1: \chapter{Coherent classical communication}\label{chap:ccc}

2: \section{Introduction and definition}

3: 

4: One of the main differences between classical and quantum Shannon

5: theory is the number of irreversible, but optimal, resource

6: transformations that exist in quantum Shannon theory.  The highest

7: rate that ebits or cbits can be created from qubits is one-for-one:

8: $\qtq\geq \qq$ and $\qtq\geq \ctc$.  But the best way to

9: create qubits from cbits and ebits is teleportation: $2\ctc+\qq\geq

10: \qtq$.  These protocols are all asymptotically 

11: optimal---for example, the classical communication requirement of

12: teleportation cannot be decreased even if entanglement is free---but

13: composing them is extremely wasteful: $3\qtq \geq 2\ctc + \qq

14: \geq \qtq$.  This sort of irreversibility represents one of the

15: main challenges of quantum information theory: resources may be

16: qualitatively equivalent but quantitatively incomparable.

17: 

18: In this chapter we will introduce a new primitive resource: the {\em

19: coherent bit} or {\em cobit}.  To emphasize its connection with

20: classical communication, we denote the asymptotic resource (defined

21: below) by $\cof$.\footnote{Other work\cite{DHW05,Devetak05a} 

22: uses $[q\ra qq]$ to denote cobits, in order to emphasize their central

23: place among isometries from $A$ to $AB$.}

24: Coherent classical communication will

25: simplify and improve a number of topics in quantum Shannon theory:

26: \bi

27: \item We will find that coherently decoupled cbits can be described

28: more simply and naturally as cobits.

29: \item Replacing coherently decoupled cbits with cobits will make many

30: resource 

31: transformations reversible.  In particular, teleportation and

32: super-dense coding become each other's inverses, a result previously

33: only known when unlimited entanglement is allowed.

34: \item More generally, we find that many forms of irreversibility in

35: quantum Shannon theory are equivalent to the simple map $\cof\geq

36: \ctc$. 

37: \item We will expand upon \prop{U-CgE} to 

38: precisely explain how cbits are more powerful when they are sent

39: through unitary means.  This has a number of consequences for unitary

40: gate capacities.

41: \item In the next chapter, coherent classical communication will be

42: used to relate many of the different protocols in quantum

43: Shannon theory, give simple proofs of some existing protocols and

44: create some entirely new protocols.  These will allow us to determine

45: two-dimensional tradeoff curves for the capacities of channels and

46: states to create or consume cbits, ebits and qubits.

47: \ei

48: 

49: Coherent classical communication  can be defined in

50: two ways, which we later show to be equivalent.  

51: 

52: \bi

53: \item {\em Explicit definition in terms of finite resources:} 

54: 

55: \sloppypar{Fix a basis for $\bbC^d$: $\{\ket{x}\}_{x=0}^{d-1}$.

56: First, we recall from 

57: \sect{distantlabs} the definitions of quantum and classical

58: communication: $\id_d = \sum_x

59: \ket{x}^{B} \bra{x}^{A'}$ (a perfect quantum

60: channel), $\bar{\id}_d = \sum_x \ket{x}^{B}\ket{x}^{E} \bra{x}^{A'}$

61: (a perfect classical channel in the QP formalism) and

62: $\bar{\Delta}_d = \sum_x \ket{x}^A\ket{x}^{B}\ket{x}^{E} \bra{x}^{A'}$

63: (the classical copying operation in the QP formalism).  Then we define

64: a perfect coherent channel as

65: \be \Delta_d = \sum_{x=0}^{d-1}

66: \ket{x}^A\ket{x}^{B} \bra{x}^{A'}.\ee

67: It can be thought of as a

68: purification of a cbit in which Alice controls the environment, as a

69: sort of quantum analogue to a feedback channel.

70: The asymptotic resource is then given by $\cof := \<\Delta_2\>$.}

71: 

72: \item {\em Operational definition as an asymptotic resource:}

73: We can also define a cobit as a cbit sent through unitary, or more

74: generally isometric, means.  The approximate version of this statement

75: is that whenever a protocol creates coherently decoupled cbits

76: (cf.~\defn{coh-decoupling-output}), then a modified

77: version of the protocol will create cobits.  Later we will prove a precise

78: form of this statement,  known as ``Rule

79: O,'' because it describes how output cbits should be made coherent.

80: 

81: When $C$ {\em input cbits} are coherently decoupled

82: (cf.~\defn{coh-decoupling-input}) we instead find that replacing them

83: with $C$ cobits results in $C$ extra ebits being generated in the

84: output.  This input rule is known as ``Rule I.''  Both rules are

85: proved in \sect{ccc-proofs}.

86: 

87: The canonical example of coherent decoupling is when cbits are sent

88: using a unitary gate.  In \thm{bidi-ccc}, we show that cbits sent

89: through unitary means can indeed be coherently decoupled, and thereby

90: turned into cobits.

91: \ei

92: 

93: The rest of the chapter is organized as follows.

94: \begin{description}

95: \item[\sect{ccc-source}] will give some simple examples of how cobits

96: can be obtained.

97: \item[\sect{ccc-use}] will then describe how to use coherent

98: classical communication to make quantum protocols reversible and more

99: efficient.  It will conclude with a precise statement of Rules I and O.

100: \item[\sect{ccc-apps}] will apply these general principles to remote

101: state preparation\cite{BHLSW03}, which leads to new 

102: protocols for super-dense coding of quantum state\cite{HHL03} as well

103: as many new results for unitary gate capacities.

104: \item[\sect{ccc-proofs}] collects some of the longer proofs from the

105: chapter, in order to avoid interrupting the exposition of the rest of

106: the chapter. 

107: \item[\sect{ccc-discuss}] concludes with a brief discussion.

108: \end{description}

109: 

110: {\em Bibliographical note:} Most of this chapter is based on

111: \cite{Har03}, though in \sect{ccc-proofs} the proofs of Rules I and O

112: are from 

113: \cite{DHW05} (joint work with Igor Devetak and Andreas Winter).

114: and the proof of \thm{bidi-ccc} is from

115: \cite{HL04} (joint work with Debbie Leung).

116: 

117: \section{Sources of coherent classical communication}

118: \label{sec:ccc-source}

119: 

120: Qubits and cbits arise naturally from noiseless and dephasing channels

121: respectively, and can be obtained from any noisy channel by

122: appropriate coding \cite{Holevo98,SW97,Lloyd96,Shor02,Devetak03}.

123: Similarly, we will show both a 

124: natural primitive yielding coherent bits and a coding theorem that

125: can generate coherent bits from a broad class of unitary operations.

126: 

127: The simplest way to send a coherent message is by modifying

128: super-dense coding (SD).  In SD, Alice and Bob begin

129: with $\ket{\Phi_2}$ and want to use $\id_2$ to send a two bit

130: message $a_1a_2$ from Alice to Bob.  Alice encodes her message by

131: applying $Z^{a_1}X^{a_2}$ to her half of 

132: $\ket{\Phi_2}$ and then sending it to Bob, who decodes by applying

133: $(H\otimes I)\textsc{cnot}$ to the state, obtaining

134: %

135: $$(H\otimes I)\textsc{cnot}(Z^{a_1}X^{a_2}\otimes I)\ket{\Phi_2}

136: =\ket{a_1}\ket{a_2}$$

137: %

138: Now modify this protocol so that Alice starts with a quantum state

139: $\ket{a_1a_2}$ and applies $Z^{a_1}X^{a_2}$ to her half of

140: $\ket{\Phi_2}$ conditioned on her quantum input.  After she sends her

141: qubit and Bob decodes, they will be left with the state

142: $\ket{a_1a_2}^A\ket{a_1a_2}^B$.  Thus, 

143: \be \qtq + \qq \reduction 2 \cof \label{eq:SDC-cc}\ee

144: 

145: In fact, any unitary operation capable of classical communication is

146: also capable of an equal amount of coherent classical communication,

147: though in general this only holds asymptotically.  The following

148: theorem gives a general prescription for obtaining coherent

149: communication and proves part of the equivalence of the two

150: definitions of cobits given in the introduction.

151: 

152: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:bidi-ccc}

153: For any bipartite unitary or isometry $U$, if

154: \be

155: 	\<U\>  \geqslant  C_1 \ctc + C_2 \cbc + E \qq

156: \label{eq:cbit-toff} 

157: \ee

158: for $C_1,C_2\geq 0$ and $E\in\bbR$ then

159: \be

160: 	\<U\>  \geqslant  C_1 \cof + C_2 \cob + E \qq

161: \label{eq:cobit-toff} 

162: \ee

163: \end{theorem}

164: If we define $\CoCoE(U)=\{(C_1,C_2,E) : \<U\>  \geqslant  C_1 \cof + C_2

165: \cob + E \qq\}$, then this theorem states that $\CCE(U)$ and

166: $\CoCoE(U)$ coincide on the quadrant $C_1,C_2\geq 0$.

167: 

168: Here we will prove only the case where $C_2=0$, deferring the full

169: bidirectional proof to \sect{ccc-proofs}.  By appropriate coding (as

170: in \cite{BS03b}), we can reduce the one-way case of \thm{bidi-ccc} to

171: the following coherent analogue of HSW coding.

172: 

173: \begin{lemma}[Coherent HSW]\label{lemma:HSW}

174: Given a PP ensemble of bipartite pure states

175: \be \ket{\cE} = \sum_{x\in\cX}

176: \sqrt{p_x}\ket{x}^R\ket{x}^{X_A}\ket{\psi_x}^{AB}\ee

177:  and an isometry 

178: \be U_\cE = \sum_x \oprod{x}^{X_A} \ot \ket{\psi_x}^{AB}\ee

179: then 

180: \be \<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\> \geq I(X_A;B)_\cE\cof + H(B|X_A)\qq.\ee

181: 

182: \end{lemma}

183: 

184: \begin{proof}

185: A slightly modified form of HSW coding (e.g. \cite{Devetak03}) holds

186: that for any $\delta>0,\epsilon>0$ and 

187: every $n$ sufficiently large there exists a code $\cC\subset\cS^n$

188: with $|\cC|=\exp(n(I(X_A;B)_\cE-\delta))$, a decoding POVM

189: $\{D_{c^n}\}_{c^n\in\cC}$ with error $<\epsilon$ and a type $q$ with

190: $\|p-q\|_1\leqslant |\cX|/n$ such that every codeword $c^n:=c_1\ldots

191: c_n\in\cC$ (corresponding to the state $\ket{\psi_{c^n}}^{AB}:=

192: \ket{\psi_{c_1}}^{A_1B_1}\cdots \ket{\psi_{c_n}}^{A_nB_n}$)

193: has type $q$ (i.e. $\forall x, |\{c_j=x\}|=nq_x$).  By

194: error $<\epsilon$, we mean that for any $c^n\in\cC$,

195: $\bra{\psi_{c^n}}(I\otimes D_{c})\ket{\psi_{c^n}} > 1-\epsilon$.

196: 

197: Using Neumark's Theorem\cite{Peres93}, Bob can make his decoding POVM into

198: a unitary operation $U_D$ defined by $U_D\ket{0}\ket{\phi} = \sum_{c^n}

199: \ket{c^n} \sqrt{D_{c^n}}\ket{\phi}$.  Applying this to his half of a

200: codeword $\ket{\psi_{c^n}}$ will

201: yield a state within $\epsilon$ of $\ket{c^n}\ket{\psi_{c^n}}$, since

202: measurements with nearly certain outcomes cause almost no

203: disturbance\cite{Winter99}.

204: 

205: The communication strategy begins by applying $U_\cE$ to

206: $\ket{c^n}_{X_A}$ to obtain $\ket{c^n}^{X_A}\ket{\psi_{c^n}}^{AB}$.

207: Bob then decodes unitarily with $U_D$ to yield a state within

208: $\epsilon$ of $\ket{c^n}^{X_A}\ket{c^n}^{X_B}\ket{\psi_{c^n}}^{AB}$.

209: Since $c^n$ is of type $q$, Alice and Bob can coherently permute the

210: states of $\ket{\psi_{c^n}}$ to obtain a state within $\epsilon$ of

211: $\ket{c^n}_{X_A}\ket{c^n}_{X_B}\ket{\psi_1}^{\otimes nq_1}\cdots

212: \ket{\psi_{|\cX|}}^{\otimes nq_{|\cX|}}$.  Then they can apply

213: entanglement concentration\cite{BBPS96} to $\ket{\psi_1}^{\otimes

214: nq_1}\cdots \ket{\psi_{|\cX|}}^{\otimes nq_{|\cX|}}$ to obtain

215: $\approx nH(B|X_A)_\cE$ ebits without disturbing the coherent message

216: $\ket{c^n}_{X_A}\ket{c}_{X_B}$.

217: \end{proof}

218: This will be partially superseded by the full proof of \thm{bidi-ccc}.

219: However, it is worth appreciating the 

220: key ideas of the proof---making measurements coherent via Neumark's

221: Theorem and finding a way to decouple ancillas shared by Alice and

222: Bob---as they will appear again in the later proofs, but surrounded by

223: more mathematical details.

224: 

225: There are many cases in which no ancillas are produced, so we do not

226: need the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:HSW} that communication 

227:  occurs in large blocks.  For example, a {\sc cnot} can

228: transmit one coherent bit from Alice to Bob or one coherent bit from

229: Bob to Alice.  Recall the protocol given in \eq{e-asstd-cnot} for

230: $\cnot + \qq\reduction \ctc+\cbc$:

231: $ (Z^aH\otimes I)\textsc{cnot}(X^a\otimes Z^b)\ket{\Phi_2}^{AB} =

232: \ket{b}^A\ket{a}^B$. 

233: This can be made coherent by conditioning

234: the encoding on a quantum register $\ket{a}^{A'}\ket{b}^{B'}$, so that

235: %

236: \be\textsc{cnot} + \qq \reduction \cof + \cob

237: \label{eq:CNOT-power1}\ee

238: 

239: \section{Rules for using coherent classical communication}

240: \label{sec:ccc-use}

241: 

242: By discarding her state after sending it, Alice can convert coherent

243: communication into classical communication, so

244: $\cof\geqslant \ctc$.  Alice can also generate entanglement by

245: inputting a superposition of messages (as in \prop{U-CgE}), so

246: $\cof\geqslant \qq$.  The true power of coherent

247: communication comes from performing both tasks---classical communication

248: and entanglement generation---simultaneously.  This is possible

249: whenever the classical message sent is coherently decoupled,

250: i.e. random and nearly independent 

251: of the other states at the end of the protocol.

252: 

253: Teleportation \cite{BBCJPW98} satisfies these conditions, and indeed a

254: coherent version has already been proposed in \cite{BBC98}.  Given an

255: unknown quantum state $\ket{\psi}^{A}$ and an EPR pair

256: $\ket{\Phi_2}^{AB}$, Alice begins coherent teleportation not by a Bell

257: measurement on her two qubits but by unitarily rotating the Bell basis

258: into the computational basis via a {\sc CNOT} and Hadamard gate.  This

259: yields the state $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}\ket{ij}^AX^iZ^j\ket{\psi}^B$.

260: Using two coherent bits, Alice can send Bob a copy of her register to

261: obtain $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}\ket{ij}^A\ket{ij}^BX^iZ^j\ket{\psi}^B$.

262: Bob's decoding step can now be made unitary, leaving the state

263: $(\ket{\Phi_2}^{AB})^{\otimes 2}\ket{\psi}^B$.  In terms of resources,

264: this can be summarized as: $2\cof + \qq \reduction \qtq + 2\qq$.

265: Canceling the ebits on both sides (possible since $\cof\geq \qq$) gives

266: $2\cof \geq \qtq + \qq$.

267: Combining this relation with \eq{SDC-cc} yields the

268: equality\footnote{Our use of the Cancellation Lemma means that this

269: equality is only asymptotically valid.  \mscite{vanEnk05} proves a

270: single-shot version of this equality, but it requires that the two

271: cobits be applied in series, with local unitary operations in between.}

272: %

273: \be 2\cof = \qtq + \qq\label{eq:cc-equality}.\ee

274: %

275: This has two important implications.  First, teleportation and

276: super-dense coding are reversible so long as all of the classical

277: communication is left coherent.  Second, cobits are equivalent, as

278: resources, to the existing resources of qubits and ebits.  This means

279: that we don't need to calculate quantities such as the cobit capacity

280: of a quantum channel; coherent communication introduces a new tool for

281: solving old problems in quantum Shannon theory, and is not directly a

282: source of new problems.

283: 

284: Another protocol that can be made coherent is Gottesman's

285: method\cite{Got98} for simulating a distributed CNOT using one

286: ebit and one cbit in either direction.  At first

287: glance, this appears completely irreversible, since a CNOT can be used

288: to send one cbit forward or backwards, or to create one ebit, but no

289: more than one of these at a time.

290: 

291: Using coherent bits as inputs, though, allows the recovery of 2 ebits

292: at the end of the protocol, so $\cof + \cob + \qq \reduction

293: \<\cnot\> + 2\qq$, or using entanglement catalytically,

294: $\cof + \cob \geq \<\cnot\> + \qq$.  Combined with

295: \eq{e-asstd-cnot}, this yields another equality:

296: $$\<\cnot\>+\qq = \cof + \cob.$$

297: Another useful bipartite unitary gate is \textsc{swap}, which we

298: recall is equivalent to $\qtq + \qbq$.  Applying

299: \eq{cc-equality} then yields

300: $$2\<\cnot\>=1\<\swap\>$$

301: which explains the similar communication and entanglement capacities

302: for these gates found in the last chapter.  Previously, the most efficient

303: methods known to transform between these gates gave $3\<\cnot\>\geq

304: 1\<\swap\> \geq 1\<\cnot\>$.

305: 

306: A similar argument can be applied to \dcnot.  Since $\<\dcnot\> + 2\qq

307: \geq 2\ctc + 2\cbc$, it follows (from \thm{bidi-ccc} or direct

308: examination) that $\<\dcnot\> + 2\qq \geq 2\cof + 2\cob$ and

309: that $\<\dcnot\> \geq \qtq + \qbq = \<\swap\>$.  Combining

310: this with \prop{U-TP-bound}, we find that $\<\dcnot\>=\<\swap\>$,

311: a surprising fact in light of the observation of \cite{HVC02} that

312: \dcnot\ is easier for some nonlocal Hamiltonians to simulate than

313: \swap.  In fact, by the same argument, any gate in $\cU_{d\times d}$

314: with $C_+^E(U)=4\log d$ must be equivalent to the $d\times d$ \swap\

315: gate.

316: 

317: The above examples give the flavor of when classical communication can

318: be replaced by coherent communication (i.e. ``made coherent.'')  In

319: general, we require that the classical message be (almost) uniformly

320: random and (almost) coherently decoupled from all other systems,

321: including the environment.  This leads us to two general rules regarding making

322: classical communication coherent.  When coherently-decoupled cbits are

323: in the input to a protocol, Rule I (``input'') says that replacing them with

324: cobits not only performs the protocol, but also has the side 

325: effect of generating entanglement.  Rule O (``output'') is simpler; it

326: says that if a protocol outputs coherently-decoupled cbits, then it

327: can be modified to instead output cobits.  

328: Once coherently decoupled cbits are replaced

329: with cobits we can then use \eq{cc-equality} to in turn replace

330: cobits with qubits and ebits.  Thus, while cobits are conceptually

331: useful, we generally start and finish with protocols involving the

332: standard resources of cbits, ebits and qubits.

333: 

334: Below we give formal statements of rules I and O, deferring their

335: proofs till the end of the chapter.

336: %We shall be working in the CP picture.

337: 

338: \begin{theorem}[Rule I]

339: If, for some quantum resources $\alpha, \beta \in {\cR}$,

340: $$

341: \alpha + R \, [c \rightarrow c : \tau] \geq \beta 

342: $$

343: and the classical resource $ R \, \ctctau$ is 

344: coherently decoupled  then

345: $$

346: \alpha + \frac{R}{2} \,[q \rightarrow q] \geq \beta + \frac{R}{2} \,[q \, q].

347: $$

348: \end{theorem}

349: 

350: {\bf Remark:} This can be thought of as a coherent version of

351: \lem{rcr}.

352: 

353: The idea behind the proof is that replacing $R [c\ra

354: c:\tau]$ with $R \coftau$ then gives an extra output of $R\qq$,

355: implying that $\alpha + R\coftau \geq \beta + R\qq$.  Then $\coftau$

356: can be replaced by $\half(\qtq + \qq)$ using \eq{cc-equality} and

357: \lem{noo}.  To prove this rigorously will require carefully accounting

358: for the errors, which we will do in \sect{ccc-proofs}.

359: 

360: \begin{theorem}[Rule O]

361: If, for some quantum resources $\alpha, \beta \in {\cR}$, 

362: $$

363: \alpha  \geq \beta + R \,[c \rightarrow c]

364: $$

365: and the classical resource is 

366: decoupled with respect to the RI then 

367: $$

368: \alpha  \geq \beta + \frac{R}{2} \, [q \, q] +  

369: \frac{R}{2} \, [q \rightarrow q].

370: $$

371: \end{theorem}

372: 

373: Here the proof is even simpler: $R\ctc$ in the output is replaced with

374: $R\cof$, which is equivalent to $\frac{R}{2}(\qtq+\qq)$.  Again, the

375: details are given in \sect{ccc-proofs}.

376: 

377: In the next chapter, we will show how Rules I and O can be used to

378: obtain a family of optimal protocols (and trade-off curves) for

379: generating cbits, ebits and qubits from noisy channels and states.

380: First, we show a simpler example of how a protocol can be made

381: coherent in the next section.

382: 

383: \section{Applications to remote state preparation and unitary gate

384: capacities}

385: %\sect{Coherent remote state preparation}

386: \label{sec:ccc-apps}

387: \subsection{Remote state preparation}

388: Remote state preparation (RSP) is the task of simulating a $\{c\ra

389: q\}$ channel, usually using cbits and ebits.  In this section, we show

390: how RSP can be made coherent, not only by applying Rule I to the input

391: cbits, but also by replacing the $\{c\ra q\}$ channel by a coherent

392: version that will preserve superpositions of inputs.  Finally, we will

393: use this coherent version of RSP to derive the capacity of a unitary

394: gate to send a classical message from Alice to Bob while

395: using/creating an arbitrary amount of entanglement.

396: 

397: Begin by recalling from \sect{known} our definition of RSP.  Let

398: $\cE=\sum_i p_i \oprod{i}^{X_A} \ot \oprod{\psi_i}^{AB}$ be an 

399: ensemble of bipartite states and  $\cN_\cE:\oprod{i}^{X_A}

400: \ra \oprod{i}^{X_A} \ot \oprod{\psi_i}^{AB}$ the $\{c\ra q\}$ channel

401: such that $\cN(\cE^{X_A}) = \cE$.  The main coding theorem of

402: RSP\cite{BHLSW03} states that

403: \be

404: I(X_A ; B)_\cE [c\ra c] + H(B)_\cE \qq \geq \<\cN_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>.

405: \label{eq:RSP2}\ee

406: 

407: We will show that the input cbits in \eq{RSP2} are coherently

408: decoupled, so that according to Rule I, replacing them with cobits

409: will perform the protocol and return some entanglement at the same

410: time.  This reduces the entanglement cost to $H(B) - I(X_A;B) =

411: H(B|X_A)$, so that

412: \be

413: I({X_A}:B)_\cE \cof + H(B|X_A)_\cE \qq \geq \<\cN_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>.

414: \label{eq:cobit-rsp}\ee

415: In fact, we can prove an even stronger statement, in which not only is

416: the input coherently 

417: decoupled, but there is a sense in which the output is as well.

418: Define a coherent analogue of $\cN_\cE$, which we call $U_\cE$, by

419: \be U_\cE = \sum_i \oprod{i}^{X_A} \ot \ket{\psi_i}^{AB}.\ee

420: We also replace the QP ensemble $\cE$ with the (PP formalism) pure

421: state $\ket{\cE}$ given by

422: \be \ket{\cE} = \sum_i \sqrt{p_i} \ket{i}^R \ket{i}^{X_A}

423: \ket{\psi_i}^{AB}.\ee

424: We will prove that

425: \be

426: I({X_A}:B)_\cE \cof + H(B|X_A)_\cE \qq \geq \<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>.

427: \label{eq:coherent-rsp}\ee

428: Since $\<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\> \geq \<\cN_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>$, this

429: RI implies \eq{cobit-rsp}; in particular, the presence of

430: the reference system $R$ ensures that $\cE^{X_A}$ is the same in both

431: cases, even if the $\ket{\psi_i}$ are not all orthogonal.

432: Proving \eq{coherent-rsp} will require careful examination of the

433: protocol from \cite{BHLSW03}, so we defer the details until

434: \sect{ccc-proofs}.

435: 

436: {\bf Remark:} An interesting special case is when $H(A)_\cE=0$, so

437: that Alice is preparing pure states in Bob's lab rather than entangled

438: states.  In this case, $H(B|X_A)_\cE=0$ and \eq{cobit-rsp} becomes

439: simply

440: \be H(B)_\cE \cof \geq \<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>.\ee

441: Thus, if we say (following \cite{BHLSW03}) that \eq{RSP2} means that

442: ``1 cbit + 1 ebit $\geq$ 1 

443: remote qubit,'' then \eq{cobit-rsp} means that ``1 cobit $\geq$ 1

444: remote qubit.''  Here ``$n$ remote qubits'' mean the ability of Alice

445: to prepare an $n$-qubit state of her choice in Bob's lab, though we

446: cannot readily define an asymptotic resource corresponding to this

447: ability, since it would violate the quasi-i.i.d. condition

448: (\eq{asy-quasi-iid}).  Despite not being

449: formally defined as a resource, we can 

450: think of remote qubits as intermediate in strength between qubits and

451: cbits, just as cobits are; i.e. 1 qubit $\geq$ 1 remote qubit $\geq$ 1

452: cbit.  As resources intermediate between qubits and cbits, remote

453: qubits and cobits have complementary 

454: attributes: remote qubits share with qubits the ability to transmit

455: arbitrary pure states, though they cannot create entanglement, while

456: cobits can generate entanglement, but at first glance appear to only

457: be able to faithfully transmit the computational basis states to Bob.

458: Thus it is interesting that in fact 1 cobit $\geq$ 1 remote

459: qubit, and that (due to \cite{BHLSW03}) this map is optimal.

460: 

461: \eq{cobit-rsp} yields two other useful corollaries, which we state

462: in the informal language of remote qubits.

463: 

464: \begin{corollary}[RSP capacity of unitary gates]

465: If $U$ is a unitary gate or isometry with

466:  $\<U\>\geq C \ctc$  then $\<U\>\geq C \rqbsf$.

467: \end{corollary}

468: 

469: \begin{corollary}

470: {\bf (Super-dense coding of quantum states)}

471: \label{cor:sddc}

472: $\qtq + \qq \geq 2 \rqbsf$

473: \end{corollary}

474: More formally, we could say that if

475:  $H(B)_\cE \leq C$  for an ensemble $\cE$, then $\<U\> \geq \<U_\cE

476:  : \cE^{X_A}\>$, and similarly for \cor{sddc}.  We can also express

477:  \cor{sddc} entirely in terms of standard resources as

478: \be \half I(X_A ; B)_\cE \qtq  + \l(H(B)_\cE - \half I(X_A ; B)_\cE\r)

479:  \qq \geq \<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>.\ee

480: Though this last expression is not particularly attractive, it turns

481: out to be optimal, and in fact to give rise to optimal trade-offs for

482: performing RSP with the three resources of cbits, ebits and

483: qubits\cite{AH03} (see also \cite{AHSW04} for a single-shot version of

484: the coding theorem).  We will find this pattern repeated many times in

485: the next chapter; by making existing protocols coherent and using

486: basic information-theoretic inequalities, we obtain a series of

487: optimal tradeoff curves.

488: 

489: Corollary~\ref{cor:sddc} was first proven directly in \cite{HHL03}

490: (see also \cite{AHSW04}) and

491: in fact, finding an alternate proof was the original motivation for

492: the idea of coherent classical communication.

493: 

494: {\em Coherent RSP:} Now, we explore the consequences of the stronger

495: version of coherent RSP in \eq{coherent-rsp}.  Just as RSP and HSW

496: coding reverse one another given free entanglement, coherent RSP

497: (\eq{coherent-rsp}) and coherent HSW coding (\lem{HSW}) reverse each

498: other, even taking entanglement into account.  Combining them gives

499: the powerful equality

500: \be

501: I({X_A}:B)_\cE \cof + H(B|X_A) \qq = \<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>,

502: \label{eq:coh-RSP-HSW}\ee

503: which improves the original RSP-HSW duality in \eq{RSP-HSW-eq} by

504: eliminating the need for free 

505: entanglement.   This remarkable statement simultaneously implies

506: entanglement concentration, entanglement dilution, the HSW theorem and

507: remote state preparation and super-dense coding of entangled

508: states.\footnote{On the other hand, we had to use almost all of these

509: statements in order to prove the result!  Still it is nice to see them

510: all unified in a single powerful equation.  Also, recent work by

511: Devetak\cite{Devetak05a} further generalizes the equalities that can

512: be stated about isometries from $A$ to $AB$.}  

513: 

514: \subsection{One-way classical capacities of unitary gates}

515: \label{sec:U-Ce-cap}

516: Here we will use \eq{coh-RSP-HSW} to determine the 

517: capacity of a unitary gate $V$ to simultaneously send a classical message

518: and generate or consume entanglement at any finite rate.  The proof idea is

519: similar to one in \thm{U-CE-cap}; we will use the equivalence between

520: (coherent) ensembles and standard resources (cobits and ebits) to turn

521: a one-shot improvement in mutual information and expected entanglement

522: into an asymptotically efficient protocol.  Now that we have an

523: improved version of the duality between RSP and HSW coding, we obtain

524: a precise accounting of the amount of entanglement generated/consumed.

525: 

526: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:Ce-cap}

527: Define $\CE(V) := \{(C,E) : (C,0,E)\in\CCE(V)\}$ and 

528: \be \Delta_{I,E}(V) := \l\{ (C,E) : \exists \cE \st

529: I(X_A ; B)_{V(\cE)} - I(X_A ; B)_{\cE} \geq C

530: \text{ and }

531: H(B|X_A)_{V(\cE)} - H(B|X_A)_{\cE} \geq E\r\},\ee

532: where $\cE$ is an ensemble of bipartite pure states in $AB$ conditioned on a

533: classical register $X_A$.

534: 

535: Then $\CE(V)$ is equal to the closure of $\Delta_{I,E}(V)$.

536: \end{theorem}

537: Thus the asymptotic capacity using $-E$ ebits of assistance per use of

538: $V$ (or simultaneously outputting $E$ ebits) equals the largest

539: increase in mutual information possible with one use of $V$ if the

540: average entanglement decreases by no more than $-E$.  \thm{U-CE-cap}

541: proved this for $E=-\infty$ and our proof here is quite similar.  Note that

542: the statement of the theorem is the same whether we consider QP

543: ensembles $\cE$ or PP ensembles $\ket{\cE}$, though the proof

544: will use the coherent version of RSP in \eq{coherent-rsp}.

545: 

546: \begin{proof}

547: {\em  Coding theorem:}

548: Suppose there exists an ensemble $\cE$ with 

549: $C = I(X_A ; B)_{V(\cE)} - I(X_A ; B)_{\cE}$ and 

550: $E = H(B|X_A)_{V(\cE)} - H(B|X_A)_{\cE}$.

551: Then

552: %

553: \ben

554: \<V\> + \<U_\cE\> &\geq& \<U_{V(\cE)}\> \non\\

555: &\geq & I(X_A ; B)_{V(\cE)} \cof + H(B|X_A)_{V(\cE)} \qq

556: %\label{eq:CeU-HSW}

557: \\ &\geq & 

558:  \l(I(X_A ; B)_{V(\cE)} - I(X_A ; B)_{\cE}\r)\cof +

559: \l(H(B|X_A)_{V(\cE)} - H(B|X_A)_{\cE}\r)\qq + \,\<U_\cE\>

560: %\label{eq:CeU-RSP}

561: \een

562: Here the second RI used coherent HSW coding (Lemma~\ref{lemma:HSW}) and

563: the third RI used

564: coherent RSP (\eq{coherent-rsp}).  We now use the Cancellation Lemma

565: to show that 

566: $\<V\> \geq C\cof + E\qq$, implying that $(C,0,E)\in\CCE(V)$.

567: 

568: {\em Converse:}

569: We will actually prove a stronger result, in which Bob is allowed

570: unlimited classical communication to Alice.  Thus, we will show that

571: if $\<V\> + \infty \cbc \geq C \ctc + E \qq$, then there is a sequence

572: of ensembles $\{\tilde{\cE}_n\}$ with $(I(X_A ; B)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

573: - I(X_A ; B)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}, H(B|X_A)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)} -

574: H(B|X_A)_{\tilde{\cE}_n})$ converging to $(C,E)$ as $n\ra\infty$.

575: This will imply that $(C,E)$ is in the closure of $\Delta_{I,E}(V)$.

576: 

577: Let $Y:=Y_AY_B$ the cumulative record of all of Bob's classical

578: messages to Alice.  Using the QP formalism, we 

579: assume without loss of generality that Bob always transmits his full

580: measurement outcome (cf.~Section III of \cite{HL02}) so that Alice

581: and Bob always hold a pure state 

582: conditioned on $X_AY$; i.e. $H(AB|X_AY)=0$ and $H(A|X_AY)=H(B|X_AY) =

583: I(A\> BX_AY) = I(B \> AX_AY)$.  

584: 

585: First consider the case when $E>0$.  Fix a protocol which uses $V$ $n$

586: times to communicate $\geq n(C-\delta')$ bits and create $\geq

587: n(E-\delta')$ ebits with error $\leq \epsilon$.  They start with a

588: product state $\cE_0$ for which $I(X_A ; B)_{\cE_0}=0$ and $H(B |

589: X_A)_{\cE_0}=0$.  Denote their state immediately after $j$ uses of $V$

590: by ${\cE_j}$. (Without loss of generality, we assume that the $n$ uses

591: of $V$ are applied serially.)  Then by \lem{fano}, $I(X_A;B)_{\cE_n}

592: \geq n(C-\delta)$ and $H(B|X_AY)_{\cE_n} \geq n(E-\delta)$ where

593: $\delta=O(\delta+\epsilon)\ra 0$ as $n\ra \infty$.

594: 

595: Now define the ensemble $\tilde{\cE}_n=\smfrac{1}{n}

596: \sum_{j=1}^{n} \oprod{jj}^{Z_AZ_B} \ot V^\dag(\cE_j^{ABX_AY_AY_B})$.  We

597: think of $\hat{X}:=X_AY_AZ_A$ as the message variable and $\hat{B}:=

598: BY_BZ_B$ as representing Bob's system.  We will prove that

599: $I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

600: - I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{\tilde{\cE}_n} \geq C-\delta$ and that

601: $H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)} -

602: H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{\tilde{\cE}_n} \geq E-\delta$.

603: 

604: First consider the change in mutual information.  Since $Y_A=Y_B$ and

605: $Z_A=Z_B$ (as random variables), $I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{\tilde{\cE}_n}

606: = I(X_AY_AZ_A ; BY_BZ_B)_{\tilde{\cE}_n} = I(X_A ; B |

607: YZ)_{\tilde{\cE}_n} + H(YZ)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}$ and similarly when we

608: replace $\tilde{\cE}_n$ with $V(\tilde{\cE}_n)$.  Since $V$ doesn't

609: act on $Y$ or $Z$, we have 

610: $H(YZ)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}=H(YZ)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}$ and thus

611: \be\begin{split} I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

612: &- I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{\tilde{\cE}_n}

613: = I(X_A ; B | YZ)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

614: - I(X_A ; B | YZ)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}

615: \\&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n I(X_A ; B | Y)_{\cE_{j}} - 

616: I(X_A ; B | Y)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)}

617: \\&= \frac{1}{n}\l(I(X_A ; B | Y)_{\cE_n} - I(X_A ; B | Y)_{\cE_0}\r)

618: + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\l(I(X_A ; B | Y)_{\cE_{j-1}} - 

619: I(X_A ; B | Y)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)}\r)

620: \\&\geq C - \delta

621: + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\l(I(X_A ; B | Y)_{\cE_{j-1}} - 

622: I(X_A ; B | Y)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)}\r)

623: \end{split}\ee

624: Recall that going from $\cE_{j-1}$ to $V^\dag(\cE_j)$ involves local

625: unitaries, a measurement by Bob and classical communication of the

626: outcome from Bob to Alice.  We claim that $I(X_A;B|Y)$ does not

627: increase under this process, meaning that the 

628: expression inside the sum on the last line is always nonnegative and

629: that $I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

630: - I(\hat{X} ; \hat{B})_{\tilde{\cE}_n}\geq C-\delta$, implying our

631: desired conclusion.  To prove this,

632: write $I(X_A;B|Y)$ as $I(X_A;BY) - I(X_A;Y)$.  The $I(X_A;BY)$ term is

633: nonincreasing due to the data-processing inequality\cite{SN96}, while

634: $I(X_A;Y)$ can only increase since each round of communication only

635: causes $Y$ to grow.

636: 

637: Now we examine the change in entanglement.

638: \be\begin{split} H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

639: -& H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{\tilde{\cE}_n} = 

640: H(BY_BZ_B | X_AY_AZ_A)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

641: - H(BY_BZ_B | X_AY_AZ_A)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}

642: \\&=H(B | X_AYZ)_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

643: - H(B | X_AYZ)_{\tilde{\cE}_n}

644: \\&= \frac{1}{n}\l(H(B|X_AY)_{\cE_n} - H(B|X_AY)_{\cE_0}\r)

645:  + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n

646: \l(H(B|X_AY)_{\cE_{j-1}} - H(B|X_AY)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)}\r)

647: \\ &\geq E - \delta

648:  + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n

649: \l(H(B|X_AY)_{\cE_{j-1}} - H(B|X_AY)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)}\r)

650: \end{split}\ee

651:  We would like to show that this last term is positive, or

652: equivalently that $H(B|X_AY)$ is at least as large for $\cE_{j-1}$ as

653: it is for $V^\dag(\cE_j)$.  This change from $\cE_{j-1}$ to

654: $V^\dag(\cE_j)$ involves local unitaries, a measurement by Bob and

655: another classical message from Bob to Alice, 

656: which we call $Y_j$.  Also, call the first $j-1$ messages $Y^{j-1}$.

657: Thus, we would like to show that $H(B|X_AY^{j-1})_{\cE_{j-1}} -

658: H(B|X_AY^{j-1}Y_j)_{V^\dag(\cE_j)} \geq 0$.  This can be expressed as an

659: average over $H(B)_{\cE_{j-1|x,y^{j-1}}} -

660: H(B|Y_j)_{V^\dag(\cE_{j|x,y^{j-1}})}$, where $\cE_{j-1|x,y^{j-1}}$

661: indicates that we have conditioned $\cE_{j-1}$ on $X_A=x$ and

662: $Y^{j-1}=y^{j-1}$.  This last quantity is positive 

663: because of principle that the average entropy of states output from a

664: projective measurement is no greater than the entropy of the

665: original state\cite{Nielsen99a}.  Thus $H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{V(\tilde{\cE}_n)}

666: - H(\hat{B}|\hat{X})_{\tilde{\cE}_n} \geq E-\delta$.

667: 

668: As $n\ra \infty$, $\delta\ra 0$, proving the theorem.

669: 

670: The case when $E\leq 0$ is similar.  We now begin with

671: $H(B|X_AY_A)_{\cE_0} \leq n(-E+\delta) = -n(E-\delta)$ and since $X_A$

672: and $Y$ are classical registers, finish with

673: $H(B|X_AY_A)_{\cE_n} \geq 0$.  Thus $H(B|X_AY_A)_{\cE_n} -

674: H(B|X_AY_A)_{\cE_0} \geq n(E-\delta)$.  The rest of the proof is the

675: same as the $E>0$ case.

676: \end{proof}

677: 

678: \subsection{Two-way cbit, cobit, qubit and ebit capacities of unitary

679: gates}

680: \label{sec:u-bidi-caps}

681: So far we have two powerful results about unitary gate capacity

682: regions: \thm{bidi-ccc} relates $\CCE$ and $\CoCoE$ in the

683: $C_1,C_2\geq 0$ quadrant and \thm{Ce-cap} gives an expression for

684: $\CE(U)$ in terms of a single use of $U$.  Moreover, the proof of

685: \thm{Ce-cap} also showed that backwards classical communication cannot

686: improve the forward capacity of a unitary gate.  This allows us to

687: extend \thm{bidi-ccc} to $C_1 \leq 0$ or $C_2 \leq 0$ as follows:

688: 

689: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:bidi-nnn}

690: For arbitrary real numbers $C_1,C_2,E$, 

691: \be

692:   (C_1,C_2,E) \in \CCE  \Longleftrightarrow

693: 		(C_1,C_2,E{-}\min(C_1,0){-}\min(C_2,0)) \in 

694: 	{\CoCoE} \,. 

695: \label{eq:thm12}\ee

696: \end{theorem}

697: 

698: This theorem is a direct consequence of the following Lemma, which

699: enumerates the relevant quadrants of the $(C_1,C_2)$ plane.

700: 

701: \begin{lemma}

702: For any bipartite unitary or isometry $U$ and $C_1,C_2 \geq 0$, 

703: \bea 

704: 	C_2 \cbc + \<U\> & \geqslant & C_1 \ctc + E \qq

705: 	\quad \quad {\rm iff}

706: \label{eq:1locc} 

707: \\

708: 	\<U\> & \geqslant & C_1 \ctc + E \qq

709: 	\quad \quad {\rm iff}

710: \label{eq:celo}

711: \\

712: 	\<U\> & \geqslant & C_1 \cof + E \qq 

713: 	\quad \quad {\rm iff}

714: \label{eq:ccelo}

715: \\

716: 	C_2 \cob + \<U\> & \geqslant & C_1 \cof + (E{+}C_2) \qq

717: \label{eq:1loccc} 

718: \eea

719: %

720: and

721: %

722: \bea 

723: 	C_1 \ctc + C_2 \cbc + \<U\> & \geqslant & E \qq 

724: 	\quad {\rm iff}

725: \label{eq:2locc} 

726: \\

727: 	\<U\> & \geqslant & E \qq 

728: 	\quad {\rm iff}

729: \label{eq:elo}

730: \\

731: 	C_1 \cof + C_2 \cob + \<U\> & \geqslant & (E{+}C_1{+}C_2) \qq 

732: \label{eq:2loccc} 

733: \eea

734: \end{lemma}

735: 

736: Basically, the rate at which Alice can send Bob cbits while

737: consuming/generating ebits is not increased by (coherent) classical

738: communication from Bob to Alice, except for a trivial gain of

739: entanglement when the assisting classical communication is coherent.

740: 

741: \begin{proof}

742: Combining (TP) and coherent SD (\eq{SDC-cc}) yields $2\ctc + \qq +

743: \qtq + \qq \reduction \qtq + 2\cof$.  Canceling the $\qtq$ from both sides

744: and dividing by two gives us

745: % 

746: \be

747: 	\ctc +  \qq \geqslant  \cof \,.

748: \label{eq:tp-sd}

749: \ee

750: 

751: For the first part of the lemma, recall from the proof of

752: \thm{Ce-cap} that free backcommunication does not improve the forward

753: capacity of a gate.  This means that \eq{1locc} $\Rightarrow$

754: \eq{celo}.  We obtain \eq{celo} $\Leftrightarrow$ \eq{ccelo} from

755: \thm{bidi-ccc} and \eq{ccelo} $\Rightarrow$ \eq{1loccc} follows from

756: $\cof\geq\qq$ and composability (\thm{composability}).  Finally,

757: \eq{1loccc} $\Rightarrow$ \eq{1locc} because of \eq{tp-sd}.

758: 

759: For the second part of the theorem, \eq{2locc} $\Rightarrow$ \eq{elo}

760: follows from \thm{U-E-cap}, \eq{elo} $\Rightarrow$ \eq{2loccc} is

761: trivial and \eq{2loccc} $\Rightarrow$ \eq{2locc} is a consequence of

762: \eq{tp-sd}.

763: \end{proof}

764: 

765: {\em Quantum capacities of unitary gates:} These techniques also allow

766: us to determine the quantum capacities of unitary gates.  Define $\QQE$

767: to be the region $\{(Q_1,Q_2,E): U \geqslant Q_1 \qtq

768:  + Q_2 \qbq +E \qq\}$, corresponding to two-way quantum

769: communication.  We can also consider coherent classical communication

770: in one direction and quantum communication in the other; let $\QCoE$ be

771: the region $\{(Q_1,C_2,E) : U \geqslant Q_1 \qtq + C_2\cob

772: +E \qq\}$ and define $\CoQE$ similarly.

773: 

774: As a warmup, we can use the equality $2\cof = \qtq + \qq$ to relate

775: % 

776: C$\!_{\rm o}\!$E and QE, defined as 

777: % 

778: ${\rm C}\!_{\rm o}\!{\rm E}=\{(C,E) : (C,0,E)\in {\CoCoE} \}$ and 

779: % 

780: $\QE=\{(Q,E) : (Q,0,E)\in \QQE\}$.  We claim that

781: % 

782: \be

783:  (Q,E)\in\QE \Leftrightarrow (2Q, E-Q)\in {\rm C}\!_{\rm o}\!{\rm E} \,.

784: \label{eq:one-way-toff}

785: \ee

786: % 

787: To prove \eq{one-way-toff}, choose any $(Q,E)\in\QE$.  

788: % 

789: Then $\<U\> \geq Q \qtq + E\qq = 2Q \cof + (E-Q)\qq$, so 

790: % 

791: $(2Q, E-Q)\in {\rm C}\!_{\rm o}\!{\rm E}$.  Conversely, if

792: $(2Q,E-Q)\in {\rm C}\!_{\rm o}\!{\rm E}$, then 

793: $U\geq 2Q \cof + (E-Q)\qq = Q \qtq + E \qq$, so $(Q,E)\in \QE$.

794: 

795: Note that the above argument still works if we add the same resource,

796: such as $Q_2\qbq$, to the right hand side of each resource inequality.

797: Therefore, the same argument that proved \eq{one-way-toff} also

798: establishes the following equivalences for bidirectional rate regions:

799: % 

800: \be

801: \begin{array}{ccc}

802: (Q_1,Q_2,E)\in\QQE & \Longleftrightarrow & (2Q_1, Q_2, E-Q_1) \in{\CoQE} 

803: \\[2ex] \Updownarrow & & \Updownarrow

804: \\[2ex] (Q_1,2Q_2, E-Q_2) \in {\QCoE} & \Longleftrightarrow & 

805: 	(2Q_1,2Q_2,E-Q_1-Q_2)\in {\CoCoE}

806: \end{array} .

807: \ee

808: % 

809: Finally, \eq{thm12} further relates QQE, QCE, CQE, CCE, where QCE and

810: CQE are defined similarly to $\QCoE$ and $\CoQE$ but with incoherent

811: classical communication instead.

812: 

813: Thus once one of the capacity regions (say $\CoCoE$) is determined, all 

814: other capacity regions discussed above are determined.  The main open

815: problem that remains is to find an efficiently computable expression

816: for part of this capacity region.  \thm{Ce-cap} gives a formula for

817: the one-way cbit/ebit tradeoff that involves only a single use of the

818: unitary gate, but we still need upper bounds on the optimal ensemble

819: size and ancilla dimension for it to be practical.

820: 

821: \section{Collected proofs}

822: \label{sec:ccc-proofs}

823: In this section we give proofs that various protocols can be made

824: coherent.  We start with Rules I and O (from \sect{ccc-use}), which

825: gave conditions for when coherently decoupled cbits could be replaced

826: by cobits in asymptotic protocols.  Then we show specifically how

827: remote state preparation can be made coherent, proving

828: \eq{coherent-rsp}.  Finally, we show how two-way classical

829: communication from unitary operations can be made coherent, and prove

830:  \thm{bidi-ccc}. 

831: 

832: \subsection{Proof of Rule I}

833: 

834: In what follows we shall fix $\epsilon$ and consider a sufficiently

835: large $n$ so that the protocol is $\epsilon$-valid,

836: $\epsilon^2$-decoupled and accurate to within $\epsilon$.

837: %We also drop the index $n$ for readability.

838:   

839: Whenever the resource inequality features

840: $[c \rightarrow c]$ in the input this means that Alice performs

841: a von Neumann measurement on some subsystem $A_1$ of dimension $D

842: \approx \exp(n(R+\delta))$, 

843: the outcome of which she sends to Bob,

844: who then performs an unitary operation depending on the received information.

845: 

846: Before Alice's von Neumann measurement, the joint state of  $A_1$ and 

847: the remaining quantum system $Q$ is

848: $$

849: \sum_x \sqrt{p_x}\ket{x}^{A_1} \ket{\phi_x}^{Q},

850: $$

851: where by $\epsilon$-validity

852: $$

853: \sum_x |p_x - D^{-1}| \leq \epsilon. 

854: $$

855: Upon learning the measurement outcome $x$, Bob

856: performs some unitary $U_x$ on his part of $Q$, almost decoupling

857: it from $x$:

858: $$

859: \left\|\sum_x p_x \proj{x} \otimes \theta_x' -

860: \sum_x p_x \proj{x} \otimes \bar{\theta}' \right\|_1 

861: = \sum_x p_x  \| \theta_x' - \bar{\theta}'  \|_1 

862: \leq \epsilon^2,

863: $$

864: where $\ket{\theta_x'} = U_x \ket{\phi_x}$ and

865: $\bar{\theta}' = \sum_x p_x \theta_x$.  To simplify the analysis,

866: extend $Q$ to a larger Hilbert space on which there exist

867: purifications $\oprod{\bar{\theta}} \ext \bar{\theta}'$ and 

868: $\oprod{\theta_x} \ext \oprod{\theta_x'}$ such that (according to

869: \lem{purify-dist}) $\|\theta_x-\bar{\theta}\|_1 \leq 2

870: \sqrt{\|\theta_x'-\bar{\theta}'\|_1}$.  Then

871: \be

872: \sum_x p_x  \| \theta_x - \bar{\theta}  \|_1 \leq

873: \sum_x p_x  2\sqrt{\| \theta_x' - \bar{\theta}' \|_1} \leq

874: 2 \sqrt{\sum_x p_x  \| \theta_x' - \bar{\theta}' \|_1} \leq

875: 2\epsilon,\ee

876: where the second inequality uses the concavity of the square root.

877: 

878: If Alice refrains from the measurement and instead sends $A_1$ through

879: a \emph{coherent} channel, using $n(R+\delta)$ cobits, the resulting state is

880: $$

881: \sum_x \sqrt{p_x} \ket{x}^{A_1} \ket{x}^{B_1} \ket{\phi_x}^{Q}.

882: $$

883: Bob now performs the \emph{controlled} unitary 

884: $\sum_x \proj{x}^{B_1} \otimes  U_x$, giving rise to

885: $$

886: \ket{\Upsilon}^{A_1B_1Q} = 

887: \sum_x \sqrt{p_x} \ket{x}^{A_1} \ket{x}^{B_1} \ket{\theta_x}^Q.

888: $$

889: We may assume, w.l.o.g., that $\braket{\bar{\theta}}{\theta_x}$ is real

890: and positive for 

891: all $x$, as this can be accomplished by either Alice or Bob via

892: an $x$-dependent global phase rotation. 

893: 

894: We now claim that $\ket{\Upsilon}^{A_1B_1Q}$ is close to

895: $\ket{\Phi_D}^{A_1B_1} \ket{\bar{\theta}}^Q$.

896: Indeed

897: \be 

898: \bra{\Upsilon} \Gamma\rangle \ket{\bar{\theta}} =

899: \sum_x \sqrt{\frac{p_x}{D}} \braket{\theta_x}{\bar{\theta}}

900: \geq \sum_x \sqrt{\frac{p_x}{D}} 

901: \l(1 - \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1\r), \ee

902: according to \eq{fid-trace}.

903: To bound this, we split the sum into two.

904: For the first term, we apply \eq{fid-trace} to the diagonal density

905: matrices $\sum_x p_x\proj{x}$ and $\sum_x D^{-1}\proj{x}$ to obtain

906: \be \sum_x \sqrt{\frac{p_x}{D}} \geq 1 - \frac{1}{2} \sum_x |p_x -

907: D^{-1}| \geq 1-\frac{\epsilon}{2} \ee

908: The second term is

909: \ben \sum_x \sqrt{\frac{p_x}{D}} \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1

910:  &=& \sum_x \frac{1}{2}\l[p_x + \frac{1}{D} -

911: \bigl(\sqrt{p_x}-\sqrt{1/D}\bigr)^2\r]

912:  \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1 \\

913: &\leq & \sum_x \frac{1}{2}\l(p_x + \frac{1}{D}\r)

914:  \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1

915: \leq \sum_x \frac{1}{2}\l(2p_x + \l|p_x - \frac{1}{D}\r|\r)

916:  \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1

917: \\ &\leq &\sum_x p_x  \frac{1}{2}\| \theta_x - \theta \|_1

918: + \sum_x \l|p_x - \frac{1}{D}\r| \leq 2\epsilon. \een

919: Putting this together, we find that 

920: $$ \bra{\Upsilon} \Gamma\rangle \ket{\bar{\theta}} \geq 1-3\epsilon $$

921: and  by \eq{fid-trace},

922: $$

923: \|\Upsilon - \Phi_D \otimes \bar{\theta} \|_1 \leq \sqrt{6\epsilon}

924: $$ 

925: Finally, since tracing out subsystems cannot increase trace distance,

926: $$

927: \|\Upsilon^{A_1 B_1} - \Phi_D \|_1 \leq \sqrt{6\epsilon}

928: $$ 

929: Thus, the total effect of replacing cbits

930: cobits is the generation of a state close to

931: $\Phi_D$.  This analysis ignores the fact that the cobits are only

932: given up to an error $\epsilon$.  However, due to the triangle

933: inequality, this only enters in as an

934: additive factor, and the overall error of $\epsilon +

935: \sqrt{6\epsilon}$ is still asymptotically vanishing.  Furthermore,

936: this mapping preserves the $\epsilon$-validity of the original

937: protocol (with respect to the inputs of $\alpha$) since all we have

938: done to Alice's states is to add purifying systems and add phases,

939: which w.l.o.g.~we can assume are applied to these purifying systems.

940: 

941: We have thus shown

942: $$

943: \alpha + R \,\cof \geq \beta + R \,[q \, q].

944: $$

945: \eq{cc-equality} and Lemmas \ref{lemma:noo} and \ref{lemma:cancel}

946: give the desired result

947: $$

948: \alpha + \frac{R}{2} \,[q \rightarrow q] \geq \beta + \frac{R}{2} \,[q \, q].

949: $$

950: \qed\bigskip

951: 

952: %{\tt We should show that the uniformity condition on $p$ may

953: %be relaxed, requiring only  

954: %Using an easy kind of ``homophonic substitution'' \cite{guenther}, we may

955: %relax the uniformity condition  for $p$: it suffices that 

956: %$n^{-1} \log p_x \approx {\rm const.}$ for all $x$.}

957: 

958: \subsection{Proof of Rule O}

959: Again fix $\epsilon$ and consider a sufficiently

960: large $n$ so that the protocol is $\epsilon$-valid,

961: $\epsilon^2$-decoupled and accurate to within $\epsilon$.

962: Now the roles of Alice and Bob are somewhat interchanged.

963: Alice performs a unitary operation depending on the classical

964: message $x$ to be sent and Bob performs a von Neumann measurement on

965: some subsystem $B_1$ which almost always succeeds in reproducing the message.

966: Namely, if  we denote by $p_{x'|x}$ the probability of outcome $x'$ given 

967: Alice's message was $x$ then, for sufficiently large $n$,

968: $$

969: \frac{1}{D} \sum_x p_{x|x} \geq 1 - \epsilon.

970: $$

971: Again $D=\exp(n(R+\delta))$.

972: Before Bob's measurement, the state of $B_1$ and 

973: the remaining quantum system $Q$ is

974: $$

975: \sum_{x'} \sqrt{p_{x'|x}} \ket{x'}^{B_1} \ket{\phi_{xx'}}^{Q}.

976: $$

977: Based on the outcome $x'$ of his measurement, Bob

978: performs some unitary $U_{x'}$ on $Q$, 

979: leaving the state of $Q$ almost decoupled from $xx'$:

980: $$

981: \left\|\sum_{xx'} D^{-1} p_{x'|x} \proj{x} \otimes \proj{x'} \otimes

982: \theta_{xx'}' - \sum_{xx'} D^{-1} p_{x'|x} \proj{x} \otimes \proj{x'} 

983: \otimes \bar{\theta}'\right\|_1 \leq \epsilon^2,

984: $$

985: where $\ket{\theta_{xx'}'} = U_{x'} \ket{\phi_{xx'}}$ and

986: $\bar{\theta}' = D^{-1} \sum_{xx'} p_{x'|x} \theta_{xx'}'$. 

987: Observe, as before, that we can use \lem{purify-dist} to extend $Q$ so

988: that $\bar{\theta}\ext\bar{\theta}'$ and

989: $\theta_{xx'}\ext\theta_{xx'}'$ are pure states,

990: $\braket{\bar{\theta}}{\theta_{xx}}$ is real and positive and

991: $\|\theta_{xx'}-\bar{\theta}\|_1 \leq 

992: 2\sqrt{\|\theta_{xx'}'-\bar{\theta}'\|_1}$.  Again we use the

993: concavity of $x\ra\sqrt{x}$ to bound

994: $$

995: D^{-1}\sum_{x} p_{x|x} \| \theta_{xx} - \bar{\theta}  \|_1 \leq

996: D^{-1}\sum_{xx'} p_{x|x'} \| \theta_{xx'} - \bar{\theta}  \|_1 \leq 2\epsilon.

997: $$

998: 

999: We now modify the protocol so that instead Alice performs

1000: \emph{coherent} communication. Given a subsystem $A_1$ in the

1001: state $\ket{x}^{A_1}$ she  encodes via 

1002: \emph{controlled} unitary operations, yielding 

1003: $$

1004: \ket{x}^{A_1} \sum_{x'} \sqrt{p_{x'|x}} \ket{x'}^{B_1} \ket{\phi_{xx'}}^{Q}.

1005: $$

1006: 

1007: Bob refrains from measuring $B_1$ and instead 

1008: performs the \emph{controlled} unitary 

1009: $\sum_{x'} \proj{x'}^{B_1} \otimes  U_{x'}$, giving rise to

1010: $$

1011: \ket{x}^{A_1}\ket{\Upsilon_x}^{B_1Q} = 

1012: \ket{x}^{A_1} \left( \sum_{x'} \sqrt{p_{x'|x}} \ket{x'}^{B_1} 

1013: \otimes \ket{\theta_{xx'}}^{Q} \right).

1014: $$

1015: We claim that this is a good approximation for $R\coftau +

1016: \<\bar{\theta}\>$, and according to the correctness of 

1017: the original protocol, $\bar{\theta}$ is close to the output of

1018: $\beta_n$.

1019: To check this, suppose Alice inputs $\ket{\Phi_D}^{RA_1}$ into the

1020: communication protocol.  We will compare the actual state

1021: $$\ket{\Upsilon}^{RA_1B_1Q} :=

1022: D^{-\smfrac{1}{2}}\sum_x

1023: \ket{x}^R\ket{x}^{A_1}\ket{\Upsilon_x}^{B_1Q}$$

1024:   with the ideal state

1025: $$\ket{\Phi_{\text{GHZ}}}^{RA_1B_1}\ot\ket{\bar{\theta}}^Q = 

1026: D^{-\smfrac{1}{2}}\sum_x

1027: \ket{x}^R\ket{x}^{A_1}\ket{x}^{B_1}\ket{\bar{\theta}}^Q.$$

1028:   Their inner

1029: product is 

1030: \ben \bra{\Upsilon}\Phi_{\text{GHZ}}\rangle\ket{\bar{\theta}}&=&

1031: \frac{1}{D}\sum_x

1032: \sqrt{p_{x|x}}\braket{\theta_{xx}}{\bar{\theta}}

1033: \geq

1034: \frac{1}{D}\sum_x

1035: p_{x|x}\braket{\theta_{xx}}{\bar{\theta}}

1036: \geq

1037: \frac{1}{D}\sum_x p_{x|x} 

1038: \l(1 - \half\l\|\theta_{xx}-\bar{\theta}\r\|_1\r)

1039: \\&\geq&

1040: \frac{1}{D}\sum_x p_{x|x} 

1041:  - \frac{1}{D}\sum_x \half\l\|\theta_{xx}-\bar{\theta}\r\|_1

1042: \geq (1 - \epsilon)-\epsilon = 1-2\epsilon

1043: \een

1044: Thus, we can apply \eq{fid-trace} to show that

1045: $$

1046: \|\Upsilon - \Phi_{GHZ} \otimes \theta \|_1 \leq 2 \sqrt{\epsilon}.

1047: $$ 

1048: 

1049: We have thus shown that

1050: $$

1051: \alpha \geq \beta + R \,\qtqtau.

1052: $$

1053: Using \thm{absolutize} and \eq{cc-equality}

1054: gives the desired result

1055: $$

1056: \alpha  \geq \beta + \frac{R}{2} \, \qq +  \frac{R}{2} \, \qtq. 

1057: $$

1058: \qed\bigskip

1059: 

1060: \subsection{Proof of Coherent RSP \peq{coherent-rsp}}

1061: To prove that RSP can be made coherent, we review the proof of

1062: \eq{RSP2} from \cite{BHLSW03} and show how it needs to be modified.

1063: We will assume knowledge of typical and conditionally typical

1064: projectors; for background on them, as well as the operator Chernoff

1065: bound used in the proof, see \cite{Winter99}.

1066: 

1067: The (slightly modified) proof from \cite{BHLSW03} is as follows.  Let

1068: $\cE =\sum_i p_i 

1069: \oprod{i}^{X_A} \ot \psi_i^{AB}$ be an ensemble of bipartite states,

1070: for which we would like to simulate $\cN_\cE$ or $U_\cE$.  Alice is

1071: given a string $i^n=(i_1,\ldots, i_n)$ and wants to prepare the joint

1072: state $\ket{\psi_{i^n}}^{AB} :=

1073: \ket{\psi_{i_1}}^{AB}\cdots\ket{\psi_{i_n}}^{AB}$.  

1074: Let $Q_{i^n}$ be the empirical distribution of $i^n$, i.e. the

1075: probability distribution on $i$ obtained by sampling from $i^n$.  We

1076: assume that  

1077: $\|p-Q_{i^n}\|_1\leq \delta$, and since our

1078: simulation of $U_\cE$ will be used in some $\eta$-valid protocol, we

1079: can do so with error $\leq \eta + \exp(-O(n\delta^2))$.  (Here

1080: $\eta,\delta\ra 0$ as $n\ra\infty$.)  Thus, the protocol begins by

1081: Alice projecting onto the set of $i^n$ with $\|p-Q_{i^n}\|_1\leq

1082: \delta$, in contrast with the protocol in \cite{BHLSW03}, which

1083: begins by having Alice measure $Q_{i^n}$ and send the result to Bob

1084: classically. 

1085: 

1086: Define $\Pi_{\cE^B|i^n,\delta}^n$ to be the

1087: conditionally typical projector for Bob's half of

1088: $\ket{\psi_{i^n}}^{AB}$, and let $\Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n$ be the typical

1089: projector for $n$ copies of $\cE^B$.  These projectors are defined in

1090: \cite{Winter99}, which also proves that the subnormalized state

1091: \be \ket{\psi'_{i^n}} = (\one \ot \Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n

1092: \Pi_{\cE^B|i^n,\delta}^n) \ket{\psi_{i^n}},

1093: \label{eq:rsp-typ-fidelity}\ee

1094: satisfies $\dblbraket{\psi'_{i^n}} \geq 1-2\epsilon$, where

1095: $\delta,\epsilon\ra 0$ as $n\ra\infty$.  This implies that

1096: $\|\psi_{i^n} - \psi''_{i^n}\|_1 \leq 2\sqrt{\epsilon}$, where we

1097: define the normalized state

1098: $\ket{\psi''_{i^n}} := \ket{\psi'_{i^n}} / \sqrt{\dblbraket{\psi'_{i^n}}}$.

1099: We will now write $\ket{\psi'_{i^n}}$ in a way which suggests

1100: how to construct it.  Let $\ket{\Phi_D}^{AB}$ be a maximally entangled

1101: state with $D := \rank \Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n$ and $\Phi_D^B = 

1102: \Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n / D$.  (By contrast, \cite{BHLSW03} chooses

1103: $\Phi$ to be a purification of $\Pi_{\sigma,\delta}^n$ with $\sigma :=

1104: \sum_x Q_{i^n}(x) \psi_x^B$.)

1105: Then $\ket{\psi'_{i^n}}$ can be

1106: written as $(M_{i^n} \ot \one)\ket{\Phi_D}$ where $\tr M_{i^n}^\dag

1107: M_{i^n} = D^{-1} 

1108: \dblbraket{\psi'_{i^n}}$.  Thus, Alice will apply a POVM

1109: composed of rescaled and rotated versions of $M_{i^n}$ to her half of

1110: $\ket{\Phi_D}$, and after transmitting the measurement outcome $k$ to Bob,

1111: he can undo the rotation and obtain his half of the correct state.

1112: The cost of this procedure is $\log D$ ebits and $\log K$ ebits, where

1113: we will later specify the number of POVM outcomes $K$.

1114: 

1115: We now sketch the proof that this is efficient.  From \cite{Winter99},

1116: we find the bounds

1117: \begin{align}

1118: D = \rank \Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n & \leq \exp\l(n(H(B)_\cE+\delta)\r)\\

1119: \tr_A \oprod{\psi'_{i^n}} &\leq

1120: \exp\l(-n(H(B|X_A)_\cE + \delta)\r) \Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n

1121: \end{align}

1122: Combining these last two equations and \eq{rsp-typ-fidelity} with the

1123: operator Chernoff 

1124: bound\cite{Winter99} means that there exist a set of unitaries

1125: $U_1,\ldots,U_K$ such that 

1126: $\log K \leq n(I(X_A ; B)_\cE + 3\delta + o(1))$ and

1127: whenever $\|Q_{i^n}-p\|_1\leq \delta$ we have

1128: \be

1129: (1-\epsilon)\frac{\Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n}{D} \leq

1130: \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{U_k^\dag M_{i^n}^\dag M_{i^n} U_k}

1131: {\tr M_{i^n}^\dag M_{i^n}} \leq 

1132: (1+\epsilon)\frac{\Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n}{D}.

1133: \label{eq:rsp-randomization}\ee

1134: These conditions mean that Alice can construct a POVM

1135: $\{A_1^{(i^n)},\ldots,A_K^{(i^n)},A_{\text{fail}}^{(i^n)}\}$ with

1136: \be\begin{split}

1137: A_k^{(i^n)} &:= \frac{D}{\sqrt{K(1+\epsilon)\tr M_{i^n}^\dag M_{i^n}}}

1138: M_{i^n} U_k^*\\

1139: A_{\text{fail}}^{(i^n)} & := \sqrt{\Pi_{\cE^B\!,\delta}^n-\sum_k

1140: A_k^\dag A_k} 

1141: \end{split}\ee

1142: According to \eq{rsp-randomization}, the ``fail'' outcome has

1143: probability $\leq 2\epsilon$ of occurring when Alice applies this POVM

1144: to half of $\ket{\Phi_D}$.  And since $(U_k^* \ot

1145: \one)\ket{\Phi_D} = (\one \ot U_k^\dag)\ket{\Phi_D}$, if Alice sends

1146: Bob the outcome $k$ and Bob applies $U_k$ then the residual state

1147: will be $\ket{\psi''_{i^n}}$.

1148: 

1149: We now explain how to make the above procedure coherent.  First

1150: observe that conditioned on not observing the ``fail'' outcome, the

1151: residual state is completely independent of the classical message $k$.

1152: Thus, we can apply Rule I.  However, a variant of Rule O is also

1153: applicable, in that there is no need to assume the input $\ket{i^n}$

1154: is a classical register.  Again conditioning on success,  the

1155: only record of $i^n$ in the final state is the output state

1156: $\ket{\psi''_{i^n}}$.  Thus, if Alice performs the POVM

1157: \be A_k := \sum_{i^n} \oprod{i^n} \ot A_k^{(i^n)},\ee

1158: (with $A_{\text{fail}}$ defined similarly) and Bob decodes using

1159: \be \sum_k \oprod{k} \ot U_k\ee

1160: then (conditioned on a successful measurement outcome) $\sum_{i^n}

1161: \sqrt{p_{i^n}}\ket{i^n}^R\ket{i^n}^{X_A}$ will be 

1162: coherently mapped to 

1163: $\sum_{i^n}

1164: \sqrt{p_{i^n}}\ket{i^n}^{R}\ket{i^n}^{X_A}\ket{\psi''_{i^n}}^{AB}$.

1165: This achieves a simulation of $\<U_\cE : \cE^{X_A}\>$ using $I(X_A;B)$

1166: cobits and $H(B)$ ebits.  According to Rule I, the coherent

1167: communication returns $I(X_A;B)$ ebits at the end of the protocol,

1168: bringing the net entanglement cost down to $H(B|X_A)$.  Thus we have

1169: proven \eq{coherent-rsp}.

1170: \qed\bigskip

1171: 

1172: 

1173: \subsection{Proof of \thm{bidi-ccc}}

1174: For ease of notation, we first consider the $E=0$ case, so our

1175:  starting hypothesis is that $\<U\>\geq C_1\ctc + C_2\cbc$.

1176: At the end of the proof we will return to the $E \neq 0$ case.

1177: 

1178: \subsubsection{The definition of $\cP_n$}  

1179: 

1180: Formally, \eq{cbit-toff} indicates the existence of sequences of

1181: nonnegative real numbers $\{\epsilon_n\},\{\delta_n\}$ satisfying

1182: $\epsilon_n, \delta_n {\; \ra \; } 0$ as $n{\; \ra\; }\infty$; a

1183: sequence of protocols $\cP_n = (V_n \! \otimes \! W_n) \, U \, \cdots

1184: \, U \, (V_1 \!  \otimes \! W_1) \, U \, (V_0 \!  \otimes \! W_0)$,

1185: where $V_j,W_j$ are local isometries that may also act on extra local

1186: ancilla systems, and sequences of integers $C_1^{(n)},C_2^{(n)}$

1187: satisfying $nC_1 \geq C_1^{(n)} \geq n(C_1{-}\delta_n)$, $nC_2 \geq

1188: C_2^{(n)} \geq n(C_2{-}\delta_n)$, such that the following success

1189: criterion holds.

1190: 

1191: Let $a \in \{0,1\}^{C_1^{(n)}}$ and $b \in \{0,1\}^{C_2^{(n)}}$ be the

1192: respective messages of Alice and Bob.  Let $\ket{\varphi_{ab}}:=\cP_n

1193: (\ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1})$.  Note that $\ket{\varphi_{ab}}$

1194: generally occupies a space of larger dimension than $\A_1 \ot \B_1$

1195: since $\cP_n$ may add local ancillas.

1196: % 

1197: To say that $\cP_n$ can transmit classical messages, we require that

1198: local measurements on 

1199: $\ket{\varphi_{ab}}$ can generate messages $b'$ for Alice and $a'$ for

1200: Bob according to a distribution $\Pr(a'b'|ab)$ such that

1201: % 

1202: \be 

1203: \forall_{a,b} \quad

1204: \sum_{a',b'} \smfrac{1}{2}\l| \, 

1205: \Pr(a'b'|ab) - \delta_{a,a'}\delta_{b,b'}\r| \leq \epsilon_n

1206: \label{eq:cc-condition}

1207: \ee

1208: %

1209: where $a', b'$ are summed over $\{0,1\}^{C_1^{(n)}}$ and

1210: $\{0,1\}^{C_2^{(n)}}$ respectively.  

1211: % 

1212: \eq{cc-condition} follows from applying our definition of a

1213: protocol to classical

1214: communication, taking the final state to be the distribution of

1215: the output classical messages.

1216: % 

1217: Since any measurement can be implemented as a joint unitary on the

1218: system and an added ancilla, up to a redefinition of $V_n, W_n$, we

1219: can assume

1220: % 

1221: \be

1222:  \ket{\varphi_{ab}} := \cP_n (\ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1}) 

1223: = \sum_{a'\!,b'} |b'\>_{\A_1} |a'\>_{\B_1} 

1224: |\gamma_{a' \!, b'}^{a,b} \>_{\A_2 \B_2} 

1225: \label{eq:coh-comm} \, \ee

1226: % 

1227: where the dimensions of $\A_1$ and $\B_1$ are interchanged by $\cP_n$,

1228: and $|\gamma_{a'\!,b'}^{a,b}\>$ are subnormalized states with 

1229: $\Pr(a'b'|ab):=\<\gab|\gab\>$ satisfying \eq{cc-condition}.  Thus, for

1230: each $a,b$ most of the weight of $\ket{\varphi_{ab}}$ is contained in

1231: the $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>$ term, corresponding to error-free

1232: transmission of the messages.  See Fig.\ I(a).

1233: 

1234: \subsubsection{The three main ideas for turning classical communication

1235: into coherent classical communication}

1236: 

1237: We first give an informal overview of the construction and the

1238: intuition behind it.  For simplicity, consider the error-free term 

1239: with $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>$ in ${\A_2 \B_2}$.

1240: % 

1241: To see why classical communication via unitary means should be

1242: equivalent to coherent classical communication, consider the special

1243: case when $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}$ is independent of $a,b$.  

1244: In this case, copying $a,b$ to local ancilla systems $\A_0,\B_0$

1245: before $\cP_n$ and discarding $\A_2 \B_2$ after $\cP_n$ leaves a state

1246: within trace distance $\eps_n$ of $\ket{b}_{\A_1} \ket{a}_{\A_0}

1247: \ket{a}_{\B_1}\ket{b}_{\B_0}$---the desired coherent classical

1248: communication. See Fig.\ I(b).

1249: % 

1250: In general $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}$ will carry information

1251: about $a,b$, so tracing $\A_2 \B_2$ will break

1252: the coherence of the classical communication.

1253: % 

1254: Moreover, if the Schmidt coefficients of $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2

1255: \B_2}$ depend on $a,b$, then knowing $a,b$ is not sufficient to

1256: coherently eliminate $|\gamma_{a,b}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}$ without

1257: some additional communication.  The remainder of our proof is built

1258: around the need to coherently eliminate this ancilla.

1259: 

1260: Our first strategy is to {\em encrypt} the classical messages $a,b$ by

1261: a shared key, in a manner that preserves coherence (similar to that in

1262: \mscite{Leung00}).  The coherent version of a shared key is a maximally

1263: entangled state.  Thus Alice and Bob (1) again copy their messages to

1264: $\A_0, \B_0$, then (2) encrypt, (3) apply $\cP_n$, and (4) decrypt.

1265: Encrypting the message makes it possible to (5) almost decouple the

1266: message from the combined ``key-and-ancilla'' system, which is

1267: approximately in a state $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ independent of $a,b$ (exact

1268: definitions will follow later).

1269: (6) Tracing out $|{\Gamma}_{00}\>$ gives the desired coherent

1270: communication.  Let $\cP_n'$ denote steps (1)-(5) (see Fig.\ I(c)).

1271: 

1272: % end of part 1

1273: 

1274: % figure 1 

1275: % \input qp-fig.tex

1276: 

1277: \begin{figure}[h]

1278: \centering \setlength{\unitlength}{0.56mm}

1279: \begin{picture}(300,55)

1280: % \put(0,-3){\framebox(220,60){}}

1281: 

1282: \put(137,50){\makebox{\bf (c)}}

1283: 

1284: \put(153,27.5){\line(1,5){4}}

1285: \put(153,27.5){\line(1,-5){4}}

1286: \put(157,47.5){\line(1,0){45}}

1287: \put(157,7.5){\line(1,0){45}}

1288: 

1289: \put(150,27.5){\line(1,5){4.5}}

1290: \put(150,27.5){\line(1,-5){4.5}}

1291: \put(154.5,50){\line(1,0){47.5}}

1292: \put(154.5,5){\line(1,0){47.5}}

1293: 

1294: \put(175,21.5){\line(1,0){10}}

1295: \put(175,33.5){\line(1,0){10}}

1296: 

1297: \put(178,40){\circle{3}}

1298: \put(178,33.5){\line(0,1){8}}

1299: \put(178,21.5){\line(0,-1){8}}

1300: \put(178,15){\circle{3}}

1301: 

1302: \put(182,33.5){\circle{3}}

1303: \put(182,47.5){\line(0,-1){15.5}}

1304: \put(182,5){\line(0,1){18}}

1305: \put(182,21.5){\circle{3}}

1306: 

1307: \put(198,33.5){\circle{3}}

1308: \put(198,50){\line(0,-1){18}}

1309: \put(198,7.5){\line(0,1){15.5}}

1310: \put(198,21.5){\circle{3}}

1311: 

1312: \multiput(202,50)(2,0){16}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1313: \multiput(202,5)(2,0){16}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1314: \multiput(202,47.5)(2,0){16}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1315: \multiput(202,7.5)(2,0){16}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1316: 

1317: \multiput(210,40)(2,0){6}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1318: \multiput(210,15)(2,0){6}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1319: \multiput(210,21.5)(2,0){6}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1320: \multiput(210,33.5)(2,0){6}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1321: 

1322: \multiput(228,25.5)(2,0){3}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1323: \multiput(228,29.5)(2,0){3}{{\line(1,0){1}}}

1324: 

1325: \multiput(214,40)(0,2){5}{{\line(0,1){1}}}

1326: \multiput(218,33.5)(0,2){9}{{\line(0,1){1}}}

1327: 

1328: \multiput(214,15)(0,-2){6}{{\line(0,-1){1}}}

1329: \multiput(218,21.5)(0,-2){8}{{\line(0,-1){1}}}

1330: 

1331: \put(218,50){\circle{3}}

1332: \put(214,47.5){\circle{3}}

1333: \put(218,7.5){\circle{3}}

1334: \put(214,5){\circle{3}}

1335: 

1336: \put(195,21.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1337: \put(195,33.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1338: 

1339: \put(175,15){\line(1,0){27}}

1340: \put(175,40){\line(1,0){27}}

1341: 

1342: \put(195,25.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1343: \put(195,29.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1344: 

1345: \put(201,26.5){\makebox{

1346: $\} | \hs \gamma $}\raisebox{0.3ex}{\tiny 

1347: $

1348: ^{a \hs {\oplus} \hs x \hs, b \hs \oplus \hs y}

1349: _{\hs a \! {'} \! \oplus \hs x \hs, b \hs ' \! \hs \oplus \! y}

1350: $}{$\hs \>$}}

1351: 

1352: % \put(201,26.5){\makebox{

1353: % $\} | \hs \gamma $}{\tiny$_{a \hs {\oplus} \hs x \hs, b \hs \oplus \hs y}

1354: % 	  ^{a \! ' \! \oplus \hs x \hs, b \! ' \! \oplus \hs y}$}{$\hs \>$}} 

1355: 

1356: \put(185,20){\framebox(10,15){$\cP_n$}}

1357: 

1358: \put(158,52){\makebox{$\A_4$}}

1359: \put(158,43){\makebox{$\A_3$}}

1360: \put(161,38){\makebox{$\A_0$}}

1361: \put(161,32){\makebox{$\A_1$}}

1362: 

1363: \put(161,20){\makebox{$\B_1$}}

1364: \put(161,14){\makebox{$\B_0$}}

1365: \put(158,9){\makebox{$\B_3$}}

1366: \put(158,0){\makebox{$\B_4$}}

1367: 

1368: \put(168,38){\makebox{$|0\>$}}

1369: \put(168,32){\makebox{$|a\>$}}

1370: \put(168,20){\makebox{$|b\>$}}

1371: \put(168,14){\makebox{$|0\>$}}

1372: 

1373: \put(203,38.5){\makebox{\small $|a\>$}}

1374: \put(203,32.5){\makebox{\small $|b'\>$}}

1375: \put(203,20){\makebox{\small $|a'\>$}}

1376: \put(203,14){\makebox{\small $|b\>$}}

1377: 

1378: \put(188,2){\makebox{\footnotesize{$y$}}}

1379: \put(188,8){\makebox{\footnotesize{$x$}}}

1380: 

1381: \put(188,52){\makebox{\footnotesize{$y$}}}

1382: \put(188,45){\makebox{\footnotesize{$x$}}}

1383: 

1384: \put(230,2.5){\makebox(10,50){$\left. 

1385: \begin{array}{c} {}\\{~}\\{~}\\{~}\\{~}\\{~}\\{~}\\{~} \end{array} \right\} $}}

1386: 

1387: \put(240,26){\makebox{$|\Gamma_{\!a \hs \oplus \hs a' \hs, b \hs \oplus 

1388: \hs b' \hs }\>$}}

1389: 

1390: %-------------------------------

1391: \put(70,50){\makebox{\bf (b)}}

1392: 

1393: \put(85,21.5){\line(1,0){10}}

1394: \put(85,33.5){\line(1,0){10}}

1395: 

1396: \put(88,40){\circle{3}}

1397: \put(88,33.5){\line(0,1){8}}

1398: \put(88,21.5){\line(0,-1){8}}

1399: \put(88,15){\circle{3}}

1400: 

1401: \put(105,21.5){\line(1,0){8}}

1402: \put(105,33.5){\line(1,0){8}}

1403: 

1404: \put(85,15){\line(1,0){28}}

1405: \put(85,40){\line(1,0){28}}

1406: 

1407: \put(95,20){\framebox(10,15){$\cP_n$}}

1408: 

1409: \put(71,38){\makebox{$\A_0$}}

1410: \put(71,32){\makebox{$\A_1$}}

1411: 

1412: \put(71,20){\makebox{$\B_1$}}

1413: \put(71,14){\makebox{$\B_0$}}

1414: 

1415: \put(78,38){\makebox{$|0\>$}}

1416: \put(78,32){\makebox{$|a\>$}}

1417: \put(78,20){\makebox{$|b\>$}}

1418: \put(78,14){\makebox{$|0\>$}}

1419: 

1420: \put(115,39){\makebox{\small $|a\>$}}

1421: \put(115,33){\makebox{\small $|b'\>$}}

1422: \put(115,19){\makebox{\small $|a'\>$}}

1423: \put(115,13){\makebox{\small $|b\>$}}

1424: 

1425: \put(105,25.5){\line(1,0){5}}

1426: \put(105,29.5){\line(1,0){5}}

1427: \put(111,26.25){\makebox{\small $\} | \! \gab \>$}}

1428: 

1429: %-------------------------------

1430: \put(0,50){\makebox{\bf (a)}}

1431: 

1432: \put(15,21.5){\line(1,0){5}}

1433: \put(15,33.5){\line(1,0){5}}

1434: 

1435: \put(30,21.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1436: \put(30,33.5){\line(1,0){7}}

1437: 

1438: \put(30,25.5){\line(1,0){4}}

1439: \put(30,29.5){\line(1,0){4}}

1440: % \put(34,38){\small {$\sum_{a',b'}$}}

1441: \put(39,33){\small {$|b'\>$}}

1442: \put(39,19){\small {$|a'\>$}}

1443: \put(35,26){\small {$\} \, |\!\gab \>$}}

1444: 

1445: 

1446: \put(20,20){\framebox(10,15){$\cP_n$}}

1447: 

1448: \put(1,32){\makebox{$\A_1$}}

1449: \put(1,20){\makebox{$\B_1$}}

1450: 

1451: \put(8,32){\makebox{$|a\>$}}

1452: \put(8,20){\makebox{$|b\>$}}

1453: 

1454: \end{picture}

1455: \label{fig:3protocols}

1456: \caption{Schematic diagrams for $\cP_n$ and $\cP_n'$.

1457: % 

1458: (a) A given protocol $\cP_n$ for two-way classical communication.  

1459: % 

1460: The output is a superposition (over all $a',b'$) of the depicted states, 

1461: with most of the weight in the $(a',b')=(a,b)$ term.  

1462: The unlabeled output systems in the state $|\gab\>$ are $\A_2,\B_2$.

1463: %

1464: (b) The same protocol with the inputs copied to local ancillas $\A_0,

1465: \B_0$ before $\cP_n$.  If $|\g_{a,b}^{a,b}\>$ is independent of

1466: $a,b$, two-way coherent classical communication is achieved.

1467: %

1468: (c) The five steps of $\cP_n'$.  Steps (1)-(4) are shown in solid

1469: lines.  Again, the inputs are copied to local ancillas, but $\cP_n$ is

1470: used on messages encrypted by a coherent one-time-pad (the input

1471: $|a\>_{\A_1}$ is encrypted by the coherent version of the key

1472: $|x\>_{\A_3}$ and the output $|a' \hs \oplus x\>_{\B_1}$ is decrypted by

1473: $|x\>_{\B_3}$; similarly, $|b\>_{\B_1}$ is encrypted by $|y\>_{\B_4}$

1474: and $|b' \hs \oplus y\>_{\A_1}$ decrypted by $|y\>_{\A_4}$.  The

1475: intermediate state is shown in the diagram.  Step (5), shown in dotted

1476: lines, decouples the messages in $\A_{0,1},\B_{0,1}$ from

1477: $\A_{2,3,4},\B_{2,3,4}$, which is in the joint state very close to

1478: $|\Gamma_{00}\>$.

1479: % 

1480: }

1481: \end{figure}

1482: 

1483: % part 2 

1484: % \input part2.tex

1485: % beginning of part 2

1486: 

1487: If entanglement were free, then our proof of Theorem

1488: \ref{thm:bidi-ccc} would be finished.  However, we have borrowed

1489: $C_1^{(n)}{+}C_2^{(n)}$ ebits as the encryption key and replaced it

1490: with $|\Gamma_{00}\>$.  Though the entropy of entanglement has not

1491: decreased (by any significant amount), $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ is not

1492: directly usable in subsequent runs of $\cP_n'$.  To address this

1493: problem, we use a second strategy of running $k$ copies of $\cP_n'$ in

1494: parallel and performing entanglement concentration of

1495: $|\Gamma_{00}\>^{\otimes k}$.

1496: For sufficiently large $k$, with high probability, we recover most of

1497: the starting ebits.  The regenerated ebits can be used for more

1498: iterations of $\cP_n'^{\otimes k}$ to offset the cost of making the

1499: initial $k \lpm \! C_1^{(n)}{+}C_2^{(n)} \! \rpm$ ebits, without

1500: the need of borrowing from anywhere.

1501: 

1502: However, a technical problem arises with simple repetition of

1503: $\cP_n'$, which is that errors accumulate.  In particular, a na\"\i ve

1504: application of the triangle inequality gives an error $k \eps_n$ but

1505: $k$, $n$ are not independent.  In fact, the entanglement concentration

1506: procedure of \mscite{BBPS96} requires $k\gg

1507: \Sch(|\Gamma_{00}\>) = \exp(O(n))$ and we cannot guarantee that $k\epsilon_n

1508: \rightarrow 0$ as $k,n \ra\infty$.  Our third strategy is to treat the

1509: $k$ uses of $\cP_n'$ as $k$ uses of a slightly noisy channel, and

1510: encode only $l$ messages (each having $C_1^{(n)}, C_2^{(n)}$ bits in

1511: the two directions) using classical error correcting codes.  The error

1512: rate then vanishes with a negligible reduction in the communication

1513: rate and now making no assumption about how quickly $\epsilon_n$

1514: approaches zero.  We will see how related errors in decoupling and

1515: entanglement concentration are suppressed.   

1516: 

1517: We now describe the construction and analyze the error in detail.  

1518: 

1519: \subsubsection{The definition of $\cP_n'$}

1520: \vspace*{-2ex}

1521: % 

1522: \begin{enumerate}

1523: \item[0.]  

1524: % 

1525: Alice and Bob begin with inputs $\ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1}$ and the

1526: entangled states $\ket{\Phi}^{\! \ot C_1^{(n)}}_{\A_3 \B_3}$ and

1527: $\ket{\Phi}^{\! \ot C_2^{(n)}}_{\A_4 \B_4}$.  (Systems $3$ and $4$

1528: hold the two separate keys for the two messages $a$ and $b$.)  The

1529: initial state can then be written as

1530: % 

1531: \be

1532: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

1533: \sum_x \ket{xx}_{\A_3 \B_3}

1534: \sum_y \ket{yy}_{\A_4 \B_4}

1535: ~\ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1} 

1536: \ee

1537: % 

1538: where $x$ and $y$ are summed over $\{0,1\}^{C_1^{(n)}}$ and

1539: $\{0,1\}^{C_2^{(n)}}$, and $N = \exp \lpm \! C_1^{(n)} {+} C_2^{(n)}

1540: \! \rpm$.

1541: 

1542: \item

1543: They coherently copy the messages to $\A_0, \B_0$.

1544: 

1545: \item 

1546: They encrypt the messages using the one-time-pad 

1547: % 

1548: $\ket{a}_{\A_1} \ket{x}_{\A_3} \ra \ket{a\oplus x}_{\A_1}\ket{x}_{\A_3}$

1549: % 

1550: and

1551: % 

1552: $\ket{b}_{\B_1} \ket{y}_{\B_4} \ra \ket{b\oplus y}_{\B_1}\ket{y}_{\B_4}$

1553: % 

1554: coherently to obtain

1555: % 

1556: \be

1557: \ket{a}_{\A_0} \ket{b}_{\B_0} \; 

1558: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{xy}

1559: \ket{x}_{\A_3}\ket{y}_{\A_4} 

1560: \ket{x}_{\B_3}\ket{y}_{\B_4} 

1561: ~\ket{a \hs \oplus \hs x}_{\A_1}

1562: \ket{b \hs \oplus \hs y}_{\B_1}

1563: \,.

1564: \ee

1565: % 

1566: \item

1567: Using $U$ $n$ times, they apply $\cP_n$ to registers $\A_1$ and $\B_1$,

1568: obtaining an output state 

1569: \be

1570: \ket{a}_{\A_0} \ket{b}_{\B_0}

1571: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{xy}

1572: \ket{x}_{\A_3} \ket{y}_{\A_4} 

1573: \ket{x}_{\B_3} \ket{y}_{\B_4} 

1574: \sum_{a',b'} 

1575: | b' \! \oplus y\>_{\A_1} |a' \! \oplus x\>_{\B_1} \gmany_{\A_2 \B_2}

1576: \,.

1577: \label{eq:ready-to-measure}

1578: \ee

1579: 

1580: \item Alice decrypts her message in $\A_1$ using her key $\A_4$ and Bob

1581: decrypts $\B_1$ using $\B_3$ coherently as 

1582: %

1583: $|b' \oplus y\>_{\A_1} |y\>_{\A_4} \ra |b'\>_{\A_1} |y\>_{\A_4}$

1584: % 

1585: and

1586: % 

1587: $|a' \oplus x\>_{\B_1} |x\>_{\B_3} \ra |a'\>_{\B_1} |x\>_{\B_3}$

1588: % 

1589: producing a state 

1590: % 

1591: \be

1592: \ket{a}_{\A_0} \ket{b}_{\B_0}

1593: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{xy}

1594: \ket{x}_{\A_3} \ket{y}_{\A_4} 

1595:  \ket{x}_{\B_3} \ket{y}_{\B_4} 

1596: \sum_{a',b'}

1597: \ket{b'}_{\A_1} \ket{a'}_{\B_1} \gmany_{\A_2 \B_2}

1598: \,. \ee

1599: % 

1600: \item 

1601: Further {\sc cnot}s $\A_1 \ra \A_4$, $\A_0 \ra \A_3$, $\B_1 \ra \B_3$

1602: and $\B_0 \ra \B_4$ will leave $\A_{2,3,4}$ and $\B_{2,3,4}$ almost

1603: decoupled from the classical messages.  To see this, the state has become 

1604: %

1605: \bea

1606: % \begin{split}

1607: % 

1608: & & \ket{a}_{\A_0}  \ket{b}_{\B_0}

1609: \sum_{a',b'} \ket{b'}_{\A_1}\ket{a'}_{\B_1}

1610: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{xy}

1611: \ket{a\oplus x}_{\A_3} 

1612: \ket{a'\oplus x}_{\B_3} 

1613: \ket{b'\oplus y}_{\A_4}

1614: \ket{b\oplus y}_{\B_4} 

1615: \gmany_{\A_2 \B_2}

1616: \non \\ & = & 

1617:  \ket{a}_{\A_0}  \ket{b}_{\B_0}

1618: \sum_{a',b'} \ket{b'}_{\A_1}\ket{a'}_{\B_1}

1619: \; \ket{\Gamma_{a\oplus a', b\oplus b'}}_{\A_{2,3,4} \B_{2,3,4}}

1620: \label{eq:phiab}

1621: \,, 

1622: % \end{split}

1623: \eea

1624: % 

1625: where 

1626: % 

1627: \bea 

1628: \ket{\Gamma_{\! a\oplus a' \!, b\oplus b' \hs}}_{\A_{2,3,4} \B_{2,3,4}} := 

1629: \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{xy}

1630: \ket{a\oplus x}_{\A_3} 

1631: \ket{a'\oplus x}_{\B_3} 

1632: \ket{b'\oplus y}_{\A_4}

1633: \ket{b\oplus y}_{\B_4} 

1634: \gmany_{\A_2 \B_2} \,.

1635: \eea

1636: % 

1637: The fact $\ket{\Gamma_{\! a\oplus a' \!, b\oplus b' \hs}}$ depends

1638: only on $a \oplus a'$ and $b \oplus b'$, without any other dependence

1639: on $a$ and $b$, can be easily seen by replacing $x,y$ with $a\oplus x,

1640: b\oplus y$ in $\sum_{xy}$ in the RHS of the above.

1641: % 

1642: Note that $\<\Gamma_{\! a\oplus a' \!, b\oplus b' \hs} | \Gamma_{\!

1643: a\oplus a' \!, b\oplus b' \hs} \> = \smfrac{1}{N}\sum_{xy}

1644: \Pr(a'\oplus x, b'\oplus y \, | \, a \oplus x , b \oplus y)$, so in

1645: particular for the state corresponding to the error-free term, we have

1646: $\<\Gamma_{00}|\Gamma_{00}\> = \smfrac{1}{N}\sum_{xy} \Pr(xy|xy) :=

1647: 1 - \bar{\eps}_n \geq 1-\epsilon_n$.\footnote{Thus it turns out that

1648: \eq{cc-condition} was more than we 

1649: needed; the {\em average} error (over all $a,b$) would have been

1650: sufficient.  In general, this argument shows that using shared

1651: entanglement (or randomness in the case of classical communication)

1652: can convert an average error condition into a maximum error condition,

1653: and will be further developed in \cite{DW05}.}

1654: 

1655: Suppose that Alice and Bob could project onto

1656: the space where $a'=a$ and $b'=b$, and tell each other they

1657: have succeeded (by using a little extra communication); then the

1658: resulting ancilla state $\smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\bar{\eps}_n}}

1659: |\Gamma_{00}\>$ has at least $C_1^{(n)} {+} \, C_2^{(n)} {+} \log

1660: (1{-}\eps_n)$ ebits, since its largest Schmidt coefficient is 

1661: $\leq \lbm \exp(C_1^{(n)}{+}C_2^{(n)} ) (1{-}\bar{\eps}_n) \rbm^{-1/2}$ and

1662: $\bar{\eps}_n \leq \eps_n$ (cf.~\prop{U-CgE}).

1663: % 

1664: Furthermore, $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ is manifestly independent of $a,b$.

1665: % 

1666: We will see how to improve the probability of successful projection

1667: onto the error free subspace by using block codes for error

1668: correction, and how correct copies of $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ can be

1669: identified if Alice and Bob can exchange a small amount of

1670: information.

1671: \end{enumerate}

1672: 

1673: \subsubsection{Main idea on how to perform error correction}

1674: 

1675: As discussed before, $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ cannot be used directly as an

1676: encryption key -- our use of entanglement in $\cP_n'$ is not

1677: catalytic.

1678: % 

1679: Entanglement concentration of many copies of $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ obtained

1680: from many runs of $\cP_n'$ will make the entanglement overhead for the

1681: one-time-pad negligible, but errors will accumulate.

1682: % 

1683: The idea is to suppress the errors in many uses of $\cP_n'$ by error

1684: correction.

1685: % 

1686: This has to be done with care, since we need to simultaneously ensure

1687: low enough error rates in both the classical message and the state to

1688: be concentrated, as well as sufficient decoupling of the classical

1689: messages from other systems.

1690: 

1691: Our error-corrected scheme will have $k$ parallel uses of $\cP_n'$,

1692: but the $k$ inputs are chosen to be a valid codeword of an error

1693: correcting code.  Furthermore, for each use of $\cP_n'$, the state in

1694: $\A_{2,3,4} \B_{2,3,4}$ will only be collected for entanglement

1695: concentration if the error syndrome is trivial for that use of

1696: $\cP_n'$.  We use the fact that errors occur rarely (at a rate of

1697: $\epsilon_n$, which goes to zero as $n\ra\infty$) to show that (1) most

1698: states are still used for concentration, and (2) communicating the

1699: indices of the states with non trivial error syndrome requires a

1700: negligible amount of communication.

1701: 

1702: % wcl: note changing notation: P_n'' -> P_{nk}''  

1703: 

1704: \subsubsection{Definition of $\cP_{nk}''$: error corrected version of

1705: $(\cP_n')^{\ot k}$ with entanglement concentration}

1706: 

1707: We construct two codes, one used by Alice to signal to Bob and one

1708: from Bob to Alice.  We consider high distance codes.  The distance of

1709: a code is the minimum Hamming distance between any two codewords,

1710: i.e.\ the number of positions in which they are different.

1711: 

1712: First consider the code used by Alice.  Let $N_1=2^{C_1^{(n)}}$.

1713: Alice is coding for a channel that takes input symbols from

1714: $[N_1]:=\{1,\ldots,N_1\}$ and has probability $\leq \epsilon_n$ of

1715: error on any input (the error rate depends on both $a$ and $b$).

1716: % 

1717: We would like to encode $[N_1]^l$ in $[N_1]^k$ using a code with

1718: distance $2k\alpha_n$, where $\alpha_n$ is a parameter that will be

1719: chosen later.  Such a code can correct up to any $\lfloor k\alpha_n

1720: {-} \smfrac{1}{2} \rfloor$ errors (without causing much problem, we

1721: just say that the code corrects $k\alpha_n$ errors).  Using standard

1722: arguments\footnote{We show the existence of a maximal code by

1723: repeatedly adding new 

1724: codewords that have distance $\geq 2k\alpha_n$ from all other chosen

1725: codewords.  This gives at least $N^k / \vol(N,2k\alpha_n,k)$

1726: codewords, where $\vol(N,k\delta,k)$ is the number of words in $[N]^k$

1727: within a distance $k\delta $ of a fixed codeword.

1728: % 

1729: But $\vol(N,k\delta,k) \leq \binom{k}{k\delta}N^{k\delta} \leq 2^{k

1730: H_2(\delta)} N^{k\delta}$.  (See \cite{CT91} or \eq{binom-bounds}

1731: later in this thesis for a derivation of $\binom{k}{k\delta} \leq 2^{k

1732: H_2(\delta)}$.)

1733: % 

1734: Altogether, the number of codewords $:= N^l \geq N^k / (2^{k H_2(2 \alpha_n)}

1735: N^{2 k \alpha_n})$, thus $l \geq k \lbm 1-2\alpha_n -

1736: \smfrac{H_2(2\alpha_n)}{\log N}\rbm$.}, we can construct such a code with $l \geq k

1737: \lbm 1 {-} 2\alpha_n {-} H_2(2\alpha_n)/C_1^{(n)} \rbm $, where

1738: $H_2(p)=-p\log p-(1{-}p)\log (1{-}p)$ is the binary entropy.

1739: % 

1740: The code used by Bob is chosen similarly, with $N_2=2^{C_2^{(n)}}$

1741: input symbols to each use of $\cP_n'$.  For simplicity, Alice's and

1742: Bob's codes share the same values of $l$, $k$ and $\alpha_n$.   

1743: % 

1744: We choose $\alpha_n \geq \max(1/C_1^{(n)}, 1/C_2^{(n)})$ so that $l

1745: \geq k(1{-}3\alpha_n)$.  

1746: 

1747: Furthermore, we want the probability of having $\geq k\alpha_n$ errors to be

1748: vanishingly small.  This probability is $\leq\exp(-k

1749: D(\alpha_n\|\epsilon_n)) \leq \exp(k + k\alpha_n\log\epsilon_n)$

1750: (using arguments from \cite{CT91}) $\leq \exp(-k)$ if

1751: $\alpha_n \geq -2/\log\epsilon_n$.  

1752: 

1753: Using these codes, Alice and Bob construct $\cP_{nk}''$ as follows

1754: (with steps 1-3 performed coherently).

1755: % 

1756: \vspace*{-2ex} 

1757: %

1758: \begin{enumerate} 

1759: % 

1760: \item[0.]  

1761: % 

1762: Let $(a^{\rm o}_1, \cdots, a^{\rm o}_l)$ be a vector of $l$ messages

1763: each of $C_1^{(n)}$ bits, and $(b^{\rm o}_1, \cdots, b^{\rm o}_l)$ be

1764: $l$ messages each of $C_2^{(n)}$ bits.

1765: % 

1766: \item 

1767: %

1768: Using her error correcting code, Alice encodes $(a^{\rm o}_1, \cdots,

1769: a^{\rm o}_l)$ in a valid codeword $\vec{a} = (a_1, \cdots, a_k)$ which

1770: is a $k$-vector.  Similarly, Bob generates a valid codeword $\vec{b} =

1771: (b_1, \cdots, b_k)$ using his code.  

1772: % 

1773: \item  

1774: Let $\vec \A_1 := \A_1^{\otimes k}$ denote a tensor product of $k$ input

1775: spaces each of $C_1^{(n)}$ qubits.  Similarly, $\vec \B_1:=

1776: \B_1^{\otimes k}$.  (We will also denote $k$ copies of $\A_{0,2,3,4}$,

1777: and $\B_{0,2,3,4}$ by adding the vector symbol.)

1778: % 

1779: Alice and Bob apply $(\cP_n')^{\otimes k}$ to $\ket{\vec{a}}_{\vec

1780: \A_1} |\vec{b}\>_{\vec \B_1}$; that is, in parallel, they apply

1781: $\cP_n'$ to each pair of inputs $(a_j, b_j)$.  The resulting state is

1782: a tensor product of states of the form given by \eq{phiab}:

1783: % 

1784: \be

1785: \bigotimes_{j=1}^k \lbL

1786: %

1787: \ket{a_j}_{\A_0}  \ket{b_j}_{\B_0}

1788: \sum_{a_j',b_j'} |b_j'\>_{\A_1} |a_j'\>_{\B_1}

1789: \; |\Gamma_{a_j \oplus a_j', b_j \oplus b_j'}\>_{\A_{2,3,4} \B_{2,3,4}} 

1790: \rbL .

1791: %

1792: \label{eq:Pn-parallel}

1793: \ee

1794: 

1795: Define $|\Gamma_{\va \oplus \va', \vb \oplus \vb'}\>_{\vec\A_{234}

1796: \vec\B_{234}} := \bigotimes_{j=1}^k |\Gamma_{a_j \oplus a_j', b_j

1797: \oplus b_j'}\>_{\A_{2,3,4} \B_{2,3,4}}$.  Then, \eq{Pn-parallel} can be

1798: written more succinctly as

1799: % 

1800: \be 

1801: % 

1802: \ket{\va}_{\vec \A_0} |\vb\>_{\vec \B_0} 

1803:  \sum_{\va',\vb'} |\vb'\>_{\vec \A_1} \ket{\va'}_{\vec \B_1}

1804: |\Gamma_{\va \oplus \va', \vb \oplus \vb'}\>_{\vec\A_{234} \vec\B_{234}} \,.

1805: % 

1806: \ee

1807: 

1808: \item

1809: Alice performs the error correction step on $\vec \A_1$ and Bob

1810: does the same on $\vec \B_1$.  According to our code

1811: constructions, this (joint) step fails with probability $\pfail\leq

1812: 2\cdot 2^{-k}$.  (We will see below why $\pfail$ is

1813: independent of $\va$ and $\vb$.)

1814: 

1815: In order to describe the residual state, we now introduce $\cG_{\hs

1816: \A} = \{\vx \, {\in} \, [N_1]^k : |\vx| \, {\leq} \, k\alpha_n\}$ and

1817: % 

1818: $\cG_{\B} = \{\vx \,{\in}\, [N_2]^k : |\vx| \, {\leq} \, k\alpha_n\}$,

1819: where $|\vx|:=|\{j : x_j \,{\neq}\, 0\}|$ denotes the Hamming weight

1820: of $\vx$.  Thus $\cG_{\hs \A,\B}$ are sets of correctable (good)

1821: errors, in the sense that there exist local decoding isometries

1822: $\cD_{\hs \A},\cD_{\B}$ such that for any code word $\va\in [N_1]^k$

1823: we have $\forall \va'\in \va\oplus\cG_{\hs \A}, \cD_{\hs \A}\ket{\va'}

1824: = \ket{\va}\ket{\va\oplus \va'}$ (and similarly, if $\vb\in[N_2]^k$ is

1825: a codeword, then $\forall \vb'\in \vb\oplus\cG_{\B}, \cD_{\B} |\vb'\>

1826: = |\vb\> |\vb\oplus \vb'\>$).  For concreteness, let the decoding maps

1827: take $\vec \A_1$ to $\vec \A_1 \vec \A_5$ and $\vec \B_1$ to $\vec

1828: \B_1 \vec \B_5$.

1829: 

1830: Conditioned on success, Alice and Bob are left with

1831: \bea

1832: % 

1833: & & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}} \, |\va,\vb\>_{\vec \A_{0,1}} 

1834: 		|\va,\vb\>_{\vec \B_{0,1}} 

1835: \sum_{\va' \hs \in \va \oplus \cG_{\hs \A}} 

1836: \sum_{~\vb' \hs \in \vb \oplus \cG_{\B}}

1837: |\vb \oplus \vb'\>_{\vec \A_5} |\va \oplus \va'\>_{\vec \B_5}

1838: |\Gamma_{\va\oplus \va', \vb\oplus \vb'}\>_{\vec \A_{234} \vec \B_{234}}

1839: \\ &:=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}} \, |\va,\vb\>_{\vec \A_{0,1}} 

1840: 		|\va,\vb\>_{\vec \B_{0,1}} 

1841:  \sum_{\va'' \hs \in\cG_{\hs \A}} \sum_{~\vb'' \hs \in \cG_{\B}}

1842: |\vb''\>_{\vec \A_5} |\va''\>_{\vec \B_5}

1843: |\Gamma_{\va'',\vb''}\>_{\vec \A_{234}\vec \B_{234}},

1844: \eea

1845: %

1846: \sloppypar{where we have defined $\va'' := \va\oplus \va'$ and $\vb''

1847:  := \vb\oplus\vb'$.  Note that $2^{-k+1} \geq \pfail =

1848: \sum_{(\va'',\vb'')\not\in \cG_{\hs \A} \times \cG_{\B}}

1849: \dblbraket{\Gamma_{\va'',\vb''}}$, which is manifestly independent

1850: of $\vec a,\vec b$.}

1851: % 

1852: The ancilla is now {\em completely} decoupled from the message,

1853: resulting in coherent classical communication.  The only remaining

1854: issue is recovering entanglement from the ancilla, so for the

1855: remainder of the protocol we ignore the now decoupled states $|\vec a,

1856: \vec b\>_{\vec\A_{0,1}} |\vec a,\vec b\>_{\vec\B_{0,1}}$.

1857: 

1858: \item

1859: For any $\vx$, define $S(\vx):=\{j : x_j \,{\neq}\, 0\}$ to be set of

1860: positions where $\vx$ is nonzero.  If $\vx\in\cG_{\hs \A}$ (or

1861: $\cG_{\B}$), then $|S(\vx)| \leq k\alpha_n$.  Thus, $S(\vx)$ can be

1862: written using $\leq \log \sum_{j \leq k\alpha_n} \!\! \binom{k}{j}

1863: \leq \log \binom{k}{k \alpha_n} 

1864: + \log (k\alpha_n) \leq kH_2(\alpha_n) + \log (k \alpha_n)$ bits.

1865: 

1866: The next step is for Alice to compute $|S(\vb'')\>$ from $|\vb''\>$

1867: and communicate it to Bob using $\lpm \! kH_2(\alpha_n) + \log (k\alpha_n) 

1868: \! \rpm \ctc$.  Similarly, Bob sends $\ket{S(\va'')}$ to Alice using

1869: $\lpm \! kH_2(\alpha_n) + \log (k\alpha_n) \! \rpm \cbc$.  Here

1870: we need to assume that some (possibly inefficient) protocol to send

1871: $O(k)$ bits in either direction with error $\exp(-k-1)$ (chosen for

1872: convenience) and with $Rk$ uses of $U$ for some constant $R$.  Such a

1873: protocol was given by \prop{U-nonzero-CC} and the bound on the error can be

1874: obtained from the HSW theorem\cite{Holevo98,SW97,Hayashi:02f}.

1875: 

1876: Alice and Bob now have the state

1877: % 

1878: \be \frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}} \,

1879: %\ket{\va,\vb}_A \ket{\va,\vb}^B 

1880: \sum_{\va''\in\cG_{\hs \A}} \sum_{\vb''\in\cG_{\B}}

1881: |S(\va'') S(\vb'')\>_{\vec\A_6} \, |\vb''\>_{\vec\A_5} \, 

1882: |S(\va'') S(\vb'')\>_{\vec\B_6} \, |\va''\>_{\vec\B_5} \,  

1883: |\Gamma_{\va'',\vb''}\>_{\vec\A_{234} \vec \B_{234}}.

1884: \ee

1885: % 

1886: Conditioning on their knowledge of $S(\va''),S(\vb'')$, Alice and Bob

1887: can now identify $k'\geq k(1-2\alpha_n)$ positions where

1888: $a_j''=b_j''=0$, and extract $k'$ copies of

1889: $\smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\>$.

1890: % 

1891: Note that leaking $S(\va''), S(\vb'')$ to the environment will not

1892: affect the extraction procedure, therefore, coherent computation and

1893: communication of $S(\va''), S(\vb'')$ is unnecessary.  (We have not

1894: explicitly included the environment's copy of $|S(\va'') S(\vb'')\>$ 

1895: in the equations to minimize clutter.) 

1896: % 

1897: After extracting $k'$ copies of

1898: $\smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\>$, we can safely discard

1899: the remainder of the state, which is now completely decoupled from both

1900: $\lbm \!  \smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\> \! \rbm

1901: ^{\otimes k'}$ and the message $|\vec a\>_{\A_0} |\vec b\>_{\A_1}

1902: |\vec b\>_{\B_0} |\vec a\>_{\B_1}$.

1903: 

1904: \item

1905: Alice and Bob perform entanglement concentration ${\cal E}_{\rm conc}$

1906: (using the techniques of \mscite{BBPS96}) on

1907: $\lbm \! \smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\> \! \rbm^{\otimes k'}$.  

1908: Note that since $\smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\>$ can be

1909: created using $U$ $n$ times and then using classical communication and

1910: postselection, it must have Schmidt rank $\leq {\rm Sch}(U)^n$, where

1911: ${\rm Sch}(U)$ is the Schmidt number of the gate $U$.

1912: Also recall that $E \lbm \! \smfrac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\pfail}}|\Gamma_{00}\> 

1913: \!\rbm \geq C_1^{(n)} + C_2^{(n)} + \log (1{-}\eps_n)$.

1914: % 

1915: According to \mscite{BBPS96}, ${\cal E}_{\rm conc}$ requires no

1916: communication and with probability 

1917: % 

1918: $\geq 1 - \exp \lbm{-}{\rm Sch}(U)^n \lpm\! \sqrt{k'}-\log(k'{+}1) \!\rpm 

1919: \rbm$

1920: % 

1921: produces at least $k' \lbm C_1^{(n)} {+} C_2^{(n)} {+} \log (1{-}\eps_n) \rbm 

1922: - {\rm Sch}(U)^n \lbm \sqrt{k'} {-} \log(k'{+}1) \rbm$ ebits.

1923: 

1924: \end{enumerate}

1925: 

1926: \subsubsection{Error and resource accounting} 

1927: 

1928: $\cP_{nk}''$ consumes a total of \\[1ex]

1929: $~~~$(0) $nk$ uses of $U$ (in the $k$ executions of $\cP_n'$) \\

1930: $~~~$(1) $Rk$ uses of $U$

1931: 	(for communicating nontrivial syndrome locations) \\

1932: $~~~$(2) $k \lbm \!\! C_1^{(n)} {+} C_2^{(n)} \!\! \rbm \qq$  

1933: 	(for the encryption of classical messages). \\[1ex]

1934: % 

1935: $\cP_{nk}''$ produces, with probability and fidelity no less than 

1936: $$1{-}2^{{-}(k-1)}{-}2^{{-}(k-1)}-\exp \lbm \!\!  {-}{\rm Sch}(U)^n \lpm \!\!

1937: \sqrt{k'} {-} \log(k'{+}1) \!\!\rpm \!\!\rbm ,$$

1938:  at least \\[1ex]

1939: % 

1940: $~~~$(1) $l \, C_1^{(n)}\cof +l \, C_2^{(n)}\cob$  

1941: \\

1942: $~~~$(2) $k' \lpm \! C_1^{(n)}{+}C_2^{(n)} {+} \log (1{-}\eps_n)\! \rpm 

1943: - {\rm Sch}(U)^n \lpm \! \sqrt{k'}{-}\log(k'{+}1) \! \rpm \qq$ . 

1944: 

1945: We restate the constraints on the above parameters: 

1946: % 

1947: $\epsilon_n, \delta_n {\; \ra \; } 0$ as $n{\; \ra\; }\infty$;

1948: % 

1949: $C_1^{(n)} \geq n(C_1{-}\delta_n)$, $C_2^{(n)} \geq

1950: n(C_2{-}\delta_n)$;

1951: % 

1952: $\alpha_n \geq \max(1/C_1^{(n)}, 1/C_2^{(n)}, -2/\log\epsilon_n)$; 

1953: % 

1954: $k' \geq k(1{-}2\alpha_n)$; $l \geq k(1{-}3\alpha_n)$. 

1955:  

1956: We define ``error'' to include both infidelity and the probability of

1957: failure.  To leading orders of $k,n$, this is equal to $2^{{-}(k-2)} +

1958: \exp \lbm \!\!  {-} \sqrt{k} \; {\rm Sch}(U)^n \! \! \rbm $.  We

1959: define ``inefficiency'' to include extra uses of $U$, net consumption of entanglement, and the amount by which

1960: the coherent classical communication rates fall short of the classical

1961: capacities.  To leading order of $k,n$, these are respectively

1962: $Rk$, $2\alpha_nk(C_1^{(n)}{+}C_2^{(n)}) + \sqrt{k} \, {\rm Sch}(U)^n \approx 

1963:  2\alpha_nk n(C_1{+}C_2) + \sqrt{k} \, {\rm Sch}(U)^n$,

1964: and $nk(C_1{+}C_2) - l(C_1^{(n)} {+} C_2^{(n)}) \leq

1965: nk(3\alpha_n(C_1 {+} C_2) + 2\delta_n)$.  We would like the error to

1966: vanish, as well as the fractional inefficiency, defined as the

1967: inefficiency divided by $kn$, the number of uses of $U$.

1968: Equivalently, we can define $f(k,n)$ to be the {\em sum} of the error

1969: and the fractional inefficiency, and require that $f(k,n)\ra 0$ as

1970: $nk\ra \infty$.

1971: % 

1972: By the above arguments,

1973: % 

1974: \be f(k,n) \leq 2^{{-}(k-2)} + \exp(-\sqrt{k} \; {\rm Sch}(U)^n)

1975:  + 2\alpha_n(C_1 {+} C_2) + \smfrac{1}{n \sqrt{k}} \; {\rm Sch}(U)^n

1976:  + \frac{R}{n}

1977:  + 3\alpha_n(C_1 {+} C_2) + 2 \delta_n \,.

1978: \label{eq:frac-errors}\ee

1979: % 

1980: Note that for any fixed value of $n$, $\lim_{k\ra\infty} f(k,n) =

1981: 5\alpha_n(C_1{+}C_2)+2\delta_n + R/n$.  (This requires $k$

1982: to be sufficiently large and also $k \gg {\rm Sch}(U)^{2n}$.)  Now,

1983: allowing $n$ to grow, we have

1984: % 

1985: \be 

1986: 	\lim_{n\ra\infty}\lim_{k\ra\infty} f(k,n) = 0. 

1987: \ee 

1988: % 

1989: The order of limits in this equation is crucial due to the dependence 

1990: of $k$ on $n$. 

1991: 

1992: The only remaining problem is our catalytic use of 

1993: $O(nk)$ ebits.  In order to construct a protocol that uses only $U$,

1994: we need to first use $U$ $O(nk)$ times to generate the starting

1995: entanglement.  Then we repeat $\cP_n''$ $m$ times, reusing the same

1996: entanglement.  The catalyst results in an additional fractional

1997: inefficiency of $c/m$ (for some constant $c$ depending only on $U$)

1998: and the errors and 

1999: inefficiencies of $\cP_n''$ 

2000: add up to no more than $mf(k,n)$.  Choosing $m = \lfloor

2001: 1/\sqrt{f(k,n)} \rfloor$ will cause all of these errors and

2002: inefficiencies to simultaneously vanish.  (This technique is

2003: essentially equivalent to using Lemmas~\ref{lemma:noo} and

2004: \ref{lemma:cancel} and \thm{composability}.)  The actual error condition is

2005: that 

2006: % 

2007: \be

2008: \lim_{m\ra\infty}\lim_{n\ra\infty}\lim_{k\ra\infty} \; mf(k,n) +

2009: \frac{c}{m} \; = \; 0 \,.

2010: \ee 

2011: % 

2012: This proves the resource inequality

2013: \be U \geq C_1\cof + C_2\cob.\ee

2014: 

2015: \subsubsection{The $E<0$ and $E>0$ cases} 

2016: 

2017: If $E<0$ then entanglement is consumed in $\cP_n$, so there exists a

2018: sequence of integers $E^{(n)} \leq n(E+\delta_n)$ such that

2019: % 

2020: \be \cP_n \! \left( \ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1}

2021: \ket{\Phi}^{E^{(n)}}_{\A_5 \B_5} \right)

2022: = 

2023: \sum_{a', b'} |b'\>_{\A_1} |a'\>_{\B_1} |\g_{a',b'}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}\,.

2024: \ee

2025: % 

2026: In this case, the analysis for $E^{(n)}=0$ goes through, only with

2027: additional entanglement consumed.  Almost all equations are the same,

2028: except now the Schmidt rank for $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ is upper-bounded by

2029: $\l[\Sch(U)2^{E+\delta_n}\r]^n$ instead of $\Sch(U)^n$.  This is still

2030: $\leq c^n$ for some constant $c$, so the same proof of correctness applies.

2031: 

2032: If instead $E>0$, entanglement is created, so for some

2033: $E^{(n)}\geq n(E-\delta_n)$ we have

2034: % 

2035: \be \cP_n \! \left( \ket{a}_{\A_1}\ket{b}_{\B_1} \right)

2036: = 

2037: \sum_{a', b'} |b'\>_{\A_1} |a'\>_{\B_1} |\g_{a',b'}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}\,.

2038: \ee

2039: % 

2040: for $E(|\g_{a,b}^{a,b}\>_{\A_2 \B_2}) \geq E^{(n)}$. 

2041: % 

2042: Again, the previous construction and analysis go through, with an

2043: extra $E^{(n)}$ ebits of entanglement of entropy in $|\Gamma_{00}\>$,

2044: and thus an extra fractional efficiency of $\leq 2\alpha_nE$ in

2045: \eq{frac-errors}.   The Schmidt rank of $|\Gamma_{00}\>$ is still

2046: upper bounded by Sch$(U)^n$ in this case. 

2047: \qed\bigskip

2048: 

2049: \begin{observation}

2050: If $(C_1,C_2,E)\in\CCE(U)$, but $(C_1,C_2,E+\delta)\not\in\CCE(U)$ for

2051: any $\delta>0$, then for any $\epsilon,\delta>0$ and for $n$

2052: sufficiently large there is a protocol $\cP_n$ and a state

2053: $\ket{\varphi}^{AB}$ on $\leq \kappa n\delta$ qubits (for a universal

2054: constant $\kappa$), such that for any

2055: $x\in\{0,1\}^{\lfloor n(C_1-\delta)\rfloor}, 

2056: y\in\{0,1\}^{\lfloor n(C_2-\delta)\rfloor}$ we have either

2057: $$ \cP_n \ket{x}^A\ket{y}^B \approx_\eps

2058: \ket{xy}^A\ket{xy}^B\ket{\Phi}^{\lfloor n(E-\delta)\rfloor}

2059: \ket{\varphi}$$

2060: if $E>0$ or

2061: $$ \cP_n \ket{x}^A\ket{y}^B \ket{\Phi}^{\lfloor -n(E-\delta)\rfloor}

2062: \approx_\eps

2063: \ket{xy}^A\ket{xy}^B\ket{\varphi}$$

2064: if $E<0$.

2065: 

2066: The key point here is that if $E$ taken to be the maximum possible for

2067: a given $C_1,C_2$, then the

2068: above proof of \thm{bidi-ccc} in fact produces ancilla systems of a

2069: sublinear size.

2070: \end{observation}

2071: 

2072: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:ccc-discuss}

2073: 

2074: Quantum information, like quantum computing, has often been studied

2075: under an implicit ``quantum co-processor'' model, in which quantum

2076: resources are used by some controlling classical computer.  Thus, we

2077: might use quantum computers or quantum channels to perform classical

2078: tasks, like solving computational problems, encrypting or

2079: authenticating a classical message, demonstrating nonlocal classical

2080: correlations, synchronizing classical clocks and

2081: so on.  On the other hand, since the quantum resources are manipulated

2082: by a classical computer, it is natural to think of conditioning

2083: quantum logical operations on classical information.

2084: 

2085: This framework has been quite useful for showing the strengths of

2086: quantum information relative to classical information processing

2087: techniques; e.g. we find that secure communication is possible,

2088: distributed computations require less communication and so on.

2089: However, in quantum Shannon theory, it is easy to be misled by the

2090: central role of classical information in the quantum co-processor

2091: model.  While classical communication may still be a useful {\em goal}

2092: of quantum Shannon theory, it is often inappropriate as an

2093: intermediate step.  Rather, we find in protocol after protocol that

2094: coherently decoupled cbits are better thought of

2095: as cobits.

2096: 

2097: Replacing cbits with cobits has significance beyond merely improving

2098: the efficiency of quantum protocols.  In many cases, cobits give rise

2099: to asymptotically reversible protocols, such as coherent teleportation

2100: and super-dense coding, or more interestingly, remote state

2101: preparation and HSW coding.  The resulting resource equalities go a

2102: long way towards simplifying the landscape of quantum Shannon theory: (1)

2103: The duality of teleportation and super-dense coding resolves a

2104: long-standing open question about how the original forms of these

2105: protocols could be individually optimal, but wasteful when composed;

2106: we now know that all the irreversibility from composing teleportation

2107: and super-dense coding is due to the map $\cof\geq\ctc$. (2) Coherent

2108: RSP and HSW coding give a resource equality that allows us to easily derive

2109: an expression for unitary gate capacity regions.  In the next chapter,

2110: we will see more examples of how making classical communication

2111: coherent leads to a wide variety of optimal coding theorems.

2112: 

2113: Although the implications of coherent classical communication are

2114: wide-ranging, the fundamental insight is quite simple: when studying

2115: quantum Shannon theory, we should set aside our intuition about the

2116: central role of classical communication, and instead examine carefully

2117: which systems are discarded and when communication can be coherently

2118: decoupled.

2119: