not as much of a concern as is the finite amount of battery energy. The receivers
on Earth can afford to wait an arbitrary amount of time, but once the batteries are consumed, the
∗

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

1

satellite is no longer useful if there is no external energy source available. Hence, in this case, the
relevant constraint is an energy constraint.
In general, we can consider constraints with respect to a certain cost associated with transmission.
Then, the corresponding communication limit should informally be the maximum amount of
information that can be reliably transmitted divided by the total cost incurred in transmission. This
is the notion of capacity per unit cost, which was introduced and extensively studied for classical
channels in [Ver90]. After the development of quantum information theory, capacity per unit cost
was extended to channels with classical binary inputs and quantum outputs [CHP07].
In this paper, we generalize the capacity per unit cost to various communication tasks involving
quantum channels, including classical communication, entanglement-assisted classical communication,
private communication, and quantum communication. To do so, we first recall from classical
information theory the notion of a cost function, which associates to each input symbol a nonnegative real number. In the quantum case, we employ a cost observable G ≥ 0 [Hol03, Hol04] in
order to quantify the cost of transmitting a quantum state. We then generalize the results in [Ver90]
to classical communication over quantum channels by giving a formula for the capacity per unit
cost of the form
I(X; B)ρ
sup
,
(1.1)
{pX ,ρA (x)} tr[Gρ̄A ]
where A, B denote quantum systems, ρ̄A ≡ x pX (x)ρA (x), and the mutual information I(X; B)
is evaluated with respect to a classical–quantum state ρXB associated with the channel. For
simplicity, we focus on channels with a single-letter cost-constrained classical capacity, including
entanglement-breaking channels for example [Sho02a, Shi06, Hol08]. The formula in eq. (1.1) is
derived via the known formula [Hol04] for the cost-constrained classical capacity, also known as
the classical capacity cost function, of a quantum channel and reduces to it when G is the identity
operator. This is intuitive since in this case the cost is the number of channel uses, and so every
quantum state incurs unit cost.
Now, more interesting results come about in the special case in which there is a zero-cost quantum
state, that is, some state ψ 0 such that tr[Gψ 0 ] = 0. This is a natural setting to consider, given that
transmitting a zero-cost state often physically corresponds to not actively sending anything through
the channel. For example, for a bosonic channel the zero-cost state is the vacuum. Now, by the
positive semi-definiteness of G, without loss of generality we can take ψ 0 to be pure. In this case,
we find that the capacity per unit cost reduces to the following expression:
P

sup
ψ6=ψ 0

D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
,
hψ| G |ψi

(1.2)

where D denotes the quantum relative entropy [Ume62] and the supremum is with respect to pure
states ψ. The above expression is intuitive given the fact that pulse-position-modulation (PPM)
protocols achieve the capacity per unit cost when there is a zero-cost state [Ver90]. Such PPM
protocols encode information into the position of a ψ-pulse amidst a baseline of zero-cost ψ 0 states.
Hence, for these protocols, we expect the relevant variables for computing the capacity per unit
cost to be the distinguishability of the states N (ψ) and N (ψ 0 ) in addition to the cost of ψ. For
other communication tasks such as entanglement-assisted, private, or quantum communication, we
find related results and point to the respective Sections 4, 5, and 6 for details. We apply these
formulae to various quantum Gaussian channels in Section 7. In Section 8 we introduce the notion
of a blocklength-constrained capacity per unit cost, analogous to that of a cost-constrained capacity,
2

and derive a formula for it. We find that a blocklength constraint can ensure that the capacity per
unit cost is finite and thus can play a similar role to a cost constraint for the usual capacity.
In classical information theory, communication limits with respect to costs other than time
were first considered in [Rez61, Sha48, Pie78, Gol49, Gal87]. Such ideas have appeared in quantum
settings as well, for instance for quantum bosonic channels [GHT11, Guh11, GDS11, DBEM11]
where the relevant cost is the photon number.
Related Work: After deriving many of the results in this paper and while drafting this manuscript,
a related work appeared on the quant-ph arXiv [Jar17]. In [Jar17], the author considers classical
capacity per unit cost for particular channels that accept a general classical input symbol and output
a quantum state (known as classical–quantum channels in the literature), thus generalizing the
approach in [CHP07]. In particular, a cost function is considered to quantify the cost of classical
input symbols. We note here that our paper generalizes this setup to the fully quantum case in
which there is a cost observable and the channels considered have quantum inputs and quantum
outputs.

2

Preliminaries

For simplicity, we restrict our developments to finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, with the exception of
Section 7, which applies to quantum Gaussian channels. Let HA and HB denote finite-dimensional
Hilbert spaces, and let L(HA ) and L(HB ) denote spaces of linear operators acting on those
respective Hilbert spaces. We denote by NA→B : L(HA ) → L(HB ) a quantum channel, defined to
be a completely positive and trace-preserving map. By Stinespring’s dilation theorem [Sti55, Pau02],
NA→B can be extended to an isometric channel UA→BE : L(HA ) → L(HB ⊗ HE ), where HE is
some other finite-dimensional Hilbert space and NA→B = trE ◦ UA→BE .
Now, let G ∈ L(HA ) be a positive semi-definite operator acting on HA . Throughout, we
refer to G as the cost observable. This is the standard cost constraint used in applications of
quantum Shannon theory (see, for instance, [Hol03, Hol04, Hol08, Hol12]). This is also a quantum
generalization of a classical cost function [Ver90], which is a map from the input alphabet to the
non-negative reals. The cost function can be embedded into a cost observable by letting the spectrum
of the latter be the image of the former. However, note that unlike in the classical case, we can use
quantum codewords that are not eigenstates of the cost observable. This might even be necessary to
achieve the capacity of a quantum channel. For example, for single-mode phase-insensitive bosonic
Gaussian channels, the relevant cost observable is the photon number operator, but it is known that
coherent states, not number states, achieve the classical capacity [GGL+ 04, GHGP15, GGPCH14].
Lastly, given two quantum states ρ, σ ∈ S(HA ), where S(HA ) ( L(HA ) denotes the set of
positive semi-definite operators with unit trace, a quantum hypothesis test with N copies is a binary
positive-operator valued measure (POVM) {ΛN , I − ΛN } that distinguishes between N copies of
the two states. The two states to be distinguished are called the null and alternative hypotheses,
respectively. Now, there are two possible errors that can occur. Taking ΛN to be the measurement
result that declares the state to be ρ⊗N , the error probabilities are given by
αN (ΛN ) ≡ tr[(I − ΛN )ρ⊗N ],
βN (ΛN ) ≡ tr[ΛN σ

⊗N

].

(2.1)
(2.2)

The errors are called the Type I and Type II errors, respectively. Then, for some ε ∈ (0, 1), we can

3

define the following quantity:
∗
βN
(ε) ≡ inf {βN (ΛN )|αN (ΛN ) ≤ ε} .
ΛN

(2.3)

That is, it is the lowest Type II error possible, given that the Type I error does not exceed ε. By
Quantum Stein’s Lemma [HP91, ON00], for all ε ∈ (0, 1),
lim −

N →∞

1
∗
log2 βN
(ε) = D(ρkσ),
N

(2.4)

where the quantum relative entropy D(ρkσ) is defined as
D(ρkσ) ≡ tr[ρ(log2 ρ − log2 σ)]

(2.5)

whenever supp(ρ) ⊆ supp(σ) and it is equal to +∞ otherwise.

3

Classical Communication

We first consider the case of unassisted classical communication over a quantum channel N . Let
n, M ∈ N, ν ∈ R>0 , and ε ∈ [0, 1]. We denote an (n, M, ν, ε) code as one with blocklength n and
number of messages M . Furthermore, denoting the quantum codewords as the density operators
⊗n
ρAn (1), . . . , ρAn (M ) ∈ S(HA
), each quantum codeword satisfies
tr[Gn ρAn (x)] ≤ ν,
where
Gn ≡

n
X

I ⊗j−1 ⊗ G ⊗ I ⊗n−j .

(3.1)

(3.2)

j=1

The operator Gn is the total cost observable for the n channel uses, and by inspection, it is equal
to the sum of the individual costs incurred for each channel use. Finally, given that the decoder
uses a POVM {Π1 , . . . , ΠM } to guess the message, the average error probability over the possible
messages cannot exceed ε, i.e.,
M
1 X
tr[(I ⊗n − Πm )N ⊗n (ρAn (m))] ≤ ε.
M m=1

(3.3)

We recall the definition for the cost-constrained classical capacity of a quantum channel [Hol03,
Hol04]:
Definition 1. Given ε ∈ [0, 1), and β > 0, a non-negative number R is an ε-achievable rate with
average cost not exceeding β if for all δ > 0, ∃ n0 ∈ N such that if n ≥ n0 , then ∃ an (n, M, nβ, ε)
code such that logn2 M > R − δ. Then, R is called achievable if it is ε-achievable for all ε ∈ (0, 1).
The supremum of all achievable rates with average cost not exceeding β is denoted C(N , β), the
classical capacity cost function.

4

For simplicity, for the rest of the section we will consider channels with additive Holevo information
at all cost constraints, i.e.,
∀β ≥ 0, n ∈ N,

χ(N ⊗n , nβ) = nχ(N , β),

(3.4)

where
χ(N ⊗n , nβ) ≡

I(X; B n )ρ

sup

(3.5)

{pX ,ρAn (x)}
tr[Gn ρ̄An ]≤nβ

and
ρXB n =

X

pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗ N ⊗n (ρAn (x)),

(3.6)

pX (x)ρAn (x).

(3.7)

x

ρ̄An =

X
x

Similar to the classical case [Ver90], the classical capacity cost function can be computed as an
optimization of a mutual information with respect to input ensembles that satisfy the cost constraint:
Theorem 2 ([SW97, Hol98, Hol03, Hol04]). For a channel with additive Holevo information at all
cost constraints, the classical capacity cost function is given by
C(N , β) = χ(N , β) ≡

sup

I(X; B)ρ .

