1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: % Classical Capacity of the lossy bosonic channel: the exact solution

3: % Vittorio Giovannetti, Saikat Guha, Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone,

4: % Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Horace P. Yuen

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prl,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

7: \usepackage{epsfig,amssymb}

8: %\def\comment#1{ [{\bf Comment:} {\sf #1}]}\def\labell#1{\label{#1}{\mbox{{\tiny #1}}}}

9: \def\comment#1{}\def\labell#1{\label{#1}}

10: \begin{document}

11: %{\scriptsize Eprint: quant-ph/0308012}

12: %Title of paper

13: \title{Classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel: the exact

14: solution}

15: 

16: \author{V. Giovannetti$^1$, S. Guha$^1$, S. Lloyd$^{1,2}$, L.

17:   Maccone$^1$, J. H.  Shapiro$^1$, and H. P.

18:   Yuen$^3$}\affiliation{$^1$Massachusetts Institute of Technology --

19:   Research Laboratory of Electronics\\$^2$Massachusetts Institute of

20:   Technology -- Department of Mechanical Engineering\\ 77

21:   Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-4307.\\$^3$Northwestern

22:   University -- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

23:   2145 N. Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208-3118.}

24: %\date{\today}

25: 

26: \begin{abstract}

27:   The classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel is calculated

28:   exactly.  It is shown that its Holevo information is not

29:   superadditive, and that a coherent-state encoding achieves

30:   capacity. The capacity of far-field, free-space optical

31:   communications is given as an example.

32: \end{abstract}

33: \pacs{03.67.Hk,42.50.-p,89.70.+c,05.40.Ca} \maketitle

34: 

35: A principal goal of quantum information theory is evaluating the

36: information capacities of important communication channels.  At

37: present---despite the many efforts that have been devoted to this

38: endeavor and the theoretical advances they have produced

39: {\cite{canali}}---exact capacity results are known for only a handful

40: of channels.  In this paper we consider the lossy bosonic channel, and

41: we develop an exact result for its classical capacity $C$, i.e., the

42: number of bits that it can communicate reliably per channel use. The

43: lossy bosonic channel consists of a collection of bosonic modes that

44: lose energy en route from the transmitter to the receiver.  Typical

45: examples are free space or optical fiber transmission, in which

46: photons are employed to convey the information.  The classical

47: capacity of the lossless bosonic channel---whose transmitted states

48: arrive undisturbed at the receiver---was derived in

49: {\cite{caves,yuen}}.  When there is loss, however, the received state

50: is in general different from the transmitted state, and quantum

51: mechanics requires that there be an accompanying quantum noise source.

52: In {\cite{sohma}} a first step toward the capacity of such channels

53: was given by considering only separable encoding procedures.  Here, on

54: the contrary, it is proven that the optimal encoding is indeed

55: separable. We obtain the value of $C$ in the presence of loss when the

56: quantum noise source is in the vacuum state, i.e., when it injects the

57: minimum amount of noise into the receiver.  Our derivation proceeds by

58: developing an upper bound for $C$ and then showing that this bound

59: coincides with the lower bound on $C$ reported in

60: {\cite{nostro,holevo}}.  Our upper bound results from comparing the

61: capacity of the lossy channel to that of the lossless channel whose

62: average \em input\/\rm\ energy matches the average \em output\/\rm\ 

63: energy constraint for the lossy case {\cite{yuenmax}}. This argument

64: is analogous to the derivation of the classical capacity of the

65: erasure channel {\cite{erasure}}.  The lower bound comes from

66: calculating the Holevo information for appropriately coded

67: coherent-state inputs. Thus, because the two bounds coincide, we not

68: only have the capacity of the lossy bosonic channel, but we also know

69: that capacity can be achieved by transmitting coherent states.

