Quantum-enabled communication without a phase reference
Quntao Zhuang∗ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering & James C. Wyant College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
A phase reference has been a standard requirement in continuous-variable quantum sensing and communication protocols. However, maintaining a phase reference is challenging due to environmen- tal fluctuations, preventing quantum phenomena such as entanglement and coherence from being utilized in many scenarios. We show that quantum communication and entanglement-assisted com- munication without a phase reference are possible, when a short-time memory effect is present. The degradation in the communication rate of classical or quantum information transmission decreases inversely with the correlation time. An exact solution of the quantum capacity and entanglement- assisted classical/quantum capacity for pure dephasing channels is derived, where non-Gaussian multipartite-entangled states show strict advantages over usual Gaussian sources. For thermal-loss dephasing channels, lower bounds of the capacities are derived. The lower bounds also extend to scenarios with fading effect in the channel. In addition, for entanglement-assisted communication, the lower bounds can be achieved by a simple phase-encoding scheme on two-mode squeezed vacuum sources, when the noise is large.
Quantum physics has re-shaped our understanding of memory channel model in Ref. [30], where phase fluc- communication. The Shannon capacity has been gener- tuations have a finite timescale such that at most m sig- alized to the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) nal modes can be sent out with a fixed unknown ran- classical capacity [1–3] to incorporate quantum effects dom phase. Despite facing challenges brought by the during transmission. Entanglement has also enabled non- non-Gaussian nature of the channel, we exactly solve the classical phenomena in communication, such as super- quantum capacity and EA classical/quantum capacity of additivity [4–9] and capacity-boost from entanglement- such a bosonic dephasing channel. The optimal encoding assistance (EA) [10–18]. Moreover, reliable transmission requires a non-Gaussian multipartite-entangled state and of quantum information is possible, established by the is strictly better than the conventional Gaussian encod- Lloyd-Shor-Devetak quanutm capacity theorem [19–21]. ing known to be optimal in the absence of phase noise. With thermal-loss effects into play, we provide lower Apart from the information theoretical advances, the and upper bounds of the communication rates, showing physical realization of quantum-enabled communication that phase noise only decreases the capacity by at most a protocols, inevitably in the optical domain, have been constant log2(m)/m bits per mode. In addition, when extensively studied. Although the classical capacity has the thermal∼ noise in the communication link is high, we been found additive [22], the quantum capacity of noisy show that phase encoding on TMSV achieves the EA optical communication is still an open question [23–26]. capacity lower bounds, assuming optimum receivers for In EA communication, the advantage of entanglement decoding. Extending the bounds to channel fading sce- has been known for decades, and surprisingly thrives narios [31–33], we show that the EA advantages persist. even more in presence of loss and noise [12]. More A channel model of phase noise.— Light propagation recently, practical EA classical communication proto- in a lossy noisy media is typically modeled by a phase-
cols have been designed [27], and experimentally demon- covariant bosonic thermal-loss channel κ,NB [22, 34] de- strated to beat the HSW capacity [28]. scribed by the beam-splitter transformationL aˆ √κaˆ + Despite the recent progresses, the need of phase- √1 κe,ˆ on the input annihilation operator aˆ,→ with eˆ in − stabilization—the maintenance of a phase reference be- a thermal state of mean photon number NB/(1 κ). tween the sender and a receiver—in the above protocols In additional to the noise and loss, the quantum− state arXiv:2010.11974v2 [quant-ph] 15 Dec 2020 places a serious constraint on their applicability. Even of light propagation also picks up a phase. In a bosonic in a well-controlled experimental condition [28], the in- dephasing channel Φm introduced by Ref. [30], the m- stability of phase-locking limits the time-duration of EA mode input state σˆ experiences an identical but fully communication. In presence of environmental fluctua- random phase, leading to the output
tions, phase-stabilization over real communication links 2π 1 X∞ requires a highly non-trivial feedback control system [29], Φ (ˆσ) = Uˆ σˆUˆ † dθ Uˆ σˆUˆ † = p σˆ , m h θ θ iθ ≡ 2π ˆ θ θ n n which might be impossible for wireless scenarios. 0 n=0 In this letter, surprisingly we show that quantum- (1) enabled communication without a phase reference is pos- iθnˆ where Uˆθ = e and nˆ is the total photon number oper- sible and advantageous. We adopt the non-Gaussian ator. The channel effectively projects the input to sub- spaces, each with a different fixed total photon number ˆ P n, through the projectors Πn = n =n n n , where ∗ | ih | [email protected] n = (n , , n ) is an m-dimensional| | vector represent- 1 ··· m 2
N
Transmissivity
Non-Gaussian
CEA( ,NB ) Q ( )
[1] P. Hausladen, R. Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmore- Process. 11, 1431 (2012). land, and W. K. Wootters, Classical information capacity [18] M. M. Wilde, P. Hayden, and S. Guha, Information of a quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1869 (1996). trade-offs for optical quantum communication, Phys. [2] B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Sending classi- Rev. Lett. 108, 140501 (2012). cal information via noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. [19] S. Lloyd, Capacity of the noisy quantum channel, Phys- A 56, 131 (1997). ical Review A 55, 1613 (1997). [3] A. S. Holevo, The capacity of the quantum channel with [20] P. W. Shor, The quantum channel capacity and coherent general signal states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 269 information, in lecture notes, MSRI Workshop on Quan- (1998). tum Computation (2002). [4] M. B. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capac- [21] I. Devetak, The private classical capacity and quantum ity using entangled inputs, Nature Physics 5, 255 (2009). capacity of a quantum channel, IEEE Transactions on [5] G. Smith and J. Yard, Quantum communication with Information Theory 51, 44 (2005). zero-capacity channels, Science 321, 1812 (2008). [22] V. Giovannetti, R. Garcia-Patron, N. J. Cerf, and A. S. [6] E. Y. Zhu, Q. Zhuang, and P. W. Shor, Superadditivity Holevo, Ultimate classical communication rates of quan- of the classical capacity with limited entanglement assis- tum optical channels, Nature Photonics 8, 796 (2014). tance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 040503 (2017). [23] M. Rosati, A. Mari, and V. Giovannetti, Narrow bounds [7] E. Y. Zhu, Q. Zhuang, M.-H. Hsieh, and P. W. Shor, Su- for the quantum capacity of thermal attenuators, Nature peradditivity in trade-off capacities of quantum channels, communications 9, 1 (2018). IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory (2018). [24] K. Sharma, M. M. Wilde, S. Adhikari, and M. Takeoka, [8] F. Leditzky, D. Leung, and G. Smith, Dephrasure channel Bounding the energy-constrained quantum and private and superadditivity of coherent information, Phys. Rev. capacities of phase-insensitive bosonic gaussian channels, Lett. 121, 160501 (2018). New Journal of Physics 20, 063025 (2018). [9] M. Fanizza, F. Kianvash, and V. Giovannetti, Quantum [25] K. Noh, V. V. Albert, and L. Jiang, Quantum capacity flags and new bounds on the quantum capacity of the de- bounds of gaussian thermal loss channels and achievable polarizing channel, Physical Review Letters 125, 020503 rates with gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes, IEEE Trans- (2020). actions on Information Theory 65, 2563 (2018). [10] C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication [26] K. Noh, S. Pirandola, and L. Jiang, Enhanced energy- via one-and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky- constrained quantum communication over bosonic gaus- rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992). sian channels, Nature communications 11, 1 (2020). [11] C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thap- [27] H. Shi, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Practical route to liyal, Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of noisy entanglement-assisted communication over noisy bosonic quantum channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3081 (1999). channels, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 034029 (2020). [12] C. H. Bennett, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A. V. Thap- [28] S. Hao, H. Shi, W. Li, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhang, liyal, Entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum chan- Entanglement-assisted communication surpassing the ul- nel and the reverse shannon theorem, IEEE Trans. Inf. timate classical capacity, submitted (2020). Theory 48, 2637 (2002). [29] M. E. Grein, M. L. Stevens, N. D. Hardy, and P. B. [13] A. S. Holevo, On entanglement-assisted classical capacity, Dixon, Stabilization of long, deployed optical fiber links J. Math. Phys. 43, 4326 (2002). for quantum networks, in Conference on Lasers and [14] P. W. Shor, The classical capacity achievable by a quan- Electro-Optics (Optical Society of America, 2017) p. tum channel assisted by limited entanglement, arXiv FTu4F.6. quant-ph/0402129 (2004). [30] M. Fanizza, M. Rosati, M. Skotiniotis, J. Calsamiglia, [15] M.-H. Hsieh, I. Devetak, and A. Winter, Entanglement- and V. Giovannetti, Classical capacity of quantum gaus- assisted capacity of quantum multiple-access channels, sian codes without a phase reference: when squeezing IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54, 3078 (2008). helps, arXiv:2006.06522 (2020). [16] Q. Zhuang, E. Y. Zhu, and P. W. Shor, Additive classical [31] J. W. Goodman, Some fundamental properties of speckle, capacity of quantum channels assisted by noisy entangle- JOSA 66, 1145 (1976). ment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 200503 (2017). [32] J. W. Goodman, Some effects of target-induced scintil- [17] M. M. Wilde and M.-H. Hsieh, The quantum dynamic lation on optical radar performance, Proceedings of the capacity formula of a quantum channel, Quantum Inf. IEEE 53, 1688 (1965). 6
[33] Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Quantum illumi- (2007). nation for enhanced detection of rayleigh-fading targets, [54] N. Datta and T. Dorlas, Classical capacity of quantum Phys. Rev. A 96, 020302 (2017). channels with general markovian correlated noise, Jour- [34] C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. nal of Statistical Physics 134, 1173 (2009). Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian [55] H. Boche, G. Janßen, and S. Kaltenstadler, quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012). Entanglement-assisted classical capacities of com- [35] M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, Entan- pound and arbitrarily varying quantum channels, glement breaking channels, Reviews in Mathematical Quantum Information Processing 16, 88 (2017). Physics 15, 629 (2003). [56] H. Boche, G. Janßen, and S. Kaltenstadler, Entangle- [36] C. King, K. Matsumoto, M. Nathanson, and M. B. ment assisted classical capacity of compound quantum Ruskai, Properties of conjugate channels with applica- channels, in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on In- tions to additivity and multiplicativity, arXiv quant- formation Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2016) pp. 1680–1684. ph/0509126 (2005). [57] M. Berta, H. Gharibyan, and M. Walter, Entanglement- [37] M.-H. Hsieh and M. M. Wilde, Entanglement-assisted assisted capacities of compound quantum channels, IEEE communication of classical and quantum information, Transactions on Information Theory 63, 3306 (2017). IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 56, 4682 (2010). [38] M. M. Wilde and M.-H. Hsieh, Public and private re- CONTENTS source trade-offs for a quantum channel, Quantum Infor- mation Processing 11, 1465 (2012). [39] K. Brádler, P. Hayden, D. Touchette, and M. M. Wilde, References5 Trade-off capacities of the quantum hadamard channels, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062312 (2010). A. Full capacity formula for the thermal-loss [40] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, channel6 A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky- B. Exact solution for a pure dephasing channel7 rosen channels, Physical review letters 70, 1895 (1993). 1. EA capacity7 [41] A. Anshu, R. Jain, and N. A. Warsi, Building blocks 2. Quantum capacity8 for communication over noisy quantum networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 65, 1287 (2019). [42] H. Qi, Q. Wang, and M. M. Wilde, Applications of C. Challenges in the exact solution9 position-based coding to classical communication over quantum channels, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 444002 D. Extension to lossy noisy case9 (2018). 1. EA capacity9 [43] See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [47–57]. a. Upper bounds9 [44] J. Shapiro, S. Guha, and B. Erkmen, Ultimate channel b. Lower bounds9 capacity of free-space optical communications, Journal of 2. Quantum capacity 10 Optical Networking 4, 501 (2005). a. Upper bounds 10 [45] B. Sklar, Rayleigh fading channels in mobile digital com- munication systems. i. characterization, IEEE Commun. b. Lower bounds 11 Mag. 35, 90 (1997). [46] A. Arqand, L. Memarzadeh, and S. Mancini, Quantum E. Detailed derivation of the phase encoding 11 capacity of bosonic dephasing channel, arXiv:2007.03897 (2020). F. Extension to fading channel 12 [47] C. Adami and N. J. Cerf, von neumann capacity of noisy 1. EA capacity 12 quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3470 (1997). a. Upper bound 13 [48] D. Elkouss and S. Strelchuk, Nonconvexity of private ca- b. Lower bound 13 pacity and classical environment-assisted capacity of a c. Classical benchmark 13 quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 94, 040301 (2016). 2. Quantum capacity 14 [49] A. S. Holevo, M. Sohma, and O. Hirota, Capacity of quantum gaussian channels, Physical Review A 59, 1820 (1999). G. Additional plots 14 [50] M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Extremality of gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 080502 H. Additional details 16 (2006). 1. Evaluating the covariance matrix 16 [51] V. Giovannetti, A. Holevo, and R. A. García-Patrón, 2. Proof of Lemma1 16 Solution of gaussian optimizer conjecture for quantum channels., Commun. Math. Phys. 334, 1553 (2015). [52] V. Giovannetti, A. S. Holevo, and A. Mari, Majorization Appendix A: Full capacity formula for the and additivity for multimode bosonic gaussian channels, thermal-loss channel Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 182, 284 (2015). [53] N. Datta and T. C. Dorlas, The coding theorem for a class of quantum channels with long-term memory, Jour- Under the input energy constraint E, the EA classical nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 8147 capacity for a thermal loss channel is solved in Lκ,NB 7
Ref. [12] For S(ˆρA), we can upper bound it by introducing the fully dephasing channel on each of the m modes. Because (A1) m CEA( κ,NB ) = g(E) + g(E0) g(A+) g(A ), a fully de-phasing channel Φ1⊗ is effectively a photon L − − − m number (projective) measurement channel, Φ1⊗ only in- where g(n) = (n + 1) log2(n + 1) n log2 n is the entropy creases the entropy of the input quantum state, we have of a thermal state with energy n−, and m S(ˆρA) S Φ1⊗ (ˆρA) A = (D 1 (E0 E))/2, (A2) ≤ ± − ± − ! E0 = κE + N (A3) X B = S Pn n n = H ( Pn n) , (B6) p | iA h | { } D = (E + E + 1)2 4κE(E + 1). (A4) n 0 − Moreover, it is also known that its HSW capacity [22] un- where the equality can be achieved by choosing χn n der the energy constraint E can be achieved by a Gaus- as an orthonormal bases. {| i} sian ensemble of coherent states, giving Combining Eqs. (B4), (B5) and (B6), we have from Eq. (4) of the main paper
C( κ,NB ) = g(κE + NB) g(NB). (A5) L − t CEA(Φm) max 2H ( Pn n) H Pn n , (B7) ≤ φˆ { } − { } Appendix B: Exact solution for a pure dephasing channel where the inequality can be achieved by choosing χn n as orthonormal bases, e.g. {| i} 1. EA capacity χn = n . (B8) | i | i In the noiseless case only a single environment E1 is Under this optimum choice, the mutual information only needed. Consider the most general input state depends on the distribution Pn, and X p ˆ 0 0 n (B1) t φA B = Pn A0 χn B0 , CEA(Φm) = max 2H ( Pn n) H Pn n (B9) n | i | i Pn { } − { } where in general the states do not have to be an χn under the energy constraint, tr nˆφˆA = mE, or orthogonal basis. The output| statei can be written as
ˆ X∞ ρˆAB = Φm A0 A B0 B(φA0B0 ) P t n = mE. (B10) → ⊗ I → n X∞ X X p n=0 = PnPn0 n n0 χn χn0 . | iA h | ⊗ | iB h | n=0 n =n n0 =n This optimization can be solved exactly. First, we fix the | | | | t (B2) total photon number distribution Pn and solve the opti- mal m-mode photon number distribution Pn. Noticing t One can obtain the environment from the complementary that the constraint Eq. (B10) only affects Pn, and Pn channel only appears in the first entropy term in Eq. (B9), it is t straightforward that for a fixed Pn, it is optimal to have c X∞ t ρˆE1 = Φm(ˆρ) = Pn n n , (B3) t | ih | P n n=0 | | Pn = m 1 , (B11) C n−+m 1 t P | | − where we introduced Pn = n =n Pn. Therefore, the entropy | | m 1 equal for all of the C n−+m 1 photon number patterns | | − t with equal total photon number n . Here Cb = S(ˆρE ) = H P n , (B4) a 1 { n} (a!)/(b!(a b)!) is the binomial coefficient.| | Then Eq. (B9) − is the entropy of the distribution of total photon number. is simplified to Because initially φˆA0B0 is pure and B0 B is identity I → CEA(Φm) = max F, with (B12) t ! Pn ˆ X " t ! # S(ˆρB) = S(φB0 ) = S Pn χn χn H ( Pn n) , X∞ P | ih |B ≤ { } t n t t n F = 2Pn log2 m 1 + Pn log2 Pn − C − (B5) n=0 n+m 1 " − !# where equality is achieved when χn are orthonormal t | i X∞ t Pn bases. Here H( ) denotes the Shannon entropy over a = Pn log2 . (B13) − m 1 2 classical distribution.· n=0 Cn+−m 1 − 8
Now we solve the constrained optimization by introduc- 2. Quantum capacity ing Lagrange multipliers ! ! We begin our analyses with a pure dephasing channel X∞ X∞ F = F λ P t n mE λ P t 1 . in the absence of additional noise (NB = 0, κ = 1). In λ1,λ2 − 1 n − − 2 n − n=0 n=0 this case, as the channel is Hadamard, we can restrict the (B14) optimization to a single-letter as The optimal condition QmE (Φm) = max J(ˆρ, Φm) (B24) t ! ρˆ Pn 1 ∂P t Fλ ,λ = log λ1n λ2 = 0 n 1 2 − 2 m 1 2 − ln(2) − − under the energy constraint of mE. In the supplemental Cn+−m 1 − (B15) material, we will make the energy constraint (e.g. mE leads to the solution here) explicit, as it is necessary in later part of detailed analyses. Making use of the channel and the complemen- t m 1 2 Pn = Cn+−m 1 exp ( λ1n λ2) , (B16) tary channel − − − where we absorbed the constant 1 into λ2. By the nor- J(ˆρ, Φ ) = S (Φ (ˆρ)) S (Φc (ˆρ)) (B25) m m − m malization condition and energy constraint Eq. (B10), we m c have S Φ1⊗ Φm (ˆρ) S (Φm (ˆρ)) (B26) ≤ ◦ !− ! λ2 λ1 X X∞ e− 2F1(m, m, 1, e− ) = 1, (B17) t = S Pn n n S Pn n n λ1 λ2 2 λ1 | ih | − | ih | e− − m 2F1(m + 1, m + 1, 2, e− ) = mE,(B18) n n=0 (B27) where F is the hypergeometric function, leading to the 2 1 t = H ( Pn n) H P (B28) final expression { } − { n}n m 1 2 where the inequality is achieved with photon number di- C − t n+m 1 ˜n t Pn = − λ1 , (B19) agonal inputs and we denote Pn = n ρˆ n and Pn = 2F1(m, m, 1, λ˜1) P h | | i n =n Pn. In the last line, we have reduced the von | | where λ˜ is the solution to Neumann entropy to Shannon entropy over probability 1 distributions. Therefore the quantum capacity is now a λ˜ m F (m + 1, m + 1, 2, λ˜ ) maximization over classical probability distribution 1 2 1 1 = E. (B20) 2F1(m, m, 1, λ˜1) t QmE (Φm) = max H ( Pn n) H Pn n . (B29) Pn { } − { } The corresponding EA classical capacity CEA(Φm) can { } be evaluated through Eq. (B13). And the energy constraint is The optimal state achieving the performance has the form X∞ P t n = mE. (B30) ˆ X p n φA0B0 = Pn n A0 n B0 , (B21) n=0 n | i | i First, we notice that for a fixed choice of P t , the opti- with n mum choice of Pn is to have the most symmetric distri- m 1 bution C n−+m 1 | | − ˜ n Pn = λ|1 |. (B22) t ˜ P n 2F1(m, m, 1, λ1) | | Pn = m 1 , (B31) Pm C n−+m 1 Interestingly, as n = n , Pn cannot be written as | | − | | k=1 k a product of distributions over each variable nk. As the such that the first term in Eq. (B29) is maximized and ˆ input φA0B0 is pure, this means that the optimum input then we can simplify the formula is a multipartite entangled state. It is easy to see such a state is non-Gaussian. For " # X∞ t m 1 t example, for the m = 2 case, the reduced distribution QmE (Φm) = max Pn log2 Cn+−m 1 H Pn n . P t − − { } { n} n=0 ∞ 1 λ˜ (B32) X 1 ˜n1 ˜ Pn1 = Pn=(n1,n2) = − λ1 1 λ1 n1 + 1 . 1 + λ˜1 − n2=0 Because m 1 as a function of is concave, we (B23) log2 Cn+−m 1 n have − The only photon-number diagonal Gaussian state is a thermal state. We see the above is not a thermal distri- X∞ t m 1 m 1 Pn log2 Cn+−m 1 log2 CmE−+m 1 . (B33) − ≤ − bution, therefore the overall state cannot be Gaussian. n=0 9
Therefore, the maximum is achieved when the distribu- Appendix C: Challenges in the exact solution tion is centered at a single n = mE. However, now we have to take care of the fact that n is an integer. To sat- Consider the same input in Eq. (B1). Ineq. (B6) can isfy this, one can consider the N limit, and adopt be extended as the time sharing strategy of sending→ ∞ states with either m mE or mE + 1 photons to saturate the mean photon S(ˆρA) S Φ⊗ Φm,κ,N (ˆρA) b c b c ≤ 1 ◦ B number constraint, and thus the probability of of sending m m = S Φ⊗ Φm ⊗ (ˆρA) each state is: 1 ◦ ◦ Lκ,NB m m = S Φ⊗ ⊗ (ˆρA) p = mE + 1 mE, (B34) 1 ◦ Lκ,NB 1 b c − !! p2 = mE mE , (B35) m X = S ⊗ P n n , (C1) − b c κ,NB n A L n | i h | Therefore the precise quantum capacity is where in the last step we utilized the covariant nature of κ,N . Similar to Ineq. (B6), the inequality can be m 1 L B QmE (Φm) = ( mE + 1 mE) log2 C mE− +m 1 + achieved by choosing χn n as an orthonormal bases. b c − b c − {| i} m 1 The output state can be written as (mE mE ) log C − . (B36) − b c 2 mE +m b c m ˆ ρˆAB = κ,N⊗ Φm B0 B(φA0B0 ) (C2) L B ◦ A0 A ⊗ I → we denote the above as → X∞ X p m = P P 0 ⊗ ( n n0 ) χ χ 0 . n n κ,NB A n B n m 1 0 L | i h | ⊗ | i h | QmE (Φm) = log2 CmE−+m 1 . (B37) n=0 n = n =n b − c | | | | (C3) Therefore the optimum input is a photon number diag- m Due to the channel ⊗ , it is now challenging to fur- onal state with a fixed total photon number mE, and Lκ,NB equal distribution over all patterns of photon number ther simplify the expression. Similarly, the complemen- with n = mE, i.e., tary channel now involves two correlated non-Gaussian | | ancilla E1 and E2 and the further simplification becomes difficult. X 1 ρˆ = m 1 n n . (B38) C − | ih | n =mE n +m 1 | | − | | Appendix D: Extension to lossy noisy case up to subtleties from integer rounding procedures. The limit of m while E being a constant is in- 1. EA capacity teresting to look at,→ ∞as one expects it to approach the noiseless case. Indeed, we find a. Upper bounds
1 To begin with, we obtain an upper bound of CEA, lim QmE (Φm) = g(E), (B39) m m as the quantum mutual information satisfies the data- →∞ processing inequality, we have where g(n) = (n + 1) log2(n + 1) n log2 n is the entropy − 1 1 m of a thermal state with mean photon number n. CEA(Φm,κ,N ) = CEA Φm ⊗ m B m ◦ Lκ,NB We can also calculate the rate from iid thermal states, 1 m which are optimal for the scenario without dephasing. CEA ⊗ = CEA( κ,N ), (D1) ≤ m Lκ,NB L B The total photon number distribution of m iid thermal states is upper-bounded by the EA capacity of the thermal-loss channel, where in the last step we utilized the additivity En of the EA capacity. t m 1 (B40) Pn = Cn+−m 1 n+m . − (E + 1)
Then we have b. Lower bounds
m t With the upper bound in hand, we now obtain a lower J(ˆρ⊗ , Φ ) = mg(E) H( P ) (B41) th m − { n} bound through the subadditivity of entropy, S(ˆρ ) p E1E2 mg(E) log ( mE (E + 1)), (B42) S(ˆρ ) + S(ˆρ ), therefore Eq. (4) leads to ≤ ' − 2 E1 E2
CEA max [S(ˆρA) + S(ˆρB) S(ˆρE1 ) S(ˆρE2 )] . (D2) where = √2πe 4.13 is a constant. ≥ ˆ − − ' φ 10
In general, there will be correlations between E1 and E2 Eq. (3) is necessary; the non-Gaussian nature of the chan- and the above bound is not tight. We consider a product nel further complicates the analyses, while even for the of TMSVs as the input φˆ to further obtain a lower bound. thermal loss channel the exact solution of the quantum capacity is also an open question. In this section, we Although the joint state ρˆE1E2 is still non-Gaussian, in the following we show that the reduced states ρˆA, ρˆB and will focus on obtaining upper and lower bounds of the quantum capacity. ρˆE2 are all Gaussian, which enables the entropy evalua- tion. Furthermore, the entropy of ρE1 can be efficiently calculated, despite being non-Gaussian. a. Upper bounds The state of the environment E1 can be calculated c from the complementary channel Φm as a photon num- P t ber diagonal state ρˆE1 = n∞=0 Pn n n , where the to- We begin with the upper bound. Because of bottleneck tal photon number distribution of m| iidih thermal| states is inequality, we have given by Eq. (B40). Therefore, its von Neumann entropy t h m i S (ˆρE ) = H( P ) reduces to classical Shannon entropy; QmE (Φm,κ,N ) min QmE ⊗ ,QmE (Φm) . 1 { n} B ≤ Lκ,NB although not having a closed form, it can be efficiently (D7) evaluated numerically. Furthermore, for m 1, from the We have the exact solution for Q (Φ ) in Eq. (B37), t mE m law of large numbers, Pn approaches a Gaussian distribu- m while for QmE ⊗ we can further obtain an upper tion with mean mE and variance mE (E + 1), therefore Lκ,NB asymptotically bound from data-processing. Consider the channel de- composition relation η,N = G η,¯ 0 G , with t p L B A 1 ◦ L ◦ A 2 S (ˆρE1 ) = H( Pn ) log2( mE (E + 1)), (D3) { } ' 1 (D8) where = √2πe 4.13 is a constant. η¯ = 1 (NB + 1 η) ' − G1 − Now we consider the environment E2. As the state η of the input A is photon number diagonal, the reduced G2 = . (D9) 0 G1 (NB + 1 η) state of the output A00 of Φm is identical to the input state − − Again due to bottleneck inequality, we can use the energy of an iid product of thermal states φˆA0 . Thus, the re- c m constrained quantum capacity of the pure loss channel duced state of the environment mode ρˆE = ⊗ (φˆA0 ) 2 Lκ,NB to upper bound the quantum capacity as [24, 25] is identical to the state in a scenario without the chan- Lη,¯ 0 nel Φm. Moreover, the reduced state of the final output (UB) m QE0 ( κ,N ) Q 0 ( κ,N ) min fη,N ,E0 (G1), ˆ 0 is again identical to that without the B E B B ρˆA = κ,N⊗ (φA ) L ≤ L ≡ 1 G1 1+NB L B ≤ ≤ channel Φm. The same applies to ρˆB. Combing the above (D10) analyses, Ineq. (D2) can be further lower bounded as where the function m c m t CEA S( κ,N⊗ (φA0 ))+S(ˆρB) S( κ,N⊗ (φA0 )) H( Pn ). f 0 (G ) = max g (¯η (G E + (G 1))) ≥ L B − L B − { } η,NB ,E 1 2 0 2 (D4) − g ((1 η¯)(G E0 + (G 1))) , 0 . Noticing that the first three terms give the EA capacity − − 2 2 − m (D11) CEA( ⊗ ), we have the lower bound Lκ,NB No that our definition of N is the amount of noise C /m CLB/m C ( ) H( P t )/m (D5) B EA ≥ EA ≡ EA Lκ,NB − { n} mixed in, and therefore the formula look different. One 0 where we utilized the additivity of the EA classical capac- can check that fη,NB ,E (G1) is a concave function in E0. ity. We can also make use of the asymptotic expression Note that the energy-constrained upper bound is tight in Eq. (D3) to obtain the asymptotic lower bound when NB = 0. It is also easy to check that in the infi- (UB) nite energy limit, QE0 ( κ,NB ) converges to the energy- 1 LB,asym 1 p L C C ( ) log ( mE (E + 1)). unconstrained bound in Refs. [23–25], m EA ≡ EA Lκ,NB − m 2 (D6) (UB) η NB When m goes to infinity, the upper bound in Eq. (D1) lim QE0 ( κ,NB ) = max log2 − , 0 . E L N + 1 η →∞ B and the above lower bound coincide and we have − (D12) CEA/m = CEA( κ,N ), which converges to the case with m B To obtain the upper bound for the channel ⊗ , one a phase referenceL present. The degradation caused by the η,NB needs to deal with the energy constraint, whichL is mE to- phase noise is only of the order of per mode. log2(m)/m tal mean photon number across all m modes, therefore it is not a trivial problem. We consider the overall channel decomposition 2. Quantum capacity m m ⊗ = k k k , (D13) η,NB k=1 G η¯ ,0 G Although the pure-dephasing case can be solved ex- L ⊗ A 1 ◦ L ◦ A 2 k k k actly, in general the quantum capacity of Φm,κ,NB is chal- where the coefficients G1 , G2 and η¯ are not neces- lenging to compute. As in general the regularization in sarily equal for different{ k.} Then{ } we apply{ } the bottleneck 11 inequality obtain
m m J ρˆ⊗ , Φ QmE κ,N⊗ (D14) th m,κ,NB L B ≥ m LB m m t k Q (Φ ) J ρˆ⊗ , ⊗ H( P ), (D25) min QmEt k=1 η¯ ,0 (D15) mE m,κ,NB th κ,NB n ≤ Gk ⊗ L ≡ L − { } { 1 } X min QEk η¯k,0 (D16) where the original lower bound is ≤ Gk t L { 1 } k X k 1 = min fη,N ,Ek (G ) (D17) m m k B 1 J ρˆ⊗ , ⊗ = g (κE + N ) G th κ,NB B { 1 } k m L 1 X D + (1 κ) E NB 1 m min fη,N ,Ek (G) (D18) g − − − ≤ G m B − 2 k D (1 κ) E + NB 1 1 P k (D19) m min fη,NB , E (G) g − − − , ≤ G m k − 2 (UB) (D26) = m min fη,NB ,E(G) = mQE ( κ,NB ) . (D20) G L q In (D15), is the total energy after the first am- 2 mEt with D = ((1 + κ) E + NB + 1) 4κE (E + 1). plification k on each inputs, when the total input − AG2 energy is constrained by mE. In (D16), we utilized the additivity of pure-loss channel, and the energy con- k k strain Et is determined by each of the amplifier G2 and Appendix E: Detailed derivation of the phase input energy. In (D17), we utilized the capacity for- encoding mula for pure-loss channel. In (D18), we fixed all gains to be identical G, which will increase the minimization Here all operations commute, therefore we can effec- value. In (D19), we utilized the concavity of the func- tively write the output state 0 tion fη,NB ,E (G1) in E0. In (D20), we utilized the energy constraint Pm k . k=1 E = mE h i h i Combining (D20) and (B37), Ineq. (D7) leads to ρˆθ = ( m Uˆ ) Iˆ ρˆ ( m Uˆ ) Iˆ † (E1) AB ⊗k=1 θk ⊗ AB ⊗k=1 θk ⊗ 1 1 (UB) conditioned on the overall phase encoding θ = QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) (D21) m ≤ m over mode pairs. (θ1, , θm) m (UB) 1 ··· θ m 1 Denote Σθ as the ensemble of ρˆ with uniform ran- min QE ( κ,NB ) , log2 CmE−+m 1 . (D22) AB ≡ L mb − c dom phases. The accessible (Holevo) information at the receiver side
θ θ b. Lower bounds χ (Σθ) = S( ρˆ ) S(ˆρ ) (E2) h ABiθ − h AB iθ Now we obtain the lower bound. We consider the input is the information rate achievable by the encoding and of a product of thermal state to lower bound the capac- optimum receivers. ity. The non-Gaussian nature of the channel complicates θ The conditional entropy S(ˆρAB) = S (ˆρAB) due to the problem and we adopt the following inequality to cir- θ unitarity of the encoding, and therefore S(ˆρAB) θ = cumvent the non-Gaussian nature of the channel. From h i S (ˆρAB) = S (ˆρE1E2 ). While the average state can be pro- Fig.1 (b), the coherent information of the overall channel m duced equivalently by the fully dephasing channel Φ1⊗ can be written as as the following
(D23) h i J (ˆρ, Φm,κ,NB ) = S (ˆρA) S (ˆρE1E2 ) θ m m ˆ − ρˆAB θ = Φ1⊗ Φm κ,N⊗ B0 B(φA0B0 ) S (ˆρ ) S (ˆρ ) S (ˆρ ) , (D24) h i ◦ ◦ L B A0 A ⊗ I → A E1 E2 h i → ≥ − − m m ˆ ˆθ = Φ1⊗ κ,N⊗ B0 B(φA0B0 ) = ρ˜AB θ , where we utilized the subadditivity of entropy. Suppose ◦ L B A0 A ⊗ I → h i → (E3) we input photon number diagonal state as A0, we have A00 in a state identical to the input A0; therefore if we have a lower bound on quantum capacity of achieved which is equal to the average state ρ˜ˆθ produced when Lκ,NB h ABiθ by photon number diagonal state we can obtain a lower the dephasing channel Φm is absent. bound for Φm,κ,NB . We can use the same technique when we calculate the To begin with, we can consider iid thermal states and capacity lower bound of the main paper, as detailed in 12 the following, Below, we show that the HSW capacity
θ χ (Σθ) = S ρ˜ˆ S (ˆρ ) (E4) C ( m,κ,N¯ B ) /m C ( κ,N¯ B ) (F4) h ABiθ − E1E2 R ≤ L ˆθ is upper bounded by that of the average channel; While S ρ˜AB S (ˆρE1 ) S (ˆρE2 ) (E5) ≥ h iθ − − combining the convexity property [12, 47, 48], we have = S ρ˜ˆθ H( P t ) S ρ˜ˆ (E6) the upper bound h ABiθ − { n} − E2 h i UB UB ˆθ ˆ t C 2Q m C ( 2 ) . (F5) = S ρ˜AB θ S ρ˜AB H( Pn ) EA EA EA x ,NB f(x) h i − h iθ − { } ≡ ≡ h L i (E7) For quantum capacity, due to non-convex [5], a similar ˜ t bound is not obtained. We will also provide efficiently = χ Σθ H( Pn ) (E8) − { } calculable lower bounds on the capacities. t = mχ Σ˜ H( P ) χ (Σθ) , (E9) θ − { n} ≡ LB where in Eq. (E4) we utilized Eq. (E3), and the fact that 1. EA capacity θ S(ˆρAB) θ = S (ˆρAB) = S (ˆρE1E2 ). In Ineq. (E5), we ap- pliedh subadditivityi of von Neumann entropy. In Eq. (E6), Here the ensemble average is over the Rayleigh-fading we utilized Eq. (D3) of the main paper and the re- distribution [31–33] c m duced state of the environment mode ρˆE = ⊗ (φˆA0 ) 2 Lκ,NB 2x x2 is identical to ρ˜ˆ without the channel Φ . Eq. (E7) (F6) E2 m f(x) = 1/κ˜ exp , x [0, 1], (1 e− )˜κ − κ˜ ∈ is due to the purity of E2AB in absence of channel − . In Eq. (E8), ˜ is the ensemble of states pro- Φm Σθ with the value κ˜ determined from the expectation value duced when phase noise is absent. In the last step, ˜ ˜ due to the iid structure of the state. 1 χ Σθ = mχ Σθ κ¯ = x2 =κ ˜ + . (F7) h if(x) 1 e1/κ˜ The quantity χ Σ˜ θ has been calculated in Ref. [27]. − We can also use the asymptotic expression in Eq. (D3) While the mean to obtain the corresponding asymptotic expression 1/κ˜ √πκ˜Erf 1/√κ˜ /2 e− − √ ˜ p s1 = x f(x) = 1/κ˜ πκ/¯ 2. χLB,asym (Σθ) mχ Σθ log2( mE (E + 1)). h i 1 e ' ≡ − − − (E10) (F8) It is worthy to note that our approach does not rely on ˜ In Ref. [27] we showed analytically that χ Σθ = the particular Rayleigh type and will apply to any type 2 of fading distribution. We are considering the fast fading CEA( κ,NB ) + O 1/NB , therefore L scenario, where the memory effect is within a finite time 1 1 t 2 period where m modes can be transmitted. In the so- χ (Σθ) = C ( ) H( P ) + O 1/N , m LB EA Lκ,NB − m { n} B called slow fading case where memory effect lasts forever, (E11) it goes to the so-called compound channel that has been achieves the capacity lower bound in the N 1 limit, B extensively studied in both the HSW capacity [53, 54] which leads to the logarithmically diverging advantage and EA classical capacity [55–57]. over the HSW classical capacity. As the memory effect is within a finite time, we can use the capacity formula for memoryless channels
Appendix F: Extension to fading channel C ( ) EA Rm,κ,N¯ B c = max S(ˆσ) + S ( m,κ,N¯ B (ˆσ)) S m,κ,N¯ (ˆσ) . For dynamic links such as wireless links to mobile de- σˆ R − R B vices [45], environmental fluctuations can affect more (F9) than just the phase, but also cause the transmissivity to vary from time to time; therefore, the overall channel To facilitate the analysis, we can also introduce the chan- output on the m-mode input σˆ can be written as nel diagram in Fig.4. This allows an alternative way of expression the formula (ˆσ) = Φ 2 (ˆσ) (F1) Rm,κ,N¯ B h m,x ,NB if(x) CEA ( m,κ,N¯ B ) = max [S(ˆρB) + S (ˆρA) S (ˆρE1E2 )] . = Φ = Φ , (F2) R σˆ − m ◦ Lκ,N¯ B Lκ,N¯ B ◦ m (F10) with the ensemble averaged channel While the exact solution is challenging, we can obtain m κ,N¯ B (ˆσ) = ⊗2 (ˆσ) . (F3) lower and upper bounds of the capacity. L hLx ,NB if(x) 13
which can be numerically evaluated easily. Second non-trivial term: Gaussian extremality.— Now we focus on the second non-trivial term of Eq. (F9)
S c (ˆσ) = S(ˆρ ) (F21) Rm,κ,N¯ B E1E2 S(ˆρ ) + S(ˆρ ) (F22) ≤ E1 E2 c = S (Φc (ˆσ)) + S (Φ (ˆσ)) (F23) m Lκ,N¯ B m c = S (Φc (ˆσ)) + S (ˆσ) (F24) m Lκ,N¯ B = H( P t ) + S ζˆ , (F25) { n} m
Figure 4. Channel diagram to assist the information- where the state theoretical analyses. Stinespring dilations are shown for both 0 0 ˆ ˆ m m ˆ m channels, with environment E and E . ζm κ,N¯ B φTMSV⊗ = x⊗2,N φ⊗TMSV . 1 2 ≡ L ⊗ I hL B ⊗ I if(x) (F26) a. Upper bound is a 2m-mode non-Gaussian state. In step (F21), we uti- lized the alternative expression enabled by the diagram in Fig.4. In step (F22), subadditivity of von Neumann First, as the EA classical capacity is convex [12, 47, 48], entropy is applied. Step (F24) made use of the fact that we have the upper bound Φm preserves photon number diagonal states. In the fi- 2 (F11) nal step, an equivalent state is introduced to calculate CEA ( m,κ,N¯ B ) CEA Φm,x ,NB (ˆσ) f(x) . R ≤ h i the entropy. Then we can apply the upper bound Eq. (D1) and obtain We can therefore upper bound the entropy by the en- the final upper bound tropy of the Gaussian state ζˆm,G with the same covari- 1 1 UB ance matrix, due to Gaussian extremality [49, 50], i.e., 2 CEA ( m,κ,N¯ B ) CEA CEA( x ,NB ) f(x) . m R ≤ m ≡ h L i (F12) S ζˆ S ζˆ mS ζˆ (F27) m ≤ m,G ≤ 1,G where in the last step we utilized subadditivity of von b. Lower bound Neumann entropy again and the reduced 2-mode Gaus- sian state To enable a lower bound, we specify the input φˆ to be a product of TMSV state with mean photon number E ˆ 2 ˆ ζ1,G = x ,NB φTMSV . (F28) per mode. The reduced input state σˆ is an iid product hL ⊗ I if(x) of thermal state with mean photon number per mode, E The von Neumann entropy of the above state can be leading to the solution of the first term of Eq. (F9) as analytically calculated, due to the Gaussian nature of S(ˆσ) = mg(E). (F13) the state (as detailed in Sec.H1), therefore leading to the final bound from Ineq. (F25) First non-trivial term: concavity.— The first non- trivial term of Eq. (F9) is c t ˆ (F29) S m,κ,N¯ B (ˆσ) H( Pn ) + mS ζ1,G . S ( (ˆσ)) (F14) R ≤ { } Rm,κ,N¯ B Overall lower bound.— Combining Eq. (F13), = S Φ 2 (ˆσ) (F15) h m,x ,NB if(x) Ineq. (F20) and Ineq. (F29) into Eq. (F9), we have the S Φ 2 (ˆσ) (F16) final lower bound ≥ h m,x ,NB if(x) 1 due to concavity of entropy. As Φm does not change C ( ) photon number diagonal inputs, including an iid product m EA Rm,κ,N¯ B ≥ of thermal state, 2 ˆ t g(E) + g x E + NB S ζ1,G H( Pn )/m. h if(x) − − { } S Φm,x2,N (ˆσ) (F17) (F30) h B if(x) m = S x⊗2,N Φm (ˆσ) (F18) h L B ◦ if(x) c. Classical benchmark m = S x⊗2,N (ˆσ) (F19) h L B if(x) 2 The HSW classical capacity of the channel m,κ,N¯ B is = m g x E + NB (F20) R h if(x) still an open problem. To benchmark the advantage from 14 entanglement, we need to understand the HSW capacity. 2. Quantum capacity As the exact solution is challenging, we will obtain an upper bound instead. To begin with, we separate out The original fading model concerns the case of low the dephasing part via the data-processing inequality transmissivity and has a Rayleigh distribution; however, when transmissivity is below 1/2, the quantum capacity m C ( m,κ,N¯ B ) = C Φm ⊗2 (F31) will be zero. So here, instead of the Rayleigh fading where R ◦ hLx ,NB if(x) quantum capacity is hardly non-zero, we consider the fad- m C ⊗2 . (F32) ing effects to model the uncertainty in the transmissivity. ≤ hLx ,NB if(x) For simplicity, we assume symmetric uniform deviation In general, it is unkown if the classical capacity is convex of the power transmission ratio x2 [¯κ δκ, κ¯ + δκ], in the quantum channels, but here we can still upper which corresponds to ∈ − bound the classical capacity through the following lemma x (see SectionH2 for a proof). f(x) = , x [√κ¯ δκ, √κ¯ + δκ]. (F39) δκ ∈ − N Lemma 1 Consider a set of channels k k=1 from in- put state acting on Hilbert space to{R the} output state The overall channel output on the m-mode input σˆ can HI be written as acting on Hilbert O. Denote the minimum output en- tropy H (ˆσ) = Φ 2 (ˆσ) (F40) Rm,κ,N¯ B h m,x ,NB if(x) 1 n = Φ (ˆσ) = Φ (ˆσ) , (F41) Smin( k) = lim min S( k⊗ (ˆρ)). (F33) m κ,N¯ B κ,N¯ B m R n n ρˆ ⊗n R ◦ L L ◦ →∞ ∈HI with the ensemble averaged channel Suppose the minimum output entropy of an arbitrary ten- m sor product of the above channels factors i.e., Smin( k1 (F42) κ,N¯ B (ˆσ) = x⊗2,N (ˆσ) . ) = S ( ) + S ( ) + forR any⊗ L hL B if(x) Rk2 ··· min Rk1 min Rk2 ··· k1, k2, , then the classical capacity of the average chan- Similar to the case without fading, we can have the nel P ···q can be upper bounded by k kRk bottleneck inequality ! X X QmE ( m,κ,N¯ B ) min QmE κ,N¯ B ,QmE (Φm) . C qk k Smax qkSmin( k), (F34) R ≤ L R ≤ − R (F43) k k However, upper bounding Q is challenging, as mE Lκ,N¯ B where Smax is the maximum possible entropy of quantum quantum capacity is non-convex [5], in contrast to the EA d states acting on O. For O = C , Smax = log2(d); for classical capacity [12]. The upper bound from QmE (Φm) m-mode infinite-dimensionalH H with energy constraint still holds, however, untight when m is large. HO E0 per mode, we have Smax = mg(E0). We can obtain a lower bound on the quantum capacity, via an encoding of iid thermal state, similar to the EA Now we look at Ineq. (F32) again. The channel classical communication case m ⊗2 is a convex mixture of tensored single-mode hLx ,NB if(x) 1 1 m Q ( ) QLB g x2E + N bosonic thermal-loss channels ⊗2 . We know from mE m,κ,N¯ B mE B f(x) {Lx ,NB } m R ≥ m ≡ h i Refs. [51, 52] that their minimum output entropy factors t g ((µ+ 1) /2) g ((µ 1) /2) H( Pn )/m, and therefore Lemma1 applies. To utilize Ineq. (F34), − − − − − − { } (F44) we first calculate the output energy constraint 2 p 2 2 E0 = x E + N =κE ¯ + N . (F35) where µ = (A + S) 4C (S A) /2, with the h Bif(x) B ± − ± − constants A 2 (¯κE + NB) + 1,S 2E + 1 and C m p ≡ ≡ ≡ The minimum output entropy of each channel ⊗2 is x ,NB 2 x f(x) E(E + 1). achieved by an vacuum input and L h i
m Smin( ⊗2 ) = mg(NB) (F36) Lx ,NB Appendix G: Additional plots is equal for all channels, therefore Ineq. (F34) gives In this section, we provide some additional plots to m support the conclusions in the main paper. C ⊗2 mg (¯κE + NB) mg (NB) . (F37) hLx ,NB if(x) ≤ − First, we begin with the EA classical capacity in com- parison with the classical capacity. We compare the ex- Finally, combining Ineq. (F32), we have LB act lower bound CEA/m in Eq. (D5) and the asymp- 1 totic expression CLB,asym/m in Eq. (D6) in Fig.5 for C ( ) g (¯κE + N ) g (N ) C ( ) . EA m Rm,κ,N¯ B ≤ B − B ≡ Lκ,N¯ B the noisy case, and find a good agreement. In the (F38) noisy case, we don’t know the exact classical capacity 15
Figure 5. Ratio of information rate of a thermal-loss dephasing channel Φm,κ,NB over the classical capacity C(Lκ,NB ) of a thermal-loss channel, with an input power E = 0.01 per mode and the channel transmissivity fixed at κ = 0.1. The noise
NB = 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01 in (a)-(d). The EA capacity per mode CEA(Φm,κ,NB )/m lies in the gray region, between the upper bound LB LB,asym CEA(Lκ,NB ) (orange) and the lower bound CEA/m (black star). The asymptotic lower bound CEA /m is plotted as the black solid line for comparison. Similarly, χLB(Σθ)/m (red circles) is the lower bound of the accessible information of phase encoding, while its asymptotic is given by χLB,asym(Σθ)/m (red dashed lines).
Figure 6. Ratio of the information rate over g(E), with an input energy per mode E = 1. The quantum per mode Q(Φm)/m (UB) LB lies between the upper bound QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) /m (orange solid) and the lower bound QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) /m (red solid). The m → ∞ limit of the lower bound is plotted in black dashed. The case with fading is plotted in red dashed (dκ = 0.05) and red dotted (dκ = 0.15). κ = 0.85,E = 1 and (a)NB = 0. (b)NB = 0.01. (c)NB = 0.05. (d)NB = 0.1.
Figure 7. Ratio of information rate of a Rayleigh fading thermal-loss channel Rm,κ,N¯ B over the classical capacity per mode upper bound C(Lκ,N¯ B ), with κ¯ = 0.1. The EA capacity per mode CEA(Rm,κ,N¯ B )/m lies in the gray region, between the upper UB LB bound CEA /m (orange circle) and the lower bound CEA/m (black star). The estimated EA capacity CEA(Lκ,N¯ B ) is also shown (red circle). (a) Energy fixed at E = 0.001 per mode. (b) The m → ∞ limit. 16
of Φm,κ,NB , so we take the ratio of the information rate Denote its symplectic eigenvalues as over C( κ,N ) C(Φm,κ,N )/m. Similar to the noise- L B ≥ B p less case, as we see in Fig.5, the lower bound converges µ = (A + S)2 4C2 (S A) /2, (H4) to the upper bound C ( ) (see Eq. (D1)) quickly ± − ± − EA Lκ,NB and revives the huge advantage over the HSW classical with the constants capacity when noise NB is large (e.g. sub-figure (a)). We also compare the phase encoding on TMSV in Fig.5. A 2 (¯κE + N ) + 1 (H5) ≡ B Indeed, we see in subfigure (a), when NB = 10 the ac- S 2E + 1 (H6) cessible information lower bound per mode χLB/m (red ≡ p C 2s E(E + 1). (H7) open circles) overlaps with the EA capacity lower bound ≡ 1 (black stars); when NB is smaller, χLB/m is lower than We can calculate its entropy as the EA capacity lower bound, however still provides an advantage over the HSW capacity. We also see a good µ+ 1 µ 1 S ζˆ = g( − ) + g( − − ). (H8) agreement between the asymptotic accessible information 1,G 2 2 lower bound χLB,asym (Σθ) (red dashed) and χLB/m (red open circles) when m is not too small, as expected. In Fig.6 we plot the results related to quantum ca- 2. Proof of Lemma1 pacity, as the ratio over g(E), with an input energy per mode E = 1. The quantum capacity per mode Q(Φm)/m Proof. We need to consider the regularization, (UB) lies between the upper bound QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) /m (or- ange solid, see Eq. (D22)) and the lower bound ( ) = lim n LB C R →∞ QmE (Φm,κ,NB ) /m (red solid, see Eq. (D25)). The m " !! # → limit of the lower bound is plotted in black dashed. 1 n X X n ∞ max S ⊗ piρˆi piS ⊗ (ˆρi) The case with fading (see Eq. (F44)) is plotted in red n pi,ρˆi R − R { } i i dashed (dκ = 0.05) and red dotted (dκ = 0.15). (H9) In presence of Rayleigh fading, we compare the EA 1 X n capacity lower and upper bounds in Fig.7, where we see Smax lim min piS ⊗ (ˆρi) (H10) ≤ − n n pi,ρˆi R a gap between them even at the m limit. The →∞ { } i estimate of EA capacity is→ very ∞ close to the CEA( κ,N¯ B ) 1 n L Smax lim min S ⊗ (ˆρ) , (H11) upper bound. Most importantly, despite the fading, the ≤ − n n ρˆ R logarithmically-diverging EA advantage persists. Note →∞ that here the m limit does not imply the long-term n P where we have used S ( ⊗ ( i piρˆi)) n log2(d) for d- memory limit of→ compound ∞ channel [53–57]. R n P ≤ dimensional case and S ( ⊗ ( i piρˆi)) nmg(E0) for the energy constrained infiniteR dimensional≤ case, where the thermal state entropy g(x) is concave in x. Appendix H: Additional details Now we look at the second term
n 1. Evaluating the covariance matrix S ⊗ (ˆρ) R n !⊗ The covariance matrix of a TMSV with mean photon X = S qk k (ˆρ) (H12) R number E is k (2E + 1)I 2C0Z ΛTMSV = , (H1) 2C0Z (2E + 1)I X = S qk1 qkn k1 kn (ˆρ) (H13) ··· R ⊗ · · · ⊗ R where I, Z are two-by-two Pauli matrices, and C0 = k1, ,kn p ··· E (E + 1) is the amplitude of the phase-sensitive cross X q q S ( (ˆρ)) (H14) correlation. ≥ k1 ··· kn Rk1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Rkn k1, ,kn The state 2 φˆ has the covariance ma- ··· x ,NB TMSV X L ⊗I q q S ( ) (H15) trix ≥ k1 ··· kn min Rk1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Rkn 2 k1, ,kn (x) (2(x E + N ) + 1)I 2xC Z ··· Λ = B 0 . n TMSV 2xC Z (2E + 1)I X X 0 = q q S ( ) (H16) (H2) k1 ··· kn min Rk` k1, ,k `=1 ··· n ˆ X Then the average state ζ1,G has the covariance matrix as = n q S ( ) . (H17) k min Rk (2(¯κE + N ) + 1)I 2s C Z k Λ(x) = B 1 0 . TMSV f(x) Z I h i 2s1C0 (2E + 1) Combining Ineq. (H11) and (H17), we have the final re- (H3) sult in Eq. (F34).