(3.8)

{pX ,ρA (x)}
tr[Gρ̄A ]≤β

We now give the definition of the classical capacity per unit cost.
Definition 3. Given ε ∈ [0, 1), a non-negative number R is an ε-achievable rate per unit cost if
for every δ > 0, ∃ ν0 > 0 such that if ν ≥ ν0 , ∃ an (n, M, ν, ε) code such that log2 M > ν(R − δ). R
is achievable if it is achievable for all ε ∈ (0, 1) and the capacity per unit cost is the supremum of
all achievable rates per unit cost, denoted as C(N ).
Observe that the above definition is similar to that of the usual capacity, except we replace the
blocklength n by the cost ν. In fact, we can also give an expression for the classical capacity per
unit cost in terms of an optimized mutual information:
Theorem 4. The capacity per unit cost for a channel with additive Holevo information at all cost
constraints is given by
C(N , β)
I(X; B)ρ
=
sup
.
β
β>0
{pX ,ρA (x)} tr[Gρ̄A ]

C(N ) = sup

(3.9)

The proof of Theorem 4 is based on [Ver90] and follows from the achievability and converse for
the cost-constrained classical capacity. In general it is sufficient to prove the coding theorem for the
cost-constrained capacity in order to establish a coding theorem for the capacity per unit cost.
Proof of Theorem 4. We first show the achievability statement C (N ) ≥ supβ>0 C(Nβ ,β) . Let β > 0.
Let R be an achievable rate per channel use with average cost not exceeding β. We claim that R/β
is an achievable rate per unit cost. This is clear for R = 0, so we can assume R > 0. To see the
5

claim, let ε ∈ (0, 1) and fix some δ > 0. Then, by definition ∃ n0 such that for all n ≥ n0 there is an
(n, M, nβ, ε) code such that
log2 M
βδ
>R−
.
(3.10)
n
2
This same code is a (n, M, nβ, ε) code such that
R δ
log2 M
> − .
nβ
β
2

(3.11)

o

n

Now, let ν0 = max (n0 + 1)β, 2R
and ν ≥ ν0 . If ν = nβ for some n ∈ N, then n ≥ n0 , and so the
δ
above (n, M, nβ, ε) code satisfies the necessary requirements. If instead nβ < ν < (n + 1)β for some
n ∈ N, then we note
ν
ν0
2R
n+1> ≥
≥
,
(3.12)
β
β
δβ
and so


R δ
−
β
2



nβ
>
ν

R δ
n
−
β
2 n+1



R δ
1
=
−
1−
β
2
n+1



R δ
δβ
>
−
1−
β
2
2R
R
> − δ.
β




(3.13)
(3.14)
(3.15)
(3.16)

Now, (n + 1) β > ν ≥ ν0 , so n ≥ n0 . Hence, the above (n, M, nβ, ε) code is a (n, M, ν, ε) code such
that
log2 M
>
ν



R δ
−
β
2



nβ
R
> − δ.
ν
β

(3.17)

Hence we have shown achievability.
We next show the converse statement C (N ) ≤ supβ>0 C(Nβ ,β) . Suppose N has an (n, M, ν, ε)
code. By a standard data-processing argument and entropy continuity bound [Wil17, Hol12, Win16],
we have
log2 M ≤ χ(N , ν) + f (M, ε).
(3.18)
where f (M, ε) = ε log2 M + (ε + 1) log2 (ε + 1) − ε log2 ε, so that limε→0 f (M, ε) = 0. Thus,
χ(N , ν) f (M, ε)
log2 M
≤
+
ν
ν
ν
f (M, ε)
1
=
sup I(X; B)ρ +
ν {pX ,ρA (x)}
ν

(3.19)
(3.20)

tr[Gρ̄A ]≤ν

1
β>0 β

≤ sup

sup

I(X; B)ρ +

{pX ,ρA (x)}
tr[Gρ̄A ]≤β

C(N , β) f (M, ε)
+
.
β
ν
β>0

= sup

6

f (M, ε)
ν

(3.21)

(3.22)

Thus, for any ε-achievable rate per unit cost R, for any δ > 0 there exists ν0 such that for ν ≥ ν0 ,
C(N , β) f (M, ε)
+
.
β
ν
β>0

R − δ < sup

(3.23)

Hence, for all δ > 0,
!

C(N , β) f (M, ε)
+
.
R − δ < lim inf sup
ν→∞
β
ν
β>0

(3.24)

Hence, if R is an achievable rate per unit cost, then
C(N , β)
.
β
β>0

R ≤ sup

(3.25)

This establishes the first equality in Theorem 4.
To show the second equality, we first argue
C(N , β)
1
= sup
β
β
β>0
β>0

sup

sup

I(X; B)ρ

(3.26)

{pX ,ρA (x)}
tr[Gρ̄A ]≤β

1
I(X; B)ρ
tr[Gρ̄
A]
β>0 {pX ,ρA (x)}

≤ sup

sup

(3.27)

tr[Gρ̄A ]≤β

=

I(X; B)ρ
.
{pX ,ρA (x)} tr[Gρ̄A ]
sup

(3.28)

Note that the inequality is trivial if for some ensemble tr[Gρ̄A ] = 0 and I(X; B)ρ > 0. Now, this is
also an achievable rate per unit cost since for any {pX , ρA (x)}, we can achieve a rate per channel use
I(X; B)ρ using cost-constrained Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) coding [Hol98, SW97,
Hol03, Hol04, Hol12]. The average cost per channel use is then exactly tr[Gρ̄A ], and so we achieve
a capacity per unit cost equal to
I(X; B)ρ
.
(3.29)
tr[Gρ̄A ]
This concludes the proof.
Now, suppose that we have a state ψ 0 with zero cost, i.e., tr[Gψ 0 ] = 0. As mentioned above,
without loss of generality, ψ 0 can be taken pure since otherwise we can spectrally decompose it
and conclude that all of its eigenstates must have zero cost since G ≥ 0. In this special case, the
capacity per unit cost is given by the following simple expression:
Theorem 5. If there is a state ψ 0 with zero cost, then the capacity per unit cost of a channel with
additive Holevo information at all cost constraints is
C(N ) = sup
ψ6=ψ 0

D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
,
hψ| G |ψi

where ψ is pure.

7

(3.30)

Just as was found in [Ver90], the expression for the capacity per unit cost is arguably simpler
than that for the capacity cost function given in eq. (3.8). The latter requires an optimization over
ensembles on the input space while the former only requires an optimization over the input space
itself.
We now give a proof of Theorem 5.
Proof. Without loss of generality, ψ 0 is the unique zero-cost state. Otherwise, let φ0 6= ψ 0 be a
zero-cost state. If N (φ0 ) 6= N (ψ 0 ), the capacity per unit cost is infinite since we can send a binary
message with zero cost. If on the other hand N (φ0 ) = N (ψ 0 ), then φ0 is the same as ψ 0 for the
purposes of communicating over N .
We first prove the direct part. To begin with, we note that the possibility of time-sharing
(interpolation between two different protocols) implies that C(N , β) is concave in β. Furthermore,
we have a zero-cost state and so C(N , β)/β is monotone non-increasing on (0, +∞). We conclude
that
C(N , β)
C (N ) = lim
.
(3.31)
β&0
β
Now, let β ∈ (0, hψ| G |ψi) and consider the following classical-quantum state:
ρβXA

β
β
|0ih0| ⊗ ψ 0 +
|1ih1| ⊗ ψ,
= 1−
hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi




(3.32)

where ψ 6= ψ 0 . By Theorem 4, we can achieve the following rate per unit cost:
I(X; B)ρβ
.
β
Now, recall the following identity, which holds for a classical-quantum state ρXB =
ρxB [YO93, Hol12] where for all x, pX (x) > 0:
I(X; B)ρ = D(ρXB kρX ⊗ ρB )
=

X

pX (x)D(ρxB kρB ).

(3.33)
x pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗

P

(3.34)
(3.35)

x

This expression is well defined because supp(ρxB ) ⊆ supp(ρB ) for all x. Hence by eq. (3.35) and
non-negativity of quantum relative entropy when evaluated on quantum states, we obtain
I(X; B)ρβ
D(N (ψ)kρβB )
≥
.
β
hψ| G |ψi

(3.36)

So by the lower semicontinuity of the relative entropy [Hol12],
C(N , β)
β&0
β
I(X; B)ρβ
≥ lim
β&0
β

C (N ) = lim

D(N (ψ)kρβB )
β&0
hψ| G |ψi
D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
≥
.
hψ| G |ψi
≥ lim inf

8

(3.37)
(3.38)
(3.39)
(3.40)

This holds for all ψ 6= ψ 0 , and so we obtain the direct part
C (N ) ≥ sup
ψ6=ψ 0

D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
.
hψ| G |ψi

(3.41)

For the converse, we start with
I(X; B)ρ =

inf

σB ∈S(HB )

D(ρXB kρX ⊗ σB )

≤ D(ρXB kρX ⊗ N (ψ 0 ))
=

X

pX (x)D(N (ρx )kN (ψ 0 )).

(3.42)
(3.43)
(3.44)

x

The first equality is a well known identity [Wil17, Exercise 11.8.2]. Note that if any of the relative
entropies are infinite, then the bound is trivial. Therefore, ∀β > 0,
C(N , β)
1
=
β
β
=

≤

=

1
β
1
β
1
β

sup I(X; B)

(3.45)

{pX ,ρx }
tr[Gρ̄]≤β

I(X; B)

sup

(3.46)

{pX ,ψ x }
tr[Gψ̄]≤β

X

sup
,ψ x }

pX (x)D(N (ψ x )kN (ψ 0 ))

(3.47)

X

(3.48)

{pX
x
1
tr[Gψ̄]≤1
β

sup
{pX
1
β

=

,ψ x },ψ x 6=ψ 0

pX (x)D(N (ψ x )kN (ψ 0 ))

x

tr[Gψ̄]≤1

sup

X

pX (x)

{pX ,ψ x },ψ x 6=ψ 0 x
1
tr[Gψ̄]≤1
β

≤ sup
ψ6=ψ 0

D(N (ψ x )kN (ψ 0 )) hψ x | G |ψ x i
hψ x | G |ψ x i
β

X
D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
hψ x | G |ψ x i
pX (x)
sup
hψ| G |ψi
β
{pX ,ψ x },ψ x 6=ψ 0 x
1
β

≤ sup
ψ6=ψ 0

D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
hψ| G |ψi

(3.49)

(3.50)

tr[Gψ̄]≤1

,

(3.51)

where eq. (3.46) follows since pure state ensembles maximize the Holevo information (even with a
cost constraint), and we can divide by hψ x | G |ψ x i in eq. (3.49) since we assumed ψ 0 is the unique
zero-cost state.

3.1

Pulse-Position-Modulation Scheme for Classical Communication

We can also directly prove the achievability part of Theorem 5 without going through the costconstrained capacity, as was done in [Ver90] for the classical case. This follows by using a PPM
scheme along the following lines.
9

Encoding: Let ψ 6= ψ 0 be a pure state and fix M, N ∈ N. For a message m ∈ [1 : M ], the
sender transmits the following length-M N sequence of states:
h

(ψ 0 )⊗N

i⊗m−1

h

⊗ ψ ⊗N ⊗ (ψ 0 )⊗N

i⊗M −m

.

(3.52)

That is, the message is encoded in the position of a ψ-“pulse” amidst a baseline of zero-cost states.
Note that the cost of each codeword is N hψ| G |ψi.
Decoding: Let ε ∈ (0, 1). The receiver obtains the state
h

N (ψ 0 )⊗N

i⊗m−1

h

⊗ N (ψ)⊗N ⊗ N (ψ 0 )⊗N

i⊗M −m

.

(3.53)

Then, the receiver uses a quantum hypothesis test to deduce the position of the pulse. Specifically,
he performs M independent binary hypothesis tests with N copies where the null hypothesis is
N (ψ) and the alternative hypothesis is N (ψ 0 ). If the receiver obtains a test result of the form
eq. (3.53) for some m̂, then m̂ is declared. Otherwise an error is declared.
Error Analysis: Let AiN , for i ∈ [1 : M ], denote the POVM of the ith hypothesis test, and
let αiN (AiN ) and βiN (AiN ) denote the Type I and Type II errors, respectively. Now, the error
probability pe is independent of the message by symmetry, so we can fix some message index i.
Furthermore, since each POVM acts on independent size-N blocks, we can apply the classical union
bound as follows:
pe ≤ αiN + (M − 1)βiN .
(3.54)
By eq. (2.4), for ε ∈ (0, 1),
lim −

N →∞

1
∗
log2 βiN
(ε/2) = D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 )).
N

(3.55)

∗ (ε/2) and given δ > 0, for sufficiently large N , the probability
Using the test AiN that achieves βiN
of error is bounded by
ε
0
pe ≤ + (M − 1)2−N D(N (ψ)kN (ψ ))+N δ .
(3.56)
2
Hence, if
log2 M
D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
2δ
<
−
,
(3.57)
N hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi

then pe < ε for sufficiently large N . Therefore,

4

D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 ))
hψ|G|ψi

is an achievable rate per unit cost.

Entanglement-Assisted Communication

We now consider the case of communication with unlimited entanglement assistance. We define an
(n, M, ν, ε) code in the same way as in the unassisted case, with the exception that the sender and
receiver are allowed to share an arbitrary quantum state of arbitrary dimension before communication
begins and they can use this resource in the encoding and decoding. The entanglement-assisted
10

capacity cost function CEA (N , β) is defined similarly but again takes into account the entanglement
assistance.
Let A and A0 denote quantum systems with isomorphic Hilbert spaces. Define for a bipartite
state ϕAA0
ϕAB ≡ (idA ⊗NA0 →B )(ϕAA0 ).
(4.1)
We recall the following theorem:
Theorem 6 ([Hol03]). The entanglement-assisted capacity cost function for a quantum channel
NA0 →B is given by
CEA (N , β) = max
I(A; B)ϕ ,
(4.2)
ϕ
AA0

tr[GϕA0 ]≤β

where ϕAA0 is a pure bipartite state.
We define the entanglement-assisted capacity per unit cost C EA (N ) in the same manner and
obtain an expression for it in the same way as in the unassisted case (i.e., as done in Theorem 4).
Theorem 7. The entanglement-assisted capacity per unit cost for a quantum channel NA0 →B is
given by
CEA (N , β)
I(A; B)ϕ
CEA (N ) = sup
= sup
.
(4.3)
β
ϕAA0 tr[GϕA0 ]
β>0
Now suppose that we have a zero-cost pure state ψ 0 . Similar to the unassisted case, we obtain
the expression for the entanglement-assisted capacity per unit cost given in Theorem 8. Note that,
like the mutual information, the quantity to be optimized is only a function of the input state ϕA0
and not of the specific purification. Also note that, unlike the unassisted case, C EA is ostensibly as
difficult to calculate as CEA .
Theorem 8. If there is a state ψ 0 with zero cost, then the entanglement-assisted capacity per unit
cost of a channel NA0 →B is given by
CEA (N ) = sup CEA,ψ0 (N , ϕ),

(4.4)

ϕAA0

where
CEA,ψ0 (N , ϕ) =


0
 D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗N (ψA0 ))

0 )) > 0
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0

0

otherwise

tr[GϕA0 ]

.

(4.5)

Proof. The proof proceeds much like in the unassisted case. Suppose that ϕ0 =
6 ψ 0 has zero
0
0
0
cost. Now, if D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA0 )) > 0, we clearly have infinite C EA (N ) since we can send a
distinguishable binary message (using the entangled state ϕ0AA0 ) with zero cost. Hence it is sufficient
0 )) = 0.
to assume that D(ϕ0AB kϕ0A ⊗ N (ψA
0
We now prove achievability. By concavity of CEA (N , β) with respect to β and the existence of a
zero-cost state,
CEA (N , β)
.
(4.6)
C EA (N ) = lim
β&0
β
Consider some ϕAA0 . Since we can trivially achieve zero rate, suppose that ϕA0 has positive cost.
Then, define the following state:
ρβXAA0

β
β
0
≡ 1−
|0ih0|X ⊗ ϕA ⊗ ψA
|1ih1|X ⊗ ϕAA0 ,
0 +
tr[GϕA0 ]
tr[GϕA0 ]




11

(4.7)

where β ∈ (0, tr[GϕA0 ]). By Theorem 7 and the data-processing inequality for mutual information,
we obtain the following entanglement-assisted rate per unit cost for the mixed state ρβXAB ≡
(idXA ⊗NA0 →B )(ρβXAA0 ):
I(XA; B)ρβ
.
β

(4.8)

Now, we can write the mutual information of any classical-quantum state
ρXAB =

X

pX (x)|xihx|X ⊗ ρxAB

(4.9)

x

as the following convex sum of relative entropies:
I(XA; B)ρ = tr [ρXAB (log2 ρXAB − log2 ρXA ⊗ ρB )]
=

X

(4.10)

pX (x) trAB [ρxAB (log2 ρxAB − log2 ρxA ⊗ ρB )]

(4.11)

pX (x)D(ρxAB kρxA ⊗ ρB ).

(4.12)

x

=

X
x

Thus, by the non-negativity of quantum relative entropy when evaluated on quantum states,
I(XA; B)ρβ
≥
β



D ϕAB kϕA ⊗ ρβB



tr[GϕA0 ]

.

(4.13)

Hence, again by the lower semicontinuity of the relative entropy,
CEA (N , β)
β
I(XA; B)ρβ
≥ lim
β&0
β

C EA (N ) = lim

(4.14)

β&0



≥ lim inf

D ϕAB kϕA ⊗ ρβB

(4.15)


tr[GϕA0 ]
0 ))
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0
≥
.
tr[GϕA0 ]
β&0

(4.16)
(4.17)

For the converse, we have for any pure input state ϕAA0 ,
I(A; B)ϕ = inf D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ σB )
σB

0
≤ D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0 )).

(4.18)
(4.19)

Note again that if the relative entropy is infinite, then the bound is trivial. Hence,
CEA (N , β)
≤
β

sup

ϕAA0
tr[GϕA0 ]≤β

0 ))
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0
.
β

12

(4.20)

0 )) = 0. Thus we can take the
Now, we assumed that for any zero-cost state ϕ0 , D(ϕAB kϕ0A ⊗ N (ψA
0
supremum over non-zero cost states. If there are not any, then eq. (4.20) implies that the upper
bound is 0, which would conclude the converse. Otherwise, we can argue

CEA (N , β)
≤
β

sup

1
β

ϕAA0
tr[GϕA0 ]≤1

≤ sup
ϕAA0

0 )) tr[Gϕ 0 ]
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0
A
tr[GϕA0 ]
β

(4.21)

0 ))
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0
.
tr[GϕA0 ]

(4.22)

This concludes the proof.

4.1

Pulse-Position-Modulation Scheme for Entanglement-Assisted Classical Communication

We propose a PPM scheme that achieves the rate given in eq. (4.4), thereby providing an alternative
proof of the direct part of Theorem 8. This will be much like the scheme in the unassisted case
except with the greater discriminatory power that entanglement assistance provides.
Encoding: Let ϕA0 be a positive-cost state and fix M, N ∈ N. The sender and receiver share
M N copies of a pure state ϕAA0 , where A0 is at the sender and A is at the receiver, where we have
N copies for each message in [1 : M ]. Hence the overall shared state is
M 
O

ϕAi A0i

⊗N

.

(4.23)

i=1

For a message m ∈ [1 : M ], the sender transmits a ϕA0 -pulse amidst a zero-cost state baseline by
using the following sequence of states:
m−1
O
i=1

0
ψA
0

i

⊗N

⊗ ϕA0m

⊗N

⊗

M

O

0
ψA
0

j=m+1

j

⊗N

.

(4.24)

That is, the sender transmits the zero-cost state, but at every mth block of length N , he sends his
shares of the corresponding copies of ϕAA0 . Note that the cost of each codeword is N tr[GϕA0 ].
Decoding: Let ε ∈ (0, 1). Now, since ϕA purifies ϕA0 , whenever the sender transmits ψ 0 , the
receiver obtains a product state ϕA ⊗ N (ψ 0 ). Hence, the receiver now has the state
m−1
O
i=1

0
ϕAi ⊗ N (ψA
0)
i

⊗N

⊗ (idA ⊗N )(ϕAm A0m )⊗N ⊗

M

O
j=m+1

⊗N

0
ϕAj ⊗ N (ψA
0)
j

.

(4.25)

Then, the receiver uses quantum hypothesis testing along with his shares of the entangled states
to deduce the position of the pulse. He performs M independent binary hypothesis tests with N
copies where the null hypothesis is ϕAB ≡ (idA ⊗NA0 →B )(ϕAA0 ) and the alternative hypothesis is
0 ). If the receiver obtains a test result of the form eq. (4.25) for some m̂, then m̂ is
ϕA ⊗ N (ψA
0
declared. Otherwise an error is declared.

13

Error Analysis: The error analysis follows in exactly the same way as the unassisted case. We
conclude that we can obtain vanishing error in transmission provided that, for some δ > 0,
0 ))
log2 M
D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗ N (ψA
δ
0
<
−
.
N tr[GϕA0 ]
tr[GϕA0 ]
tr[GϕA0 ]

(4.26)

D(ϕAB kϕA ⊗N (ψ 0 ))

A0
.
Hence we achieve the entanglement-assisted rate per unit cost
tr[GϕA0 ]
Similar to the position-based decoding scheme for entanglement-assisted classical communication [AJW17], this scheme does not consume all the entanglement needed to implement the
encoding. This follows from the gentle-measurement lemma [Win99a, Win99b]: the entangled states
that were not transmitted but measured by the decoder will only be negligibly disturbed, given
that the decoding measurement succeeds with high probability. Now, the natural measure of rate
of entanglement consumption in this setting is entanglement consumed per unit cost, and in this
scheme it can be expressed in terms of the entanglement entropy of ϕAA0 as follows:

N S(A)ϕ
S(A)ϕ
=
.
0
N tr[GϕA ]
tr[GϕA0 ]

5

(4.27)

Private Communication

We now consider private communication over a quantum channel. This was first studied in
[Dev05, CWY04] when there is no cost constraint and recently in [WQ16] when there is a cost
constraint. Given a noisy channel NA→B , let UA→BE denote an isometric channel extending it and
c
let NA→E
= trB ◦ UA→BE denote the induced complementary channel.
The formulation here is based on [EHLG13], but note that here we use a definition of a private
code with the privacy based on trace distance [KRBM07, Wil17, WQ16]. Namely, we define an
(n, M, ν, ε, ζ) private code as having blocklength n ∈ N, number of messages M ∈ N, total cost
at most ν ∈ R>0 , and probability of error of the receiver’s decoding at most ε ∈ [0, 1]. The
quantity ζ ∈ [0, 1] bounds the privacy error for each message: for each message, we demand that the
eavesdropper’s state is approximately independent of the message. Specifically, for all m ∈ [1 : M ],
we require that
1
c
(5.1)
(NA→E
)⊗n (ρAn (m)) − σE n ≤ ζ,
1
2
where ρAn (m) are the codewords and σE n is some fixed state independent of m.
We can now establish some definitions.
Definition 9 ([WQ16]). Given β > 0, Rp is an achievable private communication rate with
average cost not exceeding β if for all ε, ζ ∈ (0, 1) and δ > 0, ∃ n0 such that ∀n ≥ n0 , there is an
(n, M, nβ, ε, ζ) code for which
log2 M
> Rp − δ.
(5.2)
n
The supremum of all achievable rates with average cost not exceeding β as a function of β is the
private capacity cost function P (N , β).
We recall the formula for P (N , β) when N is a degradable channel:

14

Theorem 10 ([WQ16]). The private capacity cost function for a degradable channel NA→B is given
by
P (N , β) =
sup I(X; B)ρ − I(X; E)ρ ,
(5.3)
{pX ,ψA (x)}
tr[Gψ̄A ]≤β

where each state ψA (x) is pure,
ρXBE =

X

|xihx|X ⊗ UA→BE (ψA (x)),

(5.4)

x

and ψ̄A =

P

x pX (x)ψA (x)

is the average input state.

Now we give the definition for the private capacity per unit cost.
Definition 11. Rp is an achievable private communication rate per unit cost if for all ε, ζ ∈ (0, 1)
and δ > 0, there ∃ ν0 > 0 such that ∀ν ≥ ν0 , there is an (n, M, ν, ε, ζ) code for which
log2 M > ν(Rp − δ).

(5.5)

The private capacity per unit cost is equal to the supremum of all achievable private communication
rates per unit cost, denoted by P(N ).
We can obtain an expression for the private capacity per unit cost via the private capacity cost
function. A proof of this follows from the achievability and converse of the cost-constrained private
capacity per channel use [WQ16], just as in the proof of Theorem 4.
Theorem 12. The private capacity per unit cost of a degradable channel NA→B is given by
I(X; B)ρ − I(X; E)ρ
P (N , β)
=
sup
,
β
tr[Gψ̄A ]
β>0
{pX ,ψA (x)}

P(N ) = sup

(5.6)

where ψ̄A is the average input state.
Now again suppose that we have a zero-cost state ψ 0 . We then obtain the following simpler
expression for the private capacity per unit cost.
Theorem 13. If there is a state ψ 0 with zero cost, then the private capacity per unit cost of a
degradable channel NA→B is given by
P(N ) = sup Pψ0 (N , ψ),

(5.7)

ψ

where ψ is pure,
Pψ0 (N , ψ) ≡


 NN (ψ,ψ0 )

NN (ψ, ψ 0 ) > 0

0

otherwise

hψ|G|ψi

,

NN (ψ, ψ 0 ) ≡ D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 )) − D(N c (ψ)kN c (ψ 0 )),

(5.8)
(5.9)

c
and NA→E
denotes the complementary channel of N corresponding to an isometric channel UA→BE
extending N .

15

Proof. Suppose that the state ϕ0 has zero cost. If NN (ϕ0 , ψ 0 ) 6= 0, we have a zero-cost binary
alphabet over which we can form ensembles for which I(X; B) − I(X; E) > 0. Hence, by Theorem 12,
we can attain infinite private capacity per unit cost. Thus, it suffices to assume NN (ϕ0 , ψ 0 ) = 0.
Now, once again by concavity and the existence of a zero-cost state,
P (N , β)
.
β&0
β

P(N ) = lim

(5.10)

Let β ∈ (0, hψ| G |ψi), and let ψ be a pure state. We can assume that ψ has positive cost since it is
trivial to attain zero rate. Consider the following classical-quantum state:
ρβXBE

β
β
0
|0ih0|X ⊗ UA→BE (ψA
)+
= 1−
|1ih1|X ⊗ UA→BE (ψA ).
hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi




(5.11)

By a similar argument as in the unassisted case applied to each relative entropy in NN , in the limit
β & 0, this ensemble achieves the desired quantity:
I(X; B)ρβ − I(X; E)ρβ
NN (ψ, ψ 0 )
≥
.
β&0
β
hψ| G |ψi

P(N ) ≥ lim

(5.12)

In arriving at the above result, we need to make use of the lower semi-continuity of the private
information as a function of the input ensemble. This is proven for bounded cost ensembles in
certain settings in Corollary 3 of [SH16] and in particular applies to our case here.
For the converse, we note that for any ensemble {pX , ρx },
I(X; B)ρ − I(X; E)ρ =

X

pX (x)NN (ρx , ρ̄)

(5.13)

pX (x)NN (ρx , ψ 0 ) − NN (ρ̄, ψ 0 )

(5.14)

pX (x)NN (ρx , ψ 0 ).

(5.15)

x

=

X
x

≤

X
x

The inequality follows since by degradability of N and monotonicity of relative entropy [Lin75],
NN (ρ, σ) ≥ 0 for all states ρ and σ. If any of the NN quantities are infinite, the bound is trivial.
We can then argue for all β > 0,
P (N , β)
1
=
β
β
≤

1
β

sup

I(X; B) − I(X; E)

(5.16)

X

(5.17)

{pX ,ψ x }
tr[Gψ̄]≤β

sup
,ψ x }

pX (x)NN (ψ x , ψ 0 ).

{pX
x
tr[Gψ̄]≤β

Now, just as in the entanglement-assisted case, we can restrict the supremum to be taken over

16

positive-cost states ψ x :
P (N , β)
1
≤
β
β

=

X

sup

{pX ,ψ x } x
1
tr[Gψ̄]≤1
β

sup

X

{pX ,ψ x } x
1
tr[Gψ̄]≤1
β

≤ sup
ψ

pX (x)NN (ψ x , ψ 0 )

pX (x)

(5.18)

NN (ψ x , ψ 0 ) hψ x | G |ψ x i
hψ x | G |ψ x i
β

(5.19)

NN (ψ, ψ 0 )
.
hψ| G |ψi

(5.20)

This concludes the proof.

5.1

Pulse-Position-Modulation Scheme for Private Communication

We now give an alternative proof of the achievability part of Theorem 13 via a PPM scheme that
achieves the private capacity per unit cost for a degradable channel NA→B .
Codebook: As discussed above, without loss of generality, we can restrict the discussion to positivecost pure states ψ such that NN (ψ, ψ 0 ) > 0. Let ψ be such a state. Then, fix M, L, N ∈ N. We
have M L codewords labeled by (m, l) where m ∈ [1 : M ] and l ∈ [1 : L]. For codeword (m, l), the
corresponding input quantum state is


0 ⊗N

(ψ )

⊗L ⊗m−1

⊗



0 ⊗N

(ψ )

⊗l−1

⊗ψ

⊗N



0 ⊗N

⊗ (ψ )

⊗L−l 

⊗



0 ⊗N

(ψ )

⊗L ⊗M −m

. (5.21)

This can be understood as a ψ-pulse amidst a baseline of ψ 0 states, which is itself a pulse amidst a
(ψ 0 )⊗L baseline. Note that the cost of this codeword is N hψ| G |ψi.
Encoding: The sender transmits the message m to the receiver and uses l to obscure the message on
the eavesdropper’s side. Given message m ∈ [1 : M ], he uniformly chooses at random l ∈ [1 : L] and
transmits N times the quantum state corresponding to (m, l).
Decoding: The receiver performs M L binary quantum hypothesis tests, using N copies for each test,
in order to determine the pulse position. Again this can be done with vanishing error provided that,
for some δ > 0,
log2 (M L)
< D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 )) − δ.
(5.22)
N
Privacy: Given the randomization over l, the state that the eavesdropper obtains is


where

c

0 ⊗N

N (ψ )

⊗L ⊗m−1

⊗ ξL ⊗



c

0 ⊗N

N (ψ )

⊗L ⊗M −m

,

(5.23)

L 
⊗l−1

⊗L−l
1X
ξL ≡
N c (ψ 0 )⊗N
⊗ N c (ψ)⊗N ⊗ N c (ψ 0 )⊗N
.
L l=1

"

#

17

(5.24)

Now, by a corollary to the convex-split lemma [AJW17], the state in eq. (5.23) is approximately
N c (ψ 0 )⊗N LM if L is chosen large enough. More precisely, given δ 0 , ε > 0,
1
N c (ψ 0 )⊗N L(m−1) ⊗ ξL ⊗ N c (ψ 0 )⊗N L(M −m) − N c (ψ 0 )⊗N LM
2
⊗L

1
=
ξL − N c (ψ 0 )⊗N
2
1
≤ 2ε + δ 0
if

ε

L > 2Dmax (N

c (ψ)⊗N kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N )

1

δ 0−2 ,

(5.25)

(5.26)

(5.27)

ε
where Dmax
denotes the smooth max-relative entropy [Dat09]1 :
ε
Dmax
(ρkσ) ≡

inf

ρ̃∈B ε (ρ)

Dmax (ρ̃kσ).

(5.28)

Here, B ε (ρ) denotes the ε-ball around ρ:
ε



B (ρ) ≡ ρ̃ ≥ 0 :

q

1−

F 2 (ρ̃, ρ)



≤ ε, tr[ρ̃] = 1 ,

(5.29)

where F is the quantum fidelity [Uhl76], and
Dmax (ρkσ) ≡ log inf {λ ≥ 0 : ρ ≤ λσ} .

(5.30)

Hence, using the quantum asymptotic equipartition property [Tom16] for smooth max-relative
entropy, for small enough ε, all δ 00 > 0, and sufficiently large N , eq. (5.27) is satisfied if
L > 2N (D(N

c (ψ)kN c (ψ 0 ))+δ 00

) δ 0−2 .

(5.31)

Taking the logarithm on both sides and dividing by N , we obtain
log2 L
2 log2 δ 0
> D(N c (ψ)kN c (ψ 0 )) + δ 00 −
.
N
N

(5.32)

For large enough N , the condition becomes
log2 L
> D(N c (ψ)kN c (ψ 0 )) + δ 000
N

(5.33)

for some δ 000 > 0.
We conclude that we can attain arbitrarily low decoding and privacy error if

and

1

log2 (M L)
< D(N (ψ)kN (ψ 0 )) − δ
N

(5.34)

log2 L
> D(N c (ψ)kN c (ψ 0 )) + δ 000 .
N

(5.35)

The original definition differs slightly from the definition in [AJW17], which is the one we use here.

18

Combining the two inequalities, we obtain
log2 M
NN (ψ, ψ 0 )
δ + δ 000
<
−
.
N hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi
hψ| G |ψi

(5.36)

0

N (ψ,ψ )
Hence, we can achieve a private rate per unit cost of Nhψ|G|ψi
.
Note that the above protocol does not use the fact that the channel is degradable. Hence,
this gives an achievability result for non-degradable quantum channels as well. Furthermore, we
can achieve this with a mixed state ρ instead of a pure state ψ, which might be necessary for
non-degradable channels. We conclude for general quantum channels N ,

P(N ) ≥

sup

P ψ0 (N , ρ).

(5.37)

ρ∈S(HA )

6

Quantum Communication

We now formulate the quantum capacity per unit cost. Quantum capacity was first studied in
[SN96, Llo97, BKN00, BNS98, Sho02b, Dev05] when there is no cost constraint and recently in
[WQ16] when there is a cost constraint. Let NA→B be a quantum channel, and let n, Q ∈ N,
ν ∈ R>0 , and ε ∈ [0, 1]. An (n, Q, ν, ε) quantum code has blocklength n, dimension Q for the
total input space, total cost at most ν, and quantum decoding error at most ε. In more detail, an
⊗n
(n, Q, ν, ε) code for quantum communication consists of an encoding channel E n : S(HS ) → S(HA
)
⊗n
and a decoding channel Dn : S(HB
) → S(HS ), where dim(HS ) = Q. The cost constraint imposes
the following bound on all states resulting from the output of the encoding channel E n :
Tr {Gn E n (ρS )} ≤ ν,

(6.1)

where ρS ∈ S(HS ) and Gn is defined in eq. (3.2). Finally, we have the error bounded by ε, in the
sense that for all pure states φRS ∈ S(HR ⊗ HS ), where HR is isomorphic to HS , the following trace
distance bound holds:
1
φRS − (idR ⊗[Dn ◦ N ⊗n ◦ E n ])(φRS ) 1 ≤ ε.
(6.2)
2
Definition 14. Given β > 0, Rq is an achievable quantum communication rate with average cost
not exceeding β if for all ε ∈ (0, 1) and δ > 0, ∃ n0 such that for n ≥ n0 , ∃ an (n, Q, nβ, ε) code for
which
log2 Q
> Rq − δ.
(6.3)
n
The quantum capacity cost function Q(N , β) is equal to the supremum of all achievable quantum
communication rates with average cost not exceeding β.
Building on [DS05], the expression for Q(N , β) when N is degradable was shown in [WQ16] to
be the following.
Theorem 15 ([WQ16]). The quantum capacity cost function for a degradable channel NA→B is
given by
Q(N , β) = sup I(RiB)ϕ ,
(6.4)
ϕRA
tr[GϕA ]≤β

where I(RiB) ≡ S(B) − S(RB) is the coherent information [SN96] and
ϕRB ≡ (idR ⊗NA→B )(ϕRA ).
19

(6.5)

We then define the quantum capacity per unit cost.
Definition 16. Rq is an achievable quantum communication rate per unit cost if for any δ, ε > 0,
∃ ν0 > 0 such that for ν ≥ ν0 there is an (n, Q, ν, ε) code for which
log2 Q > ν(Rq − δ).

(6.6)

The quantum capacity per unit cost is then defined to be the supremum of all achievable quantum
communication rates per unit cost and is denoted as Q(N ).
Using the achievability and converse proofs for Q(N , β), and reasoning similar to that in the
proof of Theorem 4, we obtain the following expressions for Q(N ).
Theorem 17. The quantum capacity per unit cost for a degradable channel NA→B is given by
I(RiB)ϕ
Q(N , β)
= sup
.
β
ϕRA tr[GϕA ]
β>0

Q(N ) = sup

(6.7)

However, note that since Q(N , β) = P (N , β) [Smi08, WQ16] for degradable channels, in this
case the quantum capacity per unit cost is equal to the private capacity per unit cost. In particular,
if a zero-cost state exists, then the quantum capacity per unit cost of a degradable channel is given
by the expression in Theorem 13.

6.1

Pulse-Position-Modulation Scheme for Quantum Communication

We propose a PPM scheme for achieving the quantum capacity per unit cost for a degradable
channel NA→B . We do this by operating the PPM scheme for private communication in a coherent
fashion analogous to that of [Dev05]. Since the approach is so similar (yet tailored to a PPM coding
scheme), we merely sketch the proof for simplicity and point to [Dev05] for more details (see also
[DW04] in this context). The task we consider is entanglement generation, in which the goal is
to establish a maximally entangled state between the sender and receiver. To generalize this to
arbitrary quantum states, we again point to [Dev05]. Let UA→BE be an isometric channel extending
NA→B and let UA→BE denote the corresponding isometry. Let ψ 0 be a zero-cost pure state and ψ a
positive-cost pure state for which NN (ψ, ψ 0 ) > 0.
We first consider the case in which ψ is orthogonal to ψ 0 .
Codebook: As in the private PPM scheme, we fix M, L, N ∈ N. For each ordered pair (m, l), where
m ∈ [1 : M ] and l ∈ [1 : L], consider the following pure quantum state:
ψ

m,l

≡



0 ⊗N

(ψ )

⊗L ⊗m−1

⊗



Note that since ψ is orthogonal to
G |ψ 0 i = 0,

0 ⊗N

(ψ )
ψ0,

GK |ψ m,l iAK =

⊗l−1

ψ m,l

⊗ψ

⊗N



0 ⊗N

⊗ (ψ )

⊗L−l 

⊗



0 ⊗N

(ψ )

⊗L ⊗M −m

.

(6.8)
are orthogonal for different m, l. Observe also that since

n(m,l)+N −1 

X



I ⊗j−1 ⊗ G ⊗ I ⊗K−j |ψ m,l iAK ,

(6.9)

j=n(m,l)

where K ≡ N M L and n(m, l) ≡ N L(m − 1) + N (l − 1) + 1 is the position of the first ψ state in
ψ m,l .
20

Encoding: Let |ΦiRÂ denote the maximally entangled state to be established with the receiver,
where the dimension of Â, the system the sender is to transmit, is at most M . We can decompose
the state with respect to some orthonormal bases {|miR } and {|miÂ }:
1 X
|ΦiRÂ = √
|miR |miÂ .
M m

(6.10)

Depending on the value of m, the sender coherently prepares a uniform superposition of |ψ m,l i over
the l variable. That is, the mapping is given by
L
1 X
|ψ m,l iAK .
|miÂ 7→ √
L l=1

(6.11)

Since ψ m,l are orthogonal for different m, l, the above mapping is an isometry. The overall state
after the encoding is
1 X
|ΨiRAK = √
|miR |ψ m,l iAK .
(6.12)
M L m,l
Note that the reduced state on AK is
ΨAK =

1 X m,l
0
|ψ i hψ m,l |AK
M L m,l,l0

(6.13)

and therefore has cost N hψ| G |ψi by eq. (6.9).
Decoding: After K uses of the isometric extension, the overall state is
|ΨiRB K E K = √

1 X
|miR |ψ m,l iB K E K ,
M L m,l

(6.14)

⊗K
where |ψ m,l iB K E K ≡ UA→BE
|ψ m,l iAK . Let {Λm,l
}
denote the POVM used as a decoder in
B K m,l
the private communication protocol.
A coherent version of this measurement is given by the
P q m,l
isometry VB K →B K B̂0 B̂1 = m,l ΛB K ⊗ |miB̂0 ⊗ |liB̂1 , and after performing it, the resulting state
is approximately equal to the following one:

|ΨiRB K E K B̂0 B̂1 = √

1 X
|miR |ψ m,l iB K E K |miB̂0 |liB̂1 .
M L m,l

(6.15)

At this point, we know from the privacy condition for the private code, that for each m, the
P m,l
c
0 ⊗K . Thus, given m, the eavesdropper’s system
following approximation holds: L1 l ψE
K ≈ N (ψ )
is approximately independent of m. By Uhlmann’s theorem [Uhl76], for each m, there exists an
isometry WBmK B̂ →B̂ such that
1

2

"

WBmK B̂ →B̂
1
2

#

1 X m,l
√
|ψ iB K E K |liB̂1 ≈ |ςiE K B̂2 ,
L l

21

(6.16)

where |ςiE K B̂2 is some state independent of m. So this means that the receiver can perform the
P
controlled isometry m |mihm|B̂0 ⊗ WBmK B̂ →B̂ , and the resulting state is approximately close to
1
2
the following state:
1 X
√
(6.17)
|miR |miB̂0 ⊗ |ςiE K B̂2 .
M m
By the properties of the PPM scheme for private communication, the quantum rate per unit cost of
this scheme is equal to NN (ψ, ψ 0 )/ hψ| G |ψi.
Now, if ψ is not orthogonal to ψ 0 , we implement the above protocol but replacing ψ ⊗N with its
⊗N
normalized rejection from (ψ 0 )⊗N . That is, we take the component of |ψi⊗N orthogonal to |ψ 0 i
⊥ , we have
and normalize it. Calling this ψA
N


1
N
⊗N
|ψi⊗N − hψ 0 |ψi |ψ 0 i
,
|ψ ⊥ i = q
1 − |hψ 0 |ψi|2N

(6.18)

and so



N
1 ⊥
ψAN − ψ ⊗N N = hψ 0 |ψi ≡ δN .
(6.19)
A
1
2
By monotonicity, the trace distance is at most δN after N uses of N or N c . Hence, since ψ is
positive-cost and so hψ 0 |ψi < 1, by using ψ ⊥ we expect to obtain the desired rate in the limit
of large N . Indeed, since ψ ⊥ is orthogonal to (ψ 0 )⊗N , we can implement the above protocol and
achieve a quantum rate per unit cost




0



ε N ⊗N (ψ ⊥ )kN (ψ 0 )⊗N − D ε
c ⊗N (ψ ⊥ )kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N
DH
max (N )



hψ ⊥ | GN |ψ ⊥ i

(6.20)

ε is the hypothesis testing relative entropy [WR12, BD10]:
for any ε, ε0 > 0, where DH
ε
DH
(ρkσ) ≡ − log2

inf

0≤Λ≤I
tr[Λρ]≥1−ε

tr[Λσ].

(6.21)

Note that this is simply the negative logarithm of the quantity defined in eq. (2.3). For sufficiently
large N , we have that δN < ε. Then, by Lemma 7 in [DTW16],




δ(ε)

ε−δN
ε
DH
N ⊗N (ψ ⊥ )kN (ψ 0 )⊗N ≥ DH
(N (ψ)⊗N kN (ψ 0 )⊗N ) ≥ DH (N (ψ)⊗N kN (ψ 0 )⊗N ), (6.22)

where δ(ε) = ε − δN (ε) and N (ε) is the smallest integer such that δN (ε) < ε. Furthermore, by the
definition of smooth max-relative entropy in eq. (5.28) and the triangle inequality, for sufficiently
large N such that δN < ε0 , we have
0

0

0

ε
ε −δN
δ(ε )
Dmax
((N c )⊗N (ψ ⊥ )kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N ) ≤ Dmax
(N c (ψ)⊗N kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N ) ≤ Dmax
(N c (ψ)⊗N kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N ).
(6.23)
Lastly,
1
N hψ| G |ψi
hψ ⊥ | GN |ψ ⊥ i =
hψ|⊗N GN |ψi⊗N =
.
(6.24)
2N
1 − |hψ 0 |ψi|
1 − |hψ 0 |ψi|2N

We conclude that we can achieve


0

1 − hψ |ψi

2N



δ(ε0 )

δ(ε)

DH (N (ψ)⊗N kN (ψ 0 )⊗N ) − Dmax (N c (ψ)⊗N kN c (ψ 0 )⊗N )
.
N hψ| G |ψi
22

(6.25)

By Quantum Stein’s Lemma (eq. (2.4)) and the quantum asymptotic equipartition property for
smooth max-relative entropy, in the limit of large N we can therefore achieve a quantum rate per
0
N (ψ,ψ )
unit cost of Nhψ|G|ψi
.
Note that just like in the private case, this scheme gives achievability for non-degradable channels
as well.

7

Capacities per Unit Cost of Quantum Gaussian Channels

By the methods developed and used in [Hol03, Hol04, Hol12, WQ16], we can generalize the above
results to infinite dimensions, in particular for quantum Gaussian channels. We will use the formulas
derived above to compute various capacities per unit cost for specific Gaussian channels, where the
P
cost observable is the photon number operator n̂ = ∞
n=0 n|nihn|, with |ni being a photon number
state. Since the channels we consider already have known capacity cost functions, it is easiest for us
to compute the capacity per unit cost via the following formula:
C (N ) = lim

n̄→0

C(N , n̄)
.
n̄

(7.1)

Note that we could also compute the capacities per unit cost using the optimized relative entropy
formulas that we obtained in the previous sections.
The quantum Gaussian channels we consider are the following [Hol02, HW01, GGPCH14]. The
thermal channel Eηnth with transmissivity η ∈ (0, 1) and thermal photon number nth ∈ R>0 is a
Gaussian channel which mixes the input signal with a thermal Gaussian state. This is summarized
by the following Heisenberg evolution:
p
√
ain 7→ ηain + 1 − ηath ,
(7.2)
where ain , ath are the annihilation operators for the input and thermal modes, respectively. We also
consider the additive classical noise channel NN with variance N ∈ R>0 , which describes classical
noise which displaces the signal in phase space according to a Gaussian distribution. The Heisenberg
evolution is
ain 7→ ain + ξ,
(7.3)
where ξ is a complex normal random variable with mean zero and variance N . Next, the amplifier
channel Anκth with gain parameter κ > 1 and thermal photon number nth ∈ R>0 describes the effect
of a two-mode squeezing Hamiltonian which acts on the input mode and a thermal mode. This
effectively amplifies the input signal but at the cost of adding noise. The resulting Heisenberg
evolution is given by
√
√
ain 7→ κain + κ − 1a†th .
(7.4)
Lastly, we also look at the weak conjugate of the amplifier channel, the contravariant amplifier Ãnκth
with gain parameter κ > 1, and thermal photon number nth ∈ R>0 .

7.1

Classical Communication over Gaussian Channels

We compute the unassisted classical capacities per unit cost for these four channels. For the thermal
channel, the classical capacity cost function is given by [GHGP15, GGPCH14]
C(Eηnth , n̄) = g(ηn̄ + (1 − η)nth ) − g((1 − η)nth ),
23

(7.5)

where
g(x) ≡ (x + 1) log2 (x + 1) − x log2 x.

(7.6)

Hence, by applying eq. (7.1), we find the following:


C (Eηnth ) = η log2 1 +

1
.
nth (1 − η)


(7.7)

Now, in the limit nth → 0, the thermal channel reduces to the pure-loss bosonic channel
Lη [GGL+ 04], which has classical capacity
C(Lη , n̄) = g(ηn̄).

(7.8)

With a simple calculation we find that C (Lη ) is infinite, an observation made in [GDS11] and earlier
in the context of infinite bandwidth [LL66, CD94, YKL75]2 . One way to make sense of this infinity
is to look at C (Eηnth ) for small nth :
C (Eηnth ) = −η log2 (nth (1 − η)) + O(nth ).

(7.9)

This is finite for any nth > 0, but diverges as − log2 (nth ) as nth → 0. Since nth physically corresponds
to temperature, this suggests that the infinity comes about since zero temperature is unphysical.
It also implies that the capacity per unit cost can be increased arbitrarily by going to lower
temperatures. We find that a toy model of a classical binary channel reproduces this qualitative
difference between the zero and non-zero temperature cases and the logarithmic scaling of the
capacity per unit cost in the noise parameter of the channel:
1−

1

|αihα|

1

1 − e−|α|

2

1

e −|



α| 2

≈

.

)

(7.10)

δ

h

0

δ
1−δ

|0ih0|

0

t
(n

1 − δ(nth )

0

On the left in (7.10) is the binary channel B,δ with crossover probabilities  and δ, and with input
‘0’ having cost 0, input ‘1’ having cost 1. On the right in (7.10) is a binary channel induced by a
PPM scheme for the thermal channel: the sender sends either the vacuum state |0ih0| at cost 0 or
the coherent state |αihα| at cost |α|2 , and the detector is a photon counter that measures either a
click (‘1’) or no click (‘0’), with crossover probabilities shown on the diagram. A short computation
shows that the capacity per unit cost for the binary channel B,δ is:
C (B,δ ) = −(1 − ) log2 (δ) −  log2 (1 − δ) − h(),

(7.11)

where h(x) ≡ −x log2 (x) − (1 − x) log2 (1 − x) is the binary entropy function. Thus the capacity
per unit cost of the classical binary channel B,δ diverges as − log2 (δ) as δ → 0, analogous to the
behavior of (7.9) as nth → 0.
2

For a connection between infinite bandwidth capacity and capacity per unit cost, see [Ver90].

24

Now, consider the additive-noise channel, which has the following classical capacity cost function
[GHGP15, GGPCH14]
C(NN , n̄) = g(n̄ + N ) − g(N ).
(7.12)
Hence,


C (NN ) = log2 1 +

1
N



.

(7.13)

Next, we consider the amplifier channel, which has a classical capacity cost function [GHGP15,
GGPCH14]
C(Anκth , n̄) = g(κn̄ + (κ − 1)(nth + 1)) − g((κ − 1)(nth + 1)).
(7.14)
We find

1
.
(κ − 1)(nth + 1)




C (Anκth ) = κ log2 1 +

(7.15)

Finally, for the contravariant amplifier channel, which has the capacity cost function [GGPCH14]
C(Ãnκth , n̄) = g(κnth + (κ − 1)(n̄ + 1)) − g(κ(nth + 1) − 1),
we have
C (Ãnκth )

(7.16)

1
1+
.
κ(nth + 1) − 1



= (κ − 1) log2



(7.17)

Note that given eq. (3.31) and the achievability result in Theorem 4, when a zero-cost state exists,
we can achieve the capacity per unit cost with any code that achieves the cost-constrained capacity
in the limit of zero cost. For example, for the pure-loss bosonic channel, single-photon-detection
achieves the classical capacity in the limit n̄ → 0 [TG14]. In general, we can achieve the capacity
per unit cost with any code that achieves C(βmax ) where βmax = arg supβ>0 C(β)/β.

7.2

Entanglement-Assisted Communication over Gaussian Channels

We now compute the entanglement-assisted capacity per unit cost for the first three channels. For
the thermal channel, the entanglement-assisted capacity cost function is given by [HW01, HG12]
CEA (Eηnth , n̄) = g(n̄) + g(ηn̄ + (1 − η)nth )
 q

1
−g
((1 + η)n̄ + (1 − η)nth + 1)2 − 4ηn̄(n̄ + 1) − (1 − η)(n̄ − nth ) − 1
2
 q

1
((1 + η)n̄ + (1 − η)nth + 1)2 − 4ηn̄(n̄ + 1) + (1 − η)(n̄ − nth ) − 1
. (7.18)
−g
2
We compute the limit as per eq. (7.1) and find that the entanglement-assisted capacity per unit
cost of the thermal channel diverges3 . For the additive noise channel, the entanglement-assisted
capacity cost function is [HW01, HG12]
CEA (NN , n̄) = g(n̄) + g(n̄ + N ) − g

 q
1

2

(N + 1)2 + 4N n̄ − N − 1
−g

3

1
2



 q

(N + 1)2 + 4N n̄ + N − 1

For many of these calculations, see the Mathematica file included in arXiv posting.

25



, (7.19)

Bits Per Photon

Thermal
0.7

Classical Noise
Amplifier

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

2

4

6

8

10

Photon Number

Figure 1: The figure illustrates the divergence of CEA (N , n̄)/n̄ as n̄ → 0. For the thermal channel
we set nth = 10, η = 0.7, for the classical noise channel N = 10, and for the amplifier channel
nth = 10, κ = 1.3.
which also gives an infinite capacity per unit cost. Lastly, for the amplifier channel,
CEA (Anκth , n̄) = g(n̄) + g(κn̄ + (κ − 1)(nth + 1))
 q

1
2
−g
((κ + 1)n̄ + (κ − 1)(nth + 1) + 1) − 4κn̄(n̄ + 1) − (κ − 1)(n̄ + nth + 1) − 1
2
 q

1
2
−g
((κ + 1)n̄ + (κ − 1)(nth + 1) + 1) − 4κn̄(n̄ + 1) + (κ − 1)(n̄ + nth + 1) − 1
. (7.20)
2
Computing the ratio again gives an infinite value as n̄ → 0.
We show the divergence of C EA by plotting the bits per photon against the number of photons
for these three Gaussian channels in fig. 1. It is likely that the divergences for these Gaussian
channels appear since we are allowing for an unbounded amount of entanglement assistance per
unit cost. However, it is not true that this potentially infinite entanglement assistance always leads
to divergences. Trivial examples include channels where CEA (N , β) = 0 for all β and when the
cost observable is positive definite. We can also find examples using the fact that entanglement
assistance sometimes does not help. Take for instance the state preparation qubit channel
Ns : ρ 7→ h0| ρ |0i ρ0 + h1| ρ |1i ρ1

(7.21)

with cost observable G = |1ih1|, where ρ0 , ρ1 ∈ S(HA0 ) such that 0 < D(ρ1 kρ0 ) < ∞. By Proposition
4 in [Shi12], CEA (Ns , β) = C(Ns , β) for all β. Now, we have a zero-cost state |0ih0|, so we can use

26

Private Bits or Qubits Per Photon
0.7

Ideal Amplifier
Pure-Loss

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
2

4

6

8

10

Photon Number

Figure 2: Plot of P (N , n̄)/n̄ = Q(N , n̄)/n̄ versus n̄. For the ideal amplifier we set κ = 3 and for
the pure-loss channel η = 0.7.
Theorem 5:
D(Ns (ψ)kNs (|0ih0|))
hψ| G |ψi
ψ6=|0ih0|

C (Ns ) = sup



= sup

D |c0 |2 ρ0 + |c1 |2 ρ1 kρ0

ψ6=|0ih0|

(7.22)


(7.23)

|c1 |2


1  2
2
0 0
1 0
|c
|
D(ρ
kρ
)
+
|c
|
D(ρ
kρ
)
0
1
2
ψ6=|0ih0| |c1 |

≤ sup

(7.24)

= D(ρ1 kρ0 )

(7.25)

< ∞,

(7.26)

where |ψi ≡ c0 |0i + c1 |1i and we can divide by |c1 |2 since ψ =
6 |0ih0|. The inequality follows from
the convexity of the relative entropy in the first argument. We conclude C EA (Ns ) = C (Ns ) < ∞.
However, since D(ρ1 kρ0 ) > 0, this channel clearly has a non-zero C(Ns , β) and so non-zero
CEA (Ns , β). It is an interesting open question to find an explicit nontrivial channel for which there
is a gain from entanglement assistance but C EA is finite.

7.3

Private and Quantum Communication over Gaussian Channels

We next compute the private and quantum capacities per unit cost for degradable Gaussian channels.
In particular, we consider ideal amplifiers A0κ and pure-loss channels Eη0 for η ≤ 1/2. For the former,
we have the capacity cost function [WQ16]
P (A0κ , n̄) = Q(A0κ , n̄) = g(κ(n̄ + 1) − 1) − g((κ − 1)(n̄ + 1)).

(7.27)

Hence,
P(A0κ ) = Q(A0κ ) = log2
27



κ
,
κ−1


(7.28)

which demonstrates that the quantum and private capacity per unit cost are equal to the unconstrained quantum and private capacity of the ideal amplifier channel [WPGG07, WQ16]. Finally,
for the pure-loss channel, we have that [WQ16]
P (Eη0 , n̄) = Q(Eη0 , n̄) = g(ηn̄) − g((1 − η)n̄).

(7.29)

We divide by n̄ and find the following divergent term for η > 1/2 as n̄ → 0:
(2η − 1) log2 (1/n̄).

(7.30)

Hence, the pure-loss channel for η > 1/2 has an infinite private and quantum capacity per unit cost,
while for η ≤ 1/2 the capacities per unit cost are zero since the channel is antidegradable in this
regime. In fig. 2 we plot the private bits or qubits per photon against the number of photons for
these two channels.

8

Blocklength-Constrained Capacity Per Unit Cost

In Section 7, we find that there are several channels with infinite capacities per unit cost. Although
we are able to ascribe these infinities to unphysical assumptions such as zero temperature and
unbounded entanglement assistance, we can alternatively ascribe almost any infinite capacity per
unit cost to the absence of a time constraint. It is important to notice that although Definition 3 is
very similar to Definition 1, there is a significant asymmetry: while the latter has a constraint on
the cost divided by blocklength, the former does not have an analogous constraint. Hence, just as
cost constraints tamed infinite capacities, we likewise expect that blocklength constraints would
tame infinite capacities per unit cost.
Indeed, we can show that the former implies the latter. We first define the blocklengthconstrained capacity per unit cost. For concreteness, we state everything in the unassisted classical
communication setting.
Definition 18. A non-negative number R is an achievable rate per unit cost with blocklength
constraint α ∈ R>0 if for every ε ∈ (0, 1), δ > 0, ∃ ν0 > 0 such that if ν ≥ ν0 , ∃ an (n, M, ν, ε) code
such that log2 M > ν(R − δ) and n ≤ να. The capacity per unit cost with blocklength constraint α
is the supremum of all achievable rates per unit cost with constraint α, denoted as C(N , α).
Conveniently, we can show that C (N , α) has a characterization similar to that of C (N ). The
proof of this theorem uses results from the proof of Theorem 4 and that of the corollary in [Ver90].
Theorem 19. For blocklength constraint α > 0, the blocklength-constrained capacity per unit cost
of a quantum channel N is given by
C(N , α) = sup
1
β≥ α

C(N , β)
.
β

(8.1)

Proof. We first show achievability. Let β > 0. By definition, we can achieve a rate C(N , β) with
cost β. Let ε ∈ (0, 1), δ > 0. Then, using the direct part in the proof of Theorem 4, ∃ ν0 such that
for ν ≥ ν0 we can find an (n, M, ν, ε) code where
log2 M
C(N , β)
>
−δ
ν
β
28

(8.2)

and
n≤

ν
.
β

(8.3)

Hence, for β ≥ 1/α, we achieve a rate per unit cost C(N , β)/β with blocklength constraint β1 ≤ α.
We now show the converse. We claim that if we can achieve a rate per unit cost R with
blocklength constraint α, then we can achieve a rate R/α at cost 1/α.
To see this, let ε ∈ (0, 1), δ > 0. Then, by Definition 18, there exists ν0 such that for all ν ≥ ν0 ,
there is an (n, M, ν, ε) code where n ≤ να and
log2 M
> R − αδ.
ν

(8.4)

Thus, this is an (n, M, ν, ε) code that satisfies
log2 M
log2 M
R
≥
>
− δ.
n
να
α

(8.5)

Let n0 ≡ ν0 α and n ≥ n0 . Then, let ν = n/α. This implies ν ≥ n0 /α = ν0 , so the above code with
this ν achieves a rate per channel use R/α and also has an average cost 1/α. This establishes the
claim.
We now proceed by contradiction. Suppose we can achieve a rate per unit cost R > supβ≥ 1 C(Nβ ,β)
α
with constraint α. Then, by the claim we can achieve the following rate with cost 1/α:
R
C(N , β)
> sup
≥ C(N , 1/α).
α
βα
β≥ 1

(8.6)

α

Since this contradicts the definition of the capacity cost function, the converse follows.
In particular, when there is a zero-cost state, by concavity C(N , β)/β is monotone non-increasing
on (0, +∞) and so
C (N , α) = αC(N , 1/α).
(8.7)
This therefore removes the infinities, assuming that the capacity cost function does not diverge
at finite cost. In particular, the classical capacity per unit cost for the pure-loss channel and the
entanglement-assisted capacities per unit cost for the Gaussian channels we consider are finite if we
impose a blocklength constraint. Also note that eq. (8.7) gives an operational interpretation of the
ratio of the cost-constrained capacity to the cost: When there is a zero-cost state, for any β > 0,
C(N , β)/β is the capacity per unit cost with blocklength constraint 1/β. Furthermore, by inverting
eq. (8.7), we obtain an operational interpretation of the ratio of the blocklength-constrained capacity
per unit cost to the blocklength constraint.
Interestingly, even in the general case where there might not be a zero-cost state, we can express
the cost-constrained capacity in terms of the blocklength-constrained capacity per unit cost. Indeed,
by the same proof of Theorem 19 except simply switching the achievability and the converse, we
can show that
C (N , α)
C(N , β) = sup
.
(8.8)
α
1
α≥
β

This expression and Theorem 19 therefore establish a duality between the two quantities.

29

9

Discussion

In this paper we generalized the notion of capacity per unit cost to quantum channels for the tasks
of classical communication, entanglement-assisted classical communication, private communication,
and quantum communication. There are some simple extensions of our results that hold but for
which we do not provide details. First is to consider non-additive quantum channels, for which we
will find regularized expressions of the formulas given in Theorem 4, Theorem 5, Theorem 12, and
Theorem 17. For example, for the regularized classical capacity per unit cost we obtain
C(N ⊗n , nβ)
.
n→∞ β>0
nβ

C (N ) = lim sup

(9.1)

Next, for private capacity per unit cost, we could also consider, as in [CWY04], the more general
case of a quantum wiretap channel NA→BE where N is not necessarily an isometry. The results we
found in Section 5 apply directly to the more general case of a degraded quantum wiretap channel.
We think there are a number of interesting directions for future work. One direction is to
consider non-degradable quantum channels with a zero-cost state. As discussed earlier, a lower
bound for the private capacity per unit cost in this case is given by our private PPM scheme and
for classical channels in [EHLG13], but the converse remains open. It would also be interesting
to give an expression for the quantum capacity per unit cost in terms of an optimized relative
entropy. Another possible direction is to prove a strong converse for the capacity per unit cost.
However, as was shown in [BGPWW15], the strong converse holds for Gaussian channels with an
approximate peak cost constraint but not an average cost constraint. Hence, for Gaussian channels
we cannot directly prove a strong converse for the classical capacity per unit cost in the same way as
in Theorem 4. Lastly, we can consider the regime of finite blocklength or finite-sized measurement
blocks and see how much information can be sent per cost in this context.
In general, we can find new directions by extending concepts associated with blocklength to those
of cost. For instance, instead of one-shot capacities we could consider one-photon capacities, or more
generally, “unit-cost” capacities. Instead of finite blocklength analyses of information processing
tasks, we could perform finite cost analyses. The reverse substitution is also interesting. As we saw
above, rather than cost-constrained capacities, we can consider blocklength-constrained capacities
per unit cost. For probabilistic protocols or settings with feedback, we could imagine having an
expected blocklength constraint instead of an expected cost constraint. In essence, there are many
possible questions one could ask by looking at more general costs, as long as one has the time to
consider them.
Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Emmanuel Abbe, Saikat Guha, Patrick Hayden, Alexander
Holevo, Hideo Mabuchi, Sergio Verdu, and Tsachy Weissman for helpful conversations about
this work. DD acknowledges support from the Stanford Graduate Fellowship program. DSP
acknowledges support from the Army Research Office under grant number W911NF-16-1-0086.
MMW acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval
Research.

References
[AJW17]

Anurag Anshu, Rahul Jain, and Naqueeb Ahmad Warsi. One shot entanglement
assisted classical and quantum communication over noisy quantum channels: A
30

hypothesis testing and convex split approach. February 2017. arXiv:1702.01940.
[BD10]

Francesco Buscemi and Nilanjana Datta. The quantum capacity of channels with
arbitrarily correlated noise. IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 56(3):1447–
1460, March 2010. arXiv:0902.0158.

[BGPWW15] Bhaskar Roy Bardhan, Raul Garcia-Patron, Mark M. Wilde, and Andreas Winter.
Strong converse for the classical capacity of all phase-insensitive bosonic Gaussian
channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 61(4):1842–1850, April 2015.
arXiv:1401.4161.
[BKN00]

Howard Barnum, Emanuel Knill, and Michael Nielsen. On quantum fidelities and
channel capacities. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 46(4):1317–1329, July
2000. arXiv:quant-ph/9809010.

[BNS98]

Howard Barnum, M. A. Nielsen, and Benjamin Schumacher. Information transmission
through a noisy quantum channel. Physical Review A, 57(6):4153–4175, June 1998.
arXiv:quant-ph/9702049.

[CD94]

Carlton M. Caves and Peter D. Drummond. Quantum limits on bosonic communication rates. Reviews of Modern Physics, 66(2):481, April 1994.

[CHP07]

Imre Csiszár, Fumio Hiai, and Dénes Petz. Limit relation for quantum entropy
and channel capacity per unit cost. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(9):092102,
September 2007. arXiv:0704.0046.

[CT06]

Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory. WileyInterscience, second edition, 2006.

[CWY04]

N. Cai, Andreas Winter, and Raymond W. Yeung. Quantum privacy and quantum
wiretap channels. Problems of Information Transmission, 40(4):318–336, October
2004.

[Dat09]

Nilanjana Datta. Min- and max-relative entropies and a new entanglement monotone. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 55(6):2816–2826, June 2009.
arXiv:0803.2770.

[DBEM11]

S. Dolinar, K. M. Birnbaum, B. I. Erkmen, and B. Moision. On approaching the
ultimate limits of photon-efficient and bandwidth-efficient optical communication. In
2011 International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS),
pages 269–278, May 2011. arXiv:1104.2643.

[Dev05]

Igor Devetak. The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum
channel. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(1):44–55, January 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0304127.

[DS05]

Igor Devetak and Peter W. Shor. The capacity of a quantum channel for simultaneous
transmission of classical and quantum information. Communications in Mathematical
Physics, 256(2):287–303, June 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0311131.

31

[DTW16]

Nilanjana Datta, Marco Tomamichel, and Mark M Wilde. On the second-order asymptotics for entanglement-assisted communication. Quantum Information Processing,
15(6):2569–2591, June 2016. arXiv:1405.1797.

[DW04]

Igor Devetak and Andreas Winter. Relating quantum privacy and quantum coherence: An operational approach. Physical Review Letters, 93(8):080501, August 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0307053.

[EHLG13]

Mustafa El-Halabi, Tie Liu, and Costas N. Georghiades. Secrecy capacity per unit cost.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 31(9):1909–1920, September
2013.

[Gal87]

Robert G. Gallager. Energy limited channels: Coding, multiaccess, and spread
spectrum. Technical report, 1987.

[GDS11]

Saikat Guha, Zachary Dutton, and Jeffrey H. Shapiro. On quantum limit of optical
communications: concatenated codes and joint-detection receivers. In Proceedings
of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pages 274–278.
IEEE, 2011. arXiv:1102.1963.

[GGL+ 04]

Vittorio Giovannetti, Saikat Guha, Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Jeffrey H Shapiro,
and Horace P Yuen. Classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel: The exact solution.
Physical Review Letters, 92(2):027902, January 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0308012.

[GGPCH14]

Vittorio Giovannetti, Raul Garcia-Patron, Nicholas J. Cerf, and Alexander S. Holevo.
Ultimate classical communication rates of quantum optical channels. Nature Photonics,
8(10):796–800, September 2014. arXiv:1312.6225.

[GHGP15]

Vittorio Giovannetti, Alexander S. Holevo, and Raul Garcia-Patron. A solution of
gaussian optimizer conjecture for quantum channels. Communications in Mathematical
Physics, 334(3):1553–1571, March 2015. arXiv:1312.2251.

[GHT11]

Saikat Guha, Jonathan L. Habif, and M. Takeoka. Approaching Helstrom limits to
optical pulse-position demodulation using single photon detection and optical feedback.
Journal of Modern Optics, 58(3-4):257–265, December 2011. arXiv:1001.2447.

[Gol49]

M. J. E. Golay. Note on the theoretical efficiency of information reception with PPM.
Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 37(9):1031–1031, 1949.

[Guh11]

Saikat Guha. Structured optical receivers to attain superadditive capacity and the
Holevo limit. Physical Review Letters, 106(24):240502, June 2011. arXiv:1101.1550.

[HG12]

Alexander S. Holevo and Vittorio Giovannetti. Quantum channels and their entropic characteristics. Reports on progress in physics, 75(4):046001, April 2012.
arXiv:1202.6480.

[Hol98]

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

32

[Hol02]

Alexander S. Holevo. Sending quantum information with Gaussian states. In Quantum
Communication, Computing, and Measurement, pages 75–82. Springer, 2002. arXiv
preprint quant-ph/9809022.

[Hol03]

Alexander S. Holevo. Entanglement-assisted capacity of constrained channels. In
First International Symposium on Quantum Informatics, pages 62–69. International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0211170.

[Hol04]

Alexander S. Holevo. Entanglement-assisted capacities of constrained quantum channels. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 48(2):243–255, July 2004. arXiv:quantph/0211170.

[Hol08]

Alexander S. Holevo. Entanglement-breaking channels in infinite dimensions. Problems
of Information Transmission, 44(3):171–184, 2008. arXiv:0802.0235.

[Hol12]

Alexander S. Holevo. Quantum systems, channels, information: a mathematical
introduction, volume 16. Walter de Gruyter, 2012.

[HP91]

Fumio Hiai and Dénes Petz. The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 143(1):99–
114, December 1991.

[HW01]

Alexander S. Holevo and Reinhard F. Werner. Evaluating capacities of bosonic
Gaussian channels. Physical Review A, 63(3):032312, February 2001. arXiv:quantph/9912067.

[Jar17]

Marcin Jarzyna. Classical capacity per unit cost for quantum channels. April 2017.
arXiv:1704.06696.

[KRBM07]

Robert König, Renato Renner, Andor Bariska, and Ueli Maurer. Small accessible
quantum information does not imply security. Physical Review Letters, 98:140502,
April 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0512021.

[Lin75]

Göran Lindblad. Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities. Communications
in Mathematical Physics, 40(2):147–151, June 1975.

[LL66]

Dmitry S. Lebedev and Lev B. Levitin. Information transmission by electromagnetic
field. Information and Control, 9(1):1–22, 1966.

[Llo97]

Seth Lloyd. Capacity of the noisy quantum channel. Physical Review A, 55(3):1613–
1622, March 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9604015.

[ON00]

Tomohiro Ogawa and Hiroshi Nagaoka. Strong converse and Stein’s lemma in quantum
hypothesis testing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 46(7):2428–2433,
November 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/9906090.

[Pau02]

Vern Paulsen. Completely bounded maps and operator algebras, volume 78. Cambridge
University Press, 2002.

[Pie78]

J. Pierce. Optical channels: Practical limits with photon counting. IEEE Transactions
on Communications, 26(12):1819–1821, December 1978.
33

[PPR81]

J. Pierce, E. Posner, and E. Rodemich. The capacity of the photon counting channel.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 27(1):61–77, January 1981.

[Rez61]

Fazlollah M. Reza. An introduction to information theory. Courier Corporation, 1961.

[SH16]

M. E. Shirokov and Alexander S. Holevo. Lower semicontinuity of the entropic
disturbance and its applications in quantum information theory. August 2016.
arXiv:1608.02203.

[Sha48]

Claude E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical
Journal, 27:379–423, and 623–656, 1948.

[Shi06]

Maksim E. Shirokov. The Holevo capacity of infinite dimensional channels and
the additivity problem. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 262(1):137–159,
February 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0408009.

[Shi12]

Maxim E. Shirokov. Conditions for coincidence of the classical capacity and
entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel. Problems of Information
Transmission, 48(2):85–101, 2012.

[Sho02a]

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

[Sho02b]

Peter W. Shor. The quantum channel capacity and coherent information. In Lecture
Notes, MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computation, 2002.

[Smi08]

Graeme Smith. Private classical capacity with a symmetric side channel and its
application to quantum cryptography. Physical Review A, 78(2):022306, August 2008.
arXiv:0705.3838.

[SN96]

Benjamin Schumacher and Michael A. Nielsen. Quantum data processing and error correction. Physical Review A, 54(4):2629–2635, October 1996. arXiv:quant-ph/9604022.

[Sti55]

William Forrest Stinespring. Positive functions on C*-algebras. Proceedings of the
American Mathematical Society, 6(2):211–216, 1955.

[SW97]

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

[TG14]

Masahiro Takeoka and Saikat Guha. Capacity of optical communication in loss and
noise with general quantum Gaussian receivers. Physical Review A, 89(4):042309,
April 2014. arXiv:1401.5132.

[Tom16]

Marco Tomamichel. Quantum Information Processing with Finite Resources: Mathematical Foundations, volume 5 of Springer Briefs in Mathematical Physics. Springer,
2016. arXiv:1504.00233.

[Uhl76]

Armin Uhlmann. The “transition probability” in the state space of a *-algebra.
Reports on Mathematical Physics, 9(2):273–279, 1976.

34

[Ume62]

Hisaharu Umegaki. Conditional expectations in an operator algebra IV (entropy and
information). Kodai Mathematical Seminar Reports, 14(2):59–85, 1962.

[Ver90]

Sergio Verdu. On channel capacity per unit cost. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 36(5):1019–1030, September 1990.

[Wil17]

Mark M. Wilde. Quantum information theory. Cambridge University Press, second
edition, 2017. arXiv:1106.1445.

[Win99a]

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

[Win99b]

Andreas Winter. Coding Theorems of Quantum Information Theory. PhD thesis,
Universität Bielefeld, July 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9907077.

[Win16]

Andreas Winter. Tight uniform continuity bounds for quantum entropies: Conditional entropy, relative entropy distance and energy constraints. Communications in
Mathematical Physics, 1(347):291–313, October 2016. arXiv:1507.07775.

[WPGG07]

Michael M. Wolf, David Pérez-García, and Geza Giedke. Quantum capacities of
bosonic channels. Physical Review Letters, 98(13):130501, March 2007. arXiv:quantph/0606132.

[WQ16]

Mark M. Wilde and Haoyu Qi. Energy-constrained private and quantum capacities
of quantum channels. September 2016. arXiv:1609.01997.

[WR12]

Ligong Wang and Renato Renner. One-shot classical-quantum capacity and hypothesis
testing. Physical Review Letters, 108(20):200501, May 2012. arXiv:1007.5456.

[YKL75]

H. Yuen, R. Kennedy, and Melvin Lax. Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in
quantum detection theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 21(2):125–134,
March 1975.

[YO93]

Horace P. Yuen and Masanao Ozawa. Ultimate information carrying limit of quantum
systems. Physical Review Letters, 70(4):363, January 1993.

35