70: %\vspace{-.5cm}

71: \paragraph*{Classical capacity.--}

72:  \labell{s:nbwb}

73: The classical capacity of a channel can be expressed in terms of

74: the Holevo information

75: \begin{eqnarray}

76: \chi(p_j,\sigma_j)\equiv S(\sum_jp_j\sigma_j)-\sum_jp_jS(\sigma_j)

77: \;\labell{chi},

78: \end{eqnarray}

79: where $p_j$ are probabilities, $\sigma_j$ are density operators and

80: $S(\varrho)\equiv-$Tr$[\varrho\log_2\varrho]$ is the von Neumann

81: entropy.  Since it is not known if $\chi$ is additive, $C$ must be

82: calculated by maximizing the Holevo information over successive uses

83: of the channel, so that $C=\sup_n(C_n/n)$ with

84: \begin{eqnarray}

85: C_n=\max_{p_j,\sigma_j}\;\chi(p_j,{\cal

86:    N}^{\otimes n}[\sigma_j])

87: \;\labell{defc},

88: \end{eqnarray}

89: where the states $\sigma_j$ live in the Hilbert space   ${\cal

90: H}^{\otimes n}$ of $n$ successive uses of the channel and $\cal N$ is

91: the completely positive map that describes the channel {\cite{hsw}}.

92: In our case, $\cal H$ is the Hilbert space associated with the bosonic

93: modes used in the communication and $\cal N$ is the loss map.  Because

94: $\cal H$ is infinite dimensional, $C_n$ diverges unless the maximization in

95: Eq.~(\ref{defc}) is constrained: here we assume

96: that the mean energy of the input state in each of the $n$

97: realizations of the channel is a fixed quantity $\cal E$. For

98: multimode bosonic channels, $\cal N$ is given by

99: $\bigotimes_k{\cal N}_k$, where ${\cal N}_k$ is the loss map for the $k$th

100: mode, which can be obtained, tracing away the vacuum noise mode $b_k$,

101: from the Heisenberg evolution

102: \begin{eqnarray}

103: a'_k=\sqrt{\eta_k}\;a_k +\sqrt{1-\eta_k}\;b_k

104: \;\labell{ch},

105: \end{eqnarray}

106: with $a_k$ and $a'_k$ being the annihilation operators of the input and

107: output modes and $0\le \eta_k \le 1$ is the mode transmissivity (quantum

108: efficiency).

109: 

110: The main result of this paper is that the capacity of the lossy

111: bosonic channel, in bits per channel use, is

112: \begin{eqnarray}

113: C=\max_{N_k}\sum_k g(\eta_kN_k)

114: \;\labell{risult},

115: \end{eqnarray}

116: where $g(x)\equiv (x+1)\log_2(x+1)-x\log_2x$ and where the maximization is

117: performed on the modal average photon-number sets $\{N_k\}$ that satisfy the

118: energy constraint

119: \begin{eqnarray}

120: \sum_k\hbar\omega_kN_k={\cal E}

121: \;\labell{energy},

122: \end{eqnarray}

123: ($\omega_k$ is the frequency of the $k$th mode). 

124: 

125: We derive Eq.~(\ref{risult}) by giving coincident lower and upper

126: bounds for $C$.  The right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{risult}) was shown,

127: in {\cite{nostro}}, to be a lower bound for $C$ by generalizing the

128: narrowband analysis of {\cite{holevo}}.  This expression was obtained

129: from Eq.~(\ref{defc}) by calculating $\chi$ for $n=1$ under the

130: following encoding: in every mode $k$ we use a mixture of coherent

131: states $|\mu\rangle_k$ weighted with the Gaussian probability

132: distribution

133: \begin{eqnarray}

134: p_k{(\mu)}=\exp[-|\mu|^2/N_k]/(\pi N_k)\;.\;\labell{pdik}

135: \end{eqnarray}

136: This corresponds to feeding the channel the input state

137: \begin{eqnarray}

138: \varrho=\bigotimes_k\int d\mu\; p_k(\mu)\;|\mu\rangle_k\langle\mu|

139: \;\labell{stato},

140: \end{eqnarray}

141: which is a thermal state that contains no entanglement or squeezing.

142: The right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{risult}) is also an upper bound for $C$.

