On the quantum capacity of the qubit depolarizing channel based on arXiv:1701.03081 and a paper appearing May 14
Felix Leditzky Joint work with Nilanjana Da a, Debbie Leung, Graeme Smith
LSU group seminar, 12 May 2017 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
2 / 35 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
2 Quantum capacity
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
3 / 35 Qubit depolarizing channel
▶ Assume that we have a qubit in a state ρ.
▶ Fixing some basis {|0⟩, |1⟩}, we consider the following errors:
error ac on operator ( ) |0⟩ 7→ |1⟩ 0 1 bit flip X = |1⟩ 7→ |0⟩ 1 0 ( ) |0⟩ 7→ |0⟩ 1 0 phase flip Z = |1⟩ 7→ −|1⟩ 0 −1 ( ) |0⟩ 7→ i|1⟩ 0 −i combined flip Y = |1⟩ 7→ −i|0⟩ i 0
4 / 35 Qubit depolarizing channel
▶ Depolarizing channel Dp: each of the three errors (bit flip, phase flip, combined flip) occurs with the same probability p/3: p D (ρ) := (1 − p)ρ + (XρX + YρY + ZρZ). p 3
▶ Alterna vely: Dp replaces the input with the completely mixed 1 state π2 := 2 I2 with ”probability” q = 4p/3:
Dp(ρ) = (1 − q)ρ + qπ2.
▶ Exact expression for classical capacity of Dp is known. [King 2003]
▶ Exact expression for quantum capacity of Dp is unknown.
5 / 35 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
2 Quantum capacity
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
6 / 35 Entanglement genera on
▶ Alice and Bob are connected by a quantum channel N : A → B that they can use n mes.
▶ Goal: Generate entanglement in the form of mn ebits |Φ⟩ ∼ |00⟩ + |11⟩.
▶ Protocol: Alice prepares a pure state in her lab, sends one half through n copies of N , Bob applies some decoding.
▶ Quantum capacity Q(N ): largest possible rate at which ebits can be generated with vanishing error.
7 / 35 Quantum capacity
▶ LSD formula [Lloyd 1997; Shor 2002; Devetak 2005]: 1 Q(N ) = lim Q(1)(N ⊗n), (∗) n→∞ n where channel coherent informa on Q(1)(N ) is defined as
(1) N ′⟩ Q ( ) := max I(A B)(id ⊗N )(ψ), | ⟩ ′ ψ A A
with the coherent informa on I(A⟩B)ρ = S(B)ρ − S(AB)ρ.
▶ Hashing bound: Q(N ) ≥ Q(1)(N ) [Devetak and Winter 2005]
▶ Regularized formula (∗) is in general intractable to compute, in
par cular for Dp.
▶ Hence, we are interested in lower and upper bounds on Q(Dp).
8 / 35 Upper and lower bounds on Q(Dp)
1 Channel coherent informa on Su er et al. 2014; Smith and Smolin 2008 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 p 9 / 35 Upper and lower bounds on Q(Dp)
1 Channel coherent informa on Su er et al. 2014; Smith and Smolin 2008 0.8 arXiv:1701.03081 (FL, N. Da a, G. Smith)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 p 10 / 35 Upper and lower bounds on Q(Dp)
1 Channel coherent informa on Su er et al. 2014; Smith and Smolin 2008 0.8 arXiv:1701.03081 (FL, N. Da a, G. Smith)
0.6 Useful states 0.4 bound Approximate 0.2 degradability bound 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 p 11 / 35 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
2 Quantum capacity
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
12 / 35 Low depolarizing noise
▶ For low depolarizing noise, i.e., p close to 0, the depolarizing channel is ”almost” the iden ty channel: D − p p = (1 p) id + 3 (Pauli errors) ▶ Capacity of the iden ty channel is known: Q(id) = log d. ▶ Par cularly simple example of a degradable channel: B N degradable: ∃D : B → E s.t. A D VN N c = D ◦ N
N c VN : A → BE is an isometry s.t. † N = TrE(V · V ), E c † N = TrB(V · V ).
13 / 35 Degradability and quantum capacity
▶ Recall: Channel coherent informa on (1) ′ Q (N ) := max| ⟩ ′ I(A ⟩B) ⊗N . ψ A A (id )(ψ)
▶ Recall: LSD-formula ( ) ⊗ N →∞ 1 1 N n Q( ) = limn n Q ( ).
▶ Degradable channels: Q(1)(·) is weakly addi ve,
Q(1)(N ⊗n) = nQ(1)(N ) =⇒ Q(N ) = Q(1)(N )(∗)
[Devetak and Shor 2005]
▶ Idea: Since Dp is degradable for p = 0, is (∗) approximately true for p ≳ 0?
14 / 35 Con nuity of quantum capacity
▶ What does it mean for two channels to be close?
▶ Diamond norm: For a linear map Φ with d-dimensional input,
∥(idd ⊗Φ)(X)∥1 ∥Φ∥⋄ := sup . X ∥X∥1
▶ 1 ∥ − ∥⋄ Opera onal meaning: 2 Φ Ψ measures dis nguishability of channels Φ and Ψ (similar to trace distance and states).
▶ Quantum capacity is con nuous with respect to the diamond norm [Leung and Smith 2009]:
If ∥N − M∥⋄ ≤ ϵ, then |Q(N ) − Q(M)| ≤ 8ϵ log |B| + 4h(ϵ),
where h(ϵ) is the binary entropy.
15 / 35 Low depolarizing noise and approximate degradability
▶ Since ∥Dp − id ∥⋄ ≤ p, we expect Q(Dp) ≲ 1 for small p.
▶ However, con nuity bound is not useful for quan ta ve bounds.
▶ Recall: N is degradable if there is a D such that N c = D ◦ N .
▶ Approximate degradability [Su er et al. 2014] A channel N is η-degradable if there is another channel D s.t.
∥N c − D ◦ N ∥⋄ ≤ η.
▶ Degradability parameter dg(N ) := op mal such η
▶ dg(N ) is the solu on of an SDP (also yields op mal D).
16 / 35 Approximate degradability and quantum capacity
▶ Hashing bound: Q(N ) ≥ Q(1)(N ) [Devetak and Winter 2005]
▶ This is op mal for degradable channels: [Devetak and Shor 2005]
Q(1)(N ⊗n) = nQ(1)(N ) =⇒ Q(N ) = Q(1)(N )
▶ η-degradable channels:
Q(1)(N ) ≤ Q(N ) ≤ Q(1)(N ) + f(η, |E|),
where f(η, |E|) = −η log η + O(η).
η→0 ▶ Recovers degradable case: f(η, |E|) −−−→ 0.
▶ Problem: In the generic case, this is not a very useful approxima on.
17 / 35 Approximate degradability and quantum capacity
▶ Problem: In the generic case, this is not a very useful approxima on.
|Q(N ) − Q(1)(N )| ≈ −η log η 0.3
0.2
0.1
infinite 0 dg(N ) slope! 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
18 / 35 Approximate degradability and quantum capacity
▶ But: If dg(N ) = pa for some underlying parameter p, and a > 1 −→ approxima on is tangent!
|Q(N ) − Q(1)(N )| ≈ −pa log pa 0.3 a = 1
0.2 a = 1.5
. 0 1 a = 2
infinite 0 p slope! 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
19 / 35 Main results
2 ▶ Degradability: dg(Dp) = O(p ). ▶ Quantum capacity:
2 2 Q(Dp) = 1 − h(p) − p log 3 + O(p log p ).
▶ M ∥Dc − M ◦ D ∥ Proof idea: Guess degrading map p in p p p ⋄. ▶ Intui on: For small p, depolarizing channel is almost iden ty, so complementary channel is almost completely depolarizing. ▶ Let’s use the complementary channel itself as degrading map
Mp, and ”give a li le more to Bob”: M Dc 2 p = s(p) with s(p) = p + ap .
▶ ∥Dc − Dc ◦ D ∥⋄ 2 For a = 8/3, this yields p s(p) p = O(p ).
20 / 35 Usefulness of approximate degradability bound
▶ Approximate degradability might be useless in generic case.
▶ However: Extremely useful for channels with some underlying 2 noise parameter such as Dp, for which dg(Dp) = O(p ).
▶ Generaliza ons:
▷ Same quadra c ansatz works for any generalized Pauli channel N , proving dg(N ) = O(p2).
▷ For any ”low-noise channel” N with ∥ id −N ∥⋄ ≤ ϵ, we have
. ∥N c − N c ◦ N ∥⋄ ≤ 2ϵ1 5.
−→ Low-noise channels are approximately degraded by their complementary channel!
21 / 35 Approximate degradability of depolarizing channel
D 0.08 dg( p) ∥Dc − Dc ◦ D ∥ 1.5 p p p ⋄ O(p ) ∥Dc − Dc ◦ D ∥ p s p ⋄ where s = p + 8 p2 0.06 3
O(p2) generic 0.04 bound
0.02 channel-specific bound 0 p 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
22 / 35 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
2 Quantum capacity
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
23 / 35 Upper and lower bounds on Q(Dp)
1 Channel coherent informa on Su er et al. 2014; Smith and Smolin 2008 0.8 arXiv:1701.03081 (FL, N. Da a, G. Smith)
0.6 Useful states 0.4 bound Approximate 0.2 degradability bound 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 p 24 / 35 Detour: Entanglement dis lla on using forward LOCC
▶ Entanglement dis lla on: Convert ”noisy” entanglement
resource ρAB shared between Alice and Bob into a ”clean” form, e.g., ebits |Φ⟩ ∼ |00⟩ + |11⟩.
▶ Protocol: local opera ons (LO) and classical communica on (CC) between Alice and Bob.
▶ Recall that forward CC does not increase quantum capacity of a channel [Benne et al. 1996; Barnum et al. 2000].
▶ Restrict to forward CC from Alice to Bob only.
▶ Dis llable entanglement D→(ρAB): largest possible rate at which ebits can be dis lled with vanishing error.
25 / 35 Entanglement dis lla on and entanglement genera on
▶ Entanglement dis lla on and entanglement genera on are just the sta c and dynamic side of the same coin! [Benne et al. 1996]
▶ egen → edist: ▷ −→ Shared state ρAB + forward LOCC teleporta on scheme
[Benne et al. 1993] −→ noisy channel Nρ. ▷ N −→ egen code for ρ dis lls ebits from ρAB edist protocol.
▶ edist → egen: ▷ ebit (in Alice’s lab) + channel N from Alice to Bob → shared Choi state τN . ▷ edist protocol for τN generates ebits through N −→ egen code.
26 / 35 Entanglement dis lla on and entanglement genera on
▶ These two mappings (egen ↔ edist) are inverse to each other for so-called teleporta on-simulable (TS) channels.
▶ TS channel: any output state can be obtained using a teleporta on protocol run on the Choi state of the channel.
▶ Depolarizing channel is TS [Benne et al. 1996]: D Q( p) = D→(τDp )
▶ From now on, focus on the ”sta c” resource τDp and D→(τDp ).
27 / 35 Useful states for entanglement dis lla on
▶ Hashing bound [Devetak and Winter 2005] ≥ ⟩ D→(ρAB) I(A B)ρ.
▶ But: D→(·) is also given by a regularized formula [Devetak and Winter 2005], and hence as intractable to compute as Q(·). ▶ Solu on: Iden fy ”useful” and ”useless” states which make the quan ty D→(·) behave nicely. ▶ Useful states: States ρAB for which hashing is op mal protocol: ⟩ ≥ D→(ρAB) = I(A B)ρ 0.
▶ Useless states: Undis llable states σAB, i.e., D→(σAB) = 0.
They always have I(A⟩B)σ ≤ 0.
28 / 35 Useful states for entanglement dis lla on
▶ The useful and useless states for one-way entanglement dis lla on are given by degradable and an degradable states.
|ψ⟩ purifies ρ degradable: ABE AB B ∃D : B → E s.t. ρAB ⊗D ρAE = (idA )(ρAB) A |ψ⟩ABE A D
an degradable: ρAE ∃A: E → B s.t. E ⊗A ρAB = (idA )(ρAE)
29 / 35 Useful states for entanglement dis lla on
▶ Key observa on: D→(·) is convex on degradable and an degradable states! (proved by [Wolf and Pérez-García 2007] for quantum capacity) ▶ Main result: Decompose ρAB into mixture of degradable (ωi)
and an degradable (σi) states, ∑ ∑ ∗ ρAB = i piωi + i piσi, ( ) then we have the following upper bound: ∑ → ≤ ⟩ ∗∗ D (ρAB) i pi I(A B)ωi . ( ) ▶ (∗) always exists, since every pure state is degradable. ▶ ∗∗ Minimizing ( ) over all pure-state decomposi ons of ρAB yields
entanglement of forma on EF(ρAB).
30 / 35 Quantum capacity of depolarizing channel
▶ Goal: Apply this upper bound to Choi state τDp of depolarizing D channel to get upper bound on Q( p) = D→(τDp ). ▶ Strategy: Use symmetries of τDp ! ▶ Choi state τDp of depolarizing channel is an isotropic state: 1-parameter family of states {Iso(f): f ∈ [0, 1]} invariant under all local unitaries of the form U ⊗ U∗. (here, f = 1 − p)
▶ The symmetry group {U ⊗ U∗ : U unitary} defines a bilateral twirl opera on ∫ 7−→ ⊗ ∗ ⊗ ∗ † ρAB dU (U U )ρAB(U U ) = Iso(fρ) ⟨ | | ⟩ where fρ = Φ ρAB Φ .
31 / 35 Quantum capacity of depolarizing channel
▶ By the no-cloning theorem, Q(Dp) = 0 for p ≥ 1/4.
▶ ≤ ⊗ ∗ For p 1/4, the U U -symmetry of τDp allows us to restrict to
degradable states that ”twirl” to τDp : ≤ { ⟩ ⟨ | | ⟩ − } D→(τDp ) inf I(A B)ρ : ρAB degradable, Φ ρAB Φ = 1 p .
▶ Bad news: This is a non-convex op miza on problem, since the set of degradable states is not convex.
▶ Good news: We can solve it numerically for low dimensions (qubits, qutrits) −→ yields adver sed upper bound for d = 2!
32 / 35 Table of Contents
1 Qubit depolarizing channel
2 Quantum capacity
3 Approximate degradability and low-noise channels
4 Useful states and entanglement dis lla on
5 Conclusion
33 / 35 Conclusion
▶ Quantum capacity of depolarizing channel is unknown.
▶ Best upper bound for low depolarizing noise: Approximate degradability bound.
▶ Approximates desirable proper es of degradable channels.
▶ Best upper bound for high depolarizing noise: Useful states bound.
▶ Based on decomposi on of Choi state into degradable and an degradable parts.
34 / 35 References
Barnum, H. et al. (2000). IEEE Transac ons on Informa on Theory 46.4, pp. 1317–1329. arXiv: quant-ph/9809010. Benne , C. H. et al. (1993). Physical Review Le ers 70.13, pp. 1895–1899. Benne , C. H. et al. (1996). Physical Review A 54.5, pp. 3824–3851. arXiv: quant-ph/9604024. Devetak, I. (2005). IEEE Transac ons on Informa on Theory 51.1, pp. 44–55. arXiv: quant-ph/0304127. Devetak, I. and P. W. Shor (2005). Communica ons in Mathema cal Physics 256.2, pp. 287–303. arXiv: quant-ph/0311131 [quant-ph]. Devetak, I. and A. Winter (2005). Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathema cal, Physical and Engineering Science 461.2053, pp. 207–235. arXiv: quant-ph/0306078. King, C. (2003). IEEE Transac ons on Informa on Theory 49.1, pp. 221–229. arXiv: quant-ph/0204172. Leditzky, F. et al. (2017a). arXiv preprint. arXiv: 1701.03081 [quant-ph]. Leditzky, F. et al. (2017b). In prepara on. Leung, D. and G. Smith (2009). Communica ons in Mathema cal Physics 292.1, pp. 201–215. arXiv: 0810.4931 [quant-ph]. Lloyd, S. (1997). Physical Review A 55.3, p. 1613. arXiv: quant-ph/9604015. Shor, P. W. (2002). Talk at MSRI Workshop on Quantum Computa on. Berkeley, CA, USA. Smith, G. and J. A. Smolin (2008). 2008 IEEE Informa on Theory Workshop (ITW). IEEE, pp. 368–372. arXiv: 0712.2471 [quant-ph]. Su er, D. et al. (2014). arXiv preprint. arXiv: 1412.0980 [quant-ph]. Wolf, M. M. and D. Pérez-García (2007). Physical Review A 75.1, p. 012303. arXiv: quant-ph/0607070.
Thank you very much for your a en on!
35 / 35