143: To see that this is so, let $\bar p_j$, $\bar\sigma_j$ be the optimal

144: encoding on

145: $n$ uses of the channel, which gives the capacity $C_n$ of

146: Eq.~(\ref{defc}). The definition of $\chi$ and the subadditivity of

147: the von Neumann entropy allow us to write

148: \begin{eqnarray}

149: C_n\leqslant S({\cal N}^{\otimes n}[\bar\sigma])

150: \leqslant\sum_{l=1}^n\sum_kS({\cal N}_k[\varrho_k^{(l)}])

151: \;\labell{disug},

152: \end{eqnarray}

153: where $\bar\sigma\equiv\sum_j\bar p_j\bar\sigma_j$ and   ${\cal

154: N}_k[\varrho_k^{(l)}]$ is the reduced density operator of the $k$th

155: mode in the $l$th realization of the channel, which is obtained from

156: ${\cal N}^{\otimes n}[\bar\sigma]$ by tracing over all the other modes

157: and over the other $n-1$ channel realizations.  The first inequality

158: in Eq.~(\ref{disug}) comes from bounding $C_n$ by the amount of

159: information that can be transmitted through a lossless channel with

160: input state ${\cal N}^{\otimes n}[\bar\sigma]$, viz., the output of

161: the lossy channel with optimal input state $\bar\sigma$

162: {\cite{yuenmax}}.  Now let $N_k^{(l)}$ be the average photon number

163: for the state $\varrho_k^{(l)}$; $\{N_k^{(l)}\}$ must satisfy the

164: energy constraint (\ref{energy}) for all $l$ {\cite{nota3}}. Moreover,

165: the loss will leave only $\eta_kN_k^{(l)}$ photons, on average, in the

166: corresponding output state ${\cal N}_k[\varrho_k^{(l)}]$. This implies

167: that

168: \begin{eqnarray}

169: S({\cal N}_k[\varrho_k^{(l)}])\leqslant g(\eta_kN_k^{(l)})

170: \;\labell{disug2},

171: \end{eqnarray}

172: where the inequality follows from the fact that the term on the right

173: is the maximum entropy associated with states that have

174: $\eta_kN_k^{(l)}$ photons on average {\cite{bekenstein,caves}}.

175: Introducing Eq.~(\ref{disug2}) into (\ref{disug}), we obtain the

176: desired result

177: \begin{eqnarray}

178: C_n\leqslant\sum_{l=1}^n\sum_k g(\eta_kN_k^{(l)})\leqslant

179: n\max_{N_k}\sum_kg(\eta_kN_k)

180: \;\labell{disug3},

181: \end{eqnarray}

182: where the maximization is performed over the sets $\{N_k\}$ that

183: satisfy Eq.~(\ref{energy}). Because Eq.~(\ref{disug3}) holds for any

184: $n$, we conclude that the right-hand side of (\ref{risult}) is indeed

185: also an upper bound for $C$.

186: 

187: \paragraph*{Discussion.--}\labell{s:disc}

188: Some important consequences derive from our analysis. First, capacity

189: is achieved by a single use of the channel ($n=1$) employing random

190: coding---factorized over the channel modes---on coherent states as

191: shown in Eq.~(\ref{stato}).  This means that, at least for this

192: channel, entangled codewords are not necessary and that the Holevo

193: information is not superadditive.  Notice that the lossy bosonic

194: channel can accommodate entanglement among successive uses of the

195: channel, as well as entanglement among different modes in each channel

196: use.  Surprisingly, neither of these two strategies is necessary to

197: achieve capacity.  Nor is it necessary to use any non-classical state,

198: such as a photon number state or a squeezed state, to achieve

199: capacity; classical (coherent state) light is all that is needed.

200: Classical light suffices because the loss map $\cal N$ simply

201: contracts coherent-state codewords in phase space toward the vacuum

202: state.  Coherent states retain their purity in this process, and hence

203: the non-positive part of the Holevo information---the second term of

204: the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{chi})---retains its maximum value of

205: zero.  Despite the preceding properties, quantum effects are relevant

206: to communication over the lossy bosonic channel.  For example, our

207: proof does not exclude the possibility of achieving capacity using

208: quantum encodings, and such encodings may have lower error

209: probabilities, for finite-length block codes, than those of the

210: capacity-achieving coherent state encoding.  This is certainly true

211: for the lossless case.  In particular, it was already known that $C$

212: can be achieved with a number-state alphabet {\cite{yuen,caves}}; our

213: work shows that there is also a coherent-state encoding that achieves

214: capacity for this case. [The two procedures employ the same average

215: input state, Eq.~(\ref{stato})].  However, the probability of the

216: receiver confusing any two distinct finite-length number state

217: codewords is zero in the lossless case, whereas it is positive for all

218: pairs of finite-length coherent-state codewords.  The lossless case

219: also provides an example of the possible role of quantum effects at

220: the receiver: the optimal coherent-state system uses a classical

221: transmitter, but its detection strategy, can be highly

222: non-classical~{\cite{hsw}}.  In contrast, the optimal number-state

223: system for the lossless channel requires a non-classical light source,

224: but its receiver uses simple modal photon counting.

225: 

226: How well can we approach this capacity using conventional decoding

227: procedures? Using the coherent-state encoding of Eq.~(\ref{stato})

228: with either heterodyne or homodyne detection, the amount of

229: information that can be reliably transmitted is

230: \begin{eqnarray}

231: I=\max_{N_k}\sum_k\xi\log_2(1+\eta_kN_k/\xi^2)\labell{hetc}\;,

232: \end{eqnarray}

233: where $\xi=1/2$ for homodyne and $\xi=1$ for heterodyne, and where, as

234: usual, the maximization must be performed under the energy constraint

235: (\ref{energy}). Equation (\ref{hetc}) has been obtained by summing

236: over $k$ the Shannon capacities for the appropriate detection

237: procedure {\cite{caves}}. In general $I<C$: heterodyne or homodyne

238: detection cannot be used to achieve the capacity.  However, heterodyne

239: is asymptotically optimal in the limit of large numbers of photons in

240: all modes, $N_k\to\infty$ for all $k$, because $g(x)/\log_2(x)\to 1$ as

241: $x\to\infty$.

242: 

243: The capacity expression $C$ can be simplified by using

244: standard variational techniques to perform the constrained

245: maximization in Eq.~(\ref{risult}), yielding {\cite{nostro}}

246: \begin{eqnarray}

247: C=\sum_k\;g\left(\eta_kN_k(\beta)\right)

248: \;\labell{risult1},

249: \end{eqnarray}

250: where $N_k(\beta)$ is the optimal photon number distribution

251: \begin{eqnarray}

252: N_k(\beta)=\frac {1/\eta_k}{e^{\beta\hbar\omega_k/\eta_k}-1}

253: \;\labell{nkopt},

254: \end{eqnarray}

255: with $\beta$ being a Lagrange multiplier that is determined through the

256: constraint on average transmitted energy.

257: 

258: In the following sections we calculate the capacities of some bosonic

259: channels. The first two examples help clarify the derivation of

260: Eq.~(\ref{risult}); the last is a realistic model of

261: frequency-dependent lossy communication, on which we also evaluate the

262: performance of homodyne and heterodyne detection.

263: 

264: \paragraph*{Narrowband channel.--}\labell{s:loss}

265: Consider the narrowband channel in which a single mode of frequency

266: $\omega$ is employed. In this case, Eq.~(\ref{risult1}) becomes

267: \begin{eqnarray}

268: C=\;g\left(\frac{\eta{\cal E}}{\hbar\omega}\right)

269: \;\labell{nb},

270: \end{eqnarray}

271: where $N={\cal E}/(\hbar\omega)$ is the average photon number at the

272: input. Equation~(\ref{nb}) was conjectured in {\cite{holevo}}, where

273: it was given as a lower bound on $C$. The following simple argument

274: shows that $g(\eta N)$ is also an upper bound for $C$.  Consider the

275: lossless channel that employs $\eta N$ photons on average per channel

276: use.  Its capacity is given by $\max_\varrho S(\varrho)$, where the

277: maximization is performed over input states $\varrho$ with mean energy

278: ${\cal E}'=\eta\hbar\omega N$ {\cite{nota}}. The maximum, computed

279: through variational techniques, is $g(\eta N)$

280: {\cite{caves,bekenstein}}.  The lossless channel cannot have a lower

281: capacity than the lossy channel, because both have the same average

282: received energy, and the set of receiver density operators achievable

283: over the lossy channel is a proper subset of those achievable in the

284: lossless system {\cite{yuenmax}}. This implies that $g(\eta N)$ is an

285: also upper bound on $C$ and hence equal to $C$.

286: 

287: \paragraph*{Frequency-independent loss.--}\labell{s:loss1}

288: Now consider a broadband channel with uniform transmissivity,

289: $\eta_k=\eta$, that employs a set of frequencies

290: $\omega_k=k\;\delta\omega$ for $k\in{\mathbb N}$. In this case,

291: Eq.~(\ref{risult1}) gives {\cite{nota2}}

292: \begin{eqnarray}

293: C=\frac{\sqrt{\eta}}{\ln 2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi {\cal P}}{3\hbar}}{\cal T}

294: \;\labell{wb},

295: \end{eqnarray}

296: where ${\cal T}=2\pi/\delta\omega$ is the transmission time, and

297: ${\cal P}={\cal E}/{\cal T}$ is the average transmitted power.

298: Equation~(\ref{wb}) was derived for the lossless case ($\eta=1$) in

299: {\cite{yuen}} and was shown to provide a lower bound on $C$ in

300: {\cite{nostro}}. In order to show that the right-hand side of

301: Eq.~(\ref{wb}) is also an upper bound, consider the lossless broadband

302: channel in which the average \em input\/\rm\ power is equal to

303: $\eta {\cal P}$, viz., the average \em output\/\rm\ power of the lossy

304: channel. According to {\cite{yuen}}, the capacity of this channel is

305: $(\sqrt{\pi\eta {\cal P}/3}){\cal T}/\ln 2$, which coincides with the

306: right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{wb}).  The

307: reasoning given above for the single-mode case now

308: implies that the broadband lossless channel's capacity cannot be less than

309: that of the broadband lossy channel, thus completing the proof.

310: 

311: %It is interesting to compare $C$ of Eq.~(\ref{wb}) with the

312: %entanglement assisted capacity $C_E$ (i.e., the capacity in the

313: %presence of an unlimited amount of prior entanglement between transmitter

314: %and receiver), given in {\cite{nostro}}.  For small values of $\eta$,

315: %it is possible to show that $C_E\sim C$: the huge loss of energy

316: %destroys the quantum coherence of the signals preventing the use of

317: %the superdense coding effect, so that the prior entanglement is

318: %useless.

319: 

320: %programma far-field.capacity.f

321: \begin{figure}[hbt]

322: \begin{center}

323: \epsfxsize=.6

324: \hsize\leavevmode\epsffile{figure1.eps}

325: \end{center}

326: %\vspace{-.5cm}

327: \caption{Capacities of the far-field free-space optical channel as a

328:   function of the input power $\cal P$ (in the plot ${\cal P}_0\equiv

329:   2\pi\hbar c^2L^2/(A_tA_r)$). The solid curve is the capacity $C$

330:   from Eq.~(\ref{ffc}), the other two curves are the capacities $I$

331:   from Eq.~(\ref{chethom}) achievable with coherent states and

332:   heterodyne detection (dashed curve) or coherent states and homodyne

333:   detection (dotted curve). Note that the heterodyne detection $I$

334:   approaches the optimal capacity $C$ in the high-power limit.}

335: \labell{f:num}\end{figure}

336: 

337: \paragraph*{Far-field, free-space optical communication.--}\labell{s:farfield}

338: Consider the free-space optical communication channel in which the

339: transmitter and the receiver communicate through circular apertures of

340: areas $A_t$ and $A_r$ that are separated by an $L$-m-long propagation

341: path.  At frequency $\omega$ there will only be a single spatial mode

342: in the transmitter aperture that couples appreciable power to the

343: receiver aperture when the Fresnel number $D(\omega) \equiv

344: A_tA_r(\omega/2\pi cL)^2$ satisfies $D(\omega) \ll 1$, \cite{ff}. This

345: is the far-field power transfer regime at frequency $\omega$, and

346: $D(\omega)$ is the transmissivity achieved by the optimal spatial

347: mode.  A broadband far-field channel results when the transmitter and

348: receiver use the optimal spatial modes at frequencies up to a critical

349: frequency $\omega_c$, with $D(\omega_c)\ll 1$.  In this case we use

350: $\eta_k=D(\omega_k)$ in Eq.~(\ref{risult1}), and the capacity $C$

351: becomes {\cite{nota2}}

352: \begin{eqnarray}

353: C=\frac{\omega_c{\cal T}}{2\pi

354: y_0}\int_0^{y_0}dx\;g\!\left(\frac

355:    1{e^{1/x}-1}\right)

356: \;\labell{ffc},

357: \end{eqnarray}

358: where $y_0$ is a dimensionless parameter inversely proportional to the

359: Lagrange multiplier $\beta$, which is determined from the power

360: constraint

361: \begin{eqnarray}

362: {\cal P}=\frac{2\pi\hbar c^2L^2}{A_tA_r}\int_0^{y_0} \frac{dx}x\frac

363: 1{e^{1/x}-1}

364: \;\labell{e1nerg}.

365: \end{eqnarray}

366: Although $C$ is proportional to the maximum frequency $\omega_c$,

367: this factor cannot be increased without bound, for fixed transmitter and

368: receiver apertures, because of the far-field assumption.

369: Figure~\ref{f:num} plots $C$ versus $\cal P$ obtained from numerical

370: evaluation of Eqs.~(\ref{ffc}) and (\ref{e1nerg}).

371: 

372: %programma enne.f

373: \begin{figure}[hbt]

374: \begin{center}

375: \epsfxsize=.6\hsize\leavevmode\epsffile{figure2.eps}

376: \end{center}

377: %\vspace{-.5cm}

378: \caption{Power spectrum $S\equiv\omega_kN_k$ for the far-field

379:   free-space channel plotted versus frequency in the continuum regime

380:   {\cite{nota2}}. The solid curve is for optimal capacity, the dotted

381:   curve is for homodyne detection, and the dashed curve is for

382:   heterodyne detection. Here ${\cal P}/{\cal P}_0=3$. In contrast to

383:   the frequency-independent lossy channel, all of these coherent-state

384:   encodings preferentially employ high frequencies instead of low

385:   frequencies.  This marked change in spectral shaping is due to the

386:   transmissivity's having a quadratic dependence on $\omega$. }

387: \labell{f:enne}\end{figure}

388: 

389: 

390: To compare the capacity of Eq.~(\ref{ffc}) with the information

391: transmitted using heterodyne or homodyne detection, we perform the

392: Eq.~(\ref{hetc}) maximization. The Lagrange multiplier technique gives

393: the optimal value   $N_k(\beta)=\max\left\{

394: 1/({\beta\hbar\omega_k})-{\xi^2}/{\eta_k}\;,\;0\right\}$, plotted in

395: Fig.~\ref{f:enne}.  [Notice that the non-negativity of this solution

396: forbids the use of frequencies lower than

397: $\omega_{0}\equiv\xi^2\beta\hbar\omega^2_c/D(\omega_c)$.] With this

398: photon number distribution, Eq.~(\ref{hetc}) becomes

399: \begin{eqnarray}

400: I=\xi{\omega_c{\cal T}}\left(1/{y_0}-1+\ln y_0\right)/({2\pi\ln 2})

401: \;\labell{chethom},

402: \end{eqnarray}

403: where $y_0$ is now determined from the condition   ${\cal

404: P}=\xi^2{2\pi\hbar c^2L^2} (y_0-1-\ln y_0)/({A_rA_s})$.  We have

405: plotted $I$ versus $P$ in Fig.~\ref{f:num} for heterodyne and homodyne

406: detection.  At low power, the noise advantage of homodyne makes its

407: capacity higher than that of heterodyne.  At high power levels

408: heterodyne prevails thanks to its bandwidth advantage, and its

409: capacity approaches $C$ asymptotically.

410: 

411: 

412: 

413: \paragraph*{Conclusions.--}\labell{s:co}

414: We have derived the classical capacity of the lossy multimode bosonic

415: channel { when the average energy devoted to the transmission is

416:   bounded}. Interestingly, quantum features of the signals (such as

417: entanglement or squeezing) are not required to achieve capacity,

418: because an optimal coherent-state encoding exists. At the decoding

419: stage, however, quantum effects might still be necessary (e.g., in the

420: form of joint measurements on the output) as standard homodyne and

421: heterodyne measurements are not optimal, except for the high power

422: regime where heterodyne detection is asymptotically optimal.  The

423: focus of this paper has been the lossy channel with minimal

424: (vacuum-state) noise. A more general treatment would include

425: non-vacuum noise, and would allow for amplification.

426: 

427: This work was funded by the ARDA, NRO, NSF, and by ARO under a MURI

428: program.

429: 

430: 

431: 

432: 

433: 

434: \begin{references}

435: \bibitem{canali} C. H. Bennett and P. W. Shor, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory

436:   {\bf 44}, 2724 (1998); A. S. Holevo, Tamagawa University Research

437:   Review {\bf 4}, (1998), eprint quant-ph/9809023; M. A. Nielsen and I.  L.

438:   Chuang, {\em Quantum Computation and Quantum Information} (Cambridge

439:   University Press, Cambridge, 2000), and references therein.

440: \bibitem{yuen} H. P. Yuen, M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 363

441:    (1992).

442: \bibitem{caves} C. M. Caves and P. D. Drummond, Rev. of Mod. Phys.

443:    {\bf 66}, 481 (1994), and references therein.

444:  \bibitem{sohma} A. S. Holevo, M. Sohma, O. Hirota, Phys. Rev. A {\bf

445:      59}, 1820 (1999); M. Sohma and O. Hirota, Recent Res. Devel.

446:    Optics, {\bf 1}, 146-159 (2000) edited by Research Signpost.

447: \bibitem{holevo} A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63},

448:    032312 (2001).

449: \bibitem{nostro} V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, and P. W. Shor,

450:    Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 047901 (2003); Phys. Rev. A, accepted

451:    for publication.

452: \bibitem{yuenmax} H. P. Yuen, in {\em Quantum Squeezing} edited by P.

453:    D. Drummond and Z. Spicek (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003).

454:  \bibitem{erasure} C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin,

455:    Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3217 (1997).

456: \bibitem{hsw} A. S. Holevo, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory {\bf 44}, 269

457:    (1998); P. Hausladen, R. Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and

458:    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, 1869 (1996); B. Schumacher

459:    and M. D. Westmoreland, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, 131 (1997).

460:  \bibitem{nota3} The concavity of $g(x)$ implies that this constraint

461:    is not strictly necessary: it suffices to require that the average

462:    over $l$ be fixed, i.e.       $\sum_{k,l}\hbar\omega_kN_k^{(l)}/n={\cal

463: E}$.

464: \bibitem{bekenstein} J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23}, 287

465:    (1981); Phys. Rev. A {\bf 37}, 3437 (1988).

466: \bibitem{nota} In the noiseless case the maximization of the Holevo

467:    quantity (\ref{defc}) yields the von Neumann entropy of the input

468:    state, which is a subadditive quantity.

469: \bibitem{nota2} Notice that in the high-power regime, the sums in

470:    Eqs.~(\ref{energy}) and (\ref{risult1}) can be replaced with

471:    integrals.

472: \bibitem{ff} D. Slepian, J. Opt. Soc. Am. {\bf 55}, 1110 (1965); H.

473:    P. Yuen and J. H. Shapiro, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory {\bf 24}, 657

474:    (1978).

475: \end{references}\end{document}

476: The lossless case

477: also provides an example of the possible role of quantum effects at

478: the receiver: the optimal coherent-state system uses a classical

479: transmitter, but its detection strategy, can be highly non-classical

480: {\cite{hsw}}.  In contrast, the optimal number-state system for the

481: lossless channel requires a non-classical light source, but its

482: receiver uses simple modal photon counting.  

483: 

484: 

485: 

486: 

487: " However as g(x) approaches log_2(x) asymptotically in the limit that x -> 

488: \infinity, the expression for heterodyne capacity (11) approaches that of 

489: optimal capacity (4) in the limit of large ${N_k}s$. Hence, coherent state 

490: encoding with Heterodyne detection is asymptotically optimal for large 

491: number of photons on an average in each frequency mode. "

492: 

493: Saikat

494: 

495: CAMBIARE LA CONCLUSIONE quando arrivano le bozze: togliere la frase

496: sul fatto che l'eterodina e' asintoticamente ottima.

497: 

498: