arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 30 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 Semidefinite programming strong converse bounds for classical capacity Xin Wang, * Wei Xie, and Runyao Duan, Centre for Quantum Software and Information, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, W 007, Australia and UTS-AMSS Joint Research Laboratory for Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Processing, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 0090, China arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 30 Aug 07 We investigate the classical communication over quantum channels when assisted by no-signalling () and PPT-preserving (PPT) codes, for which both the optimal success probability of a given transmission rate and the one-shot ɛ-error capacity are formalized as semidefinite programs (SDPs). Based on this, we obtain improved SDP finite blocklength converse bounds of general quantum channels for entanglement-assisted codes and unassisted codes. Furthermore, we derive two SDP strong converse bounds for the classical capacity of general quantum channels: for any code with a rate eceeding either of the two bounds of the channel, the success probability vanishes eponentially fast as the number of channel uses increases. In particular, applying our efficiently computable bounds, we derive an improved upper bound on the classical capacity of the amplitude damping channel. We also establish the strong converse property for the classical and private capacities of a new class of quantum channels. We finally study the zero-error setting and provide efficiently computable upper bounds on the one-shot zero-error capacity of a general quantum channel. I. INTRODUCTION The reliable transmission of classical information via noisy quantum channels is central to quantum information theory. The classical capacity of a noisy quantum channel is the highest rate at which it can convey classical information reliably over asymptotically many uses of the channel. The Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland (HSW) theorem [ 4] gives a full characterization of the classical capacity of quantum channels: C(N ) = sup n χ(n n ), () n where χ(n ) is the Holevo capacity of the channel N given by χ(n ) = ma {(pi,ρ i )} H ( i p i N (ρ i )) i p i H(N (ρ i )), {(p i, ρ i )} i is an ensemble of quantum states on A and H(σ) = Tr σ log σ is the von Neumann entropy of a quantum state. Throughout this paper, log denotes the binary logarithm. For certain classes of quantum channels (depolarizing channel [5], erasure channel [6], unital qubit channel [7], etc. [8 ]), the classical capacity of the channel is equal to the Holevo capacity, since their Holevo capacities are all additive. However, for a general quantum channel, our understanding of the classical capacity is still limited. The work of Hastings [] shows that the * Electronic address: in.wang-8@student.uts.edu.au Electronic address: ievvvei@gmail.com Electronic address: runyao.duan@uts.edu.au A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 0th Annual Conference on Quantum Information Processing and the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory in 07 [].

2 Holevo capacity is generally not additive, thus the regularization in Eq. () is necessary in general. Since the compleity of computing the Holevo capacity is NP-complete [3], the regularized Holevo capacity of a general quantum channel is notoriously difficult to calculate. Even for the qubit amplitude damping channel, the classical capacity remains unknown. The converse part of the HSW theorem states that if the communication rate eceeds the capacity, then the error probability of any coding scheme cannot approach zero in the limit of many channel uses. This kind of weak converse suggests the possibility for one to increase communication rates by allowing an increased error probability. A strong converse property leaves no such room for the trade-off, i.e., the error probability necessarily converges to one in the limit of many channel uses whenever the rate eceeds the capacity of the channel. For classical channels, the strong converse property for the classical capacity is established by Wolfowitz [4]. For quantum channels, the strong converse property for the classical capacity is confirmed for several classes of channels [5 9]. Winter [6] and Ogawa and Nagaoka [5] independently establish the strong converse property for the classical capacity of classical-quantum channels. Koenig and Wehner [7] prove the strong converse property for particular covariant quantum channels. Recently, for the entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels, the strong converse property is proved by Wilde, Winter and Yang [9]. Moreover, the strong converse property for the pure-loss bosonic channel is proved by Wilde and Winter [8]. Unfortunately, for a general quantum channel, less is known about the strong converse property of the classical capacity and it remains open whether this property holds for all quantum channels. A strong converse bound for the classical capacity is a quantity such that the success probability of transmitting classical messages vanishes eponentially fast as the number of channel uses increases if the rate of communication eceeds this quantity, which forbids the trade-off between rate and error in the limit of many channel uses. Another fundamental problem, of both theoretical and practical interest, is the trade-off between the channel uses, communication rate and error probability in the non-asymptotic (or finite blocklength) regime. In a realistic setting, the number of channel uses is necessarily limited in quantum information processing. Therefore one has to make a trade-off between the transmission rate and error tolerance. Note that one only needs to study one-shot communication over the channel since it can correspond to a finite blocklength and one can also study the asymptotic capacity via the finite blocklength approach. The study of finite blocklength regime has recently garnered great interest in classical information theory (e.g., [0 ]) as well as in quantum information theory (e.g., [3 35]). For classical channels, Polyanskiy, Poor, and Verdú [0] derive the finite blocklength converse bound via hypothesis testing and Matthews [] provides an alternative proof of this converse bound via classical no-signalling codes. For classical-quantum channels, the one-shot converse and achievability bounds are given in [4, 5, 36]. Recently, the one-shot converse bounds for entanglement-assisted and unassisted codes were given in [3], which generalizes the hypothesis testing approach in [0] to quantum channels. To gain insights into the generally intractable problem of evaluating the capacities of quantum channels, a natural approach is to study the performance of etra free resources in the coding scheme. This scheme, called a code, is equivalently a bipartite operation performed jointly by the sender Alice and the receiver Bob to assist the communication [8]. The PPT-preserving codes, i.e. the PPT-preserving bipartite operations, include all operations that can be implemented by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) and were introduced to study entanglement distillation in an early paper by Rains [37]. The no-signalling () codes refer to the bipartite quantum operations with the no-signalling constraints, which arise in the research of the relativistic causality of quantum operations [38 4]. Recently these general codes have been used to study the zero-error classical communication [4] and quantum communication [8] over quantum channels. Our work follows this approach and focuses on classical communication via quantum channels assisted by and codes.

3 3 II. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In this paper, we focus on the reliable classical communication over quantum channels assisted by no-signalling and PPT-preserving codes under both non-asymptotic (or finite blocklength) and asymptotic settings. The summary of our results is as follows. In Section IV, we formalize the optimal average success probability of transmitting classical messages over a quantum channel assisted by or codes as SDPs. Using these SDPs, we establish the one-shot -assisted (or -assisted) ɛ-error capacity, i.e., the maimum rate of classical communication with a fied error threshold. We further compare these one-shot ɛ-error capacities with the previous SDP-computable entanglement-assisted (or unassisted) converse bound derived by the technique of quantum hypothesis testing in [3]. Our one-shot ɛ-error capacities, which consider potentially stronger assistances, are always no larger than the previous SDP bounds, and the inequalities can be strict even for qubit channels or classical-quantum channels. This means that our one-shot ɛ-error capacities can provide tighter finite blocklength converse bounds for the entanglement-assisted and unassisted classical capacity. Moreover, our one-shot ɛ-error capacities also reduce to the Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú (PPV) converse bound [0] for classical channels. Furthermore, in common with the quantum hypothesis testing converse bound [3] and the bound of Datta and Hsieh [43], the large block length behaviour of our oneshot -assisted ɛ-error capacity also recovers the converse part of the formula for entanglementassisted capacity [44] and implies that no-signalling-assisted classical capacity coincides with the entanglement-assisted classical capacity. In Section V, we derive two SDP strong converse bounds for the -assisted classical capacity of a general quantum channel based on the one-shot characterization of the optimal success probability. These bounds also provide efficiently computable strong converse bounds for the classical capacity. As a special case, we show that log(+ γ) is a strong converse bound for the classical capacity of the amplitude damping channel with parameter γ, and this improves the best previously known upper bound in [45]. Furthermore, applying our strong converse bounds, we also prove the strong converse property for the classical and private capacities of a new class of quantum channels. In Section VI, we consider the zero-error communication problem [46], which requires that the communication is with zero probability of error. To be specific, based on our SDPs of optimal success probability, we derive the one-shot -assisted (or -assisted) zero-error capacity of general quantum channels. Our result of the -assisted capacity provides an alternative proof of the -assisted zero-error capacity in [4]. Moreover, our one-shot -assisted zero-error capacity gives an SDP-computable upper bound on the one-shot unassisted zero-error capacity, and it can be strictly smaller than the previous upper bound in [47]. Finally, in Section VII, we make a conclusion and leave some interesting open questions. III. PRELIMINARIES In the following, we will frequently use symbols such as A (or A ) and B (or B ) to denote (finite-dimensional) Hilbert spaces associated with Alice and Bob, respectively. We use d A to denote the dimension of system A. The set of linear operators over A is denoted by L(A). We usually write an operator with subscript indicating the system that the operator acts on, such as T AB, and write T A = Tr B T AB. Note that for a linear operator R L(A), we define R = R R, where R is the adjoint operator of R, and the trace norm of R is given by R = Tr R. The operator norm R is defined as the maimum eigenvalue of R. A deterministic quantum operation (quantum channel) N (A B) is simply a completely positive (CP) and trace-preserving

4 4 (TP) linear map from L(A ) to L(B). The Choi-Jamiołkowski matri [48, 49] of N is given by J N = ij i A j A N ( i A j A ), where { i A } and { i A } are orthonormal bases on isomorphic Hilbert spaces A and A, respectively. A positive semidefinite operator E L(A B) is said to be a positive partial transpose operator (or simply PPT) if E T B 0, where T B means the partial transpose with respect to the party B, i.e., ( ij kl ) T B = il kj. As shown in [37], a bipartite operation Π(A i B i A o B o ) is PPT-preserving if and only if its Choi-Jamiołkowski matri Z Ai B i A ob o is PPT. We sometimes omit the identity operator or operation, for eample, E(A B)(X AC ) (E(A B) C )(X AC ). The constraints of PPT and can be mathematically characterized as follows. A bipartite operation Π(A i B i A o B o ) is no-signalling and PPT-preserving if and only if its Choi-Jamiołkowski matri Z Ai B i A ob o satisfies [8]: Z Ai B i A ob o 0, Z Ai B i = Ai B i, Z T B i Bo A i B i A ob o 0, (CP) (TP) (PPT) Z Ai B i B o = A i d Ai Z Bi B o, (A / B) () Z Ai B i A o = B i d Bi Z Ai A o, (B / A) where the five lines correspond to characterize that Π is completely positive, trace-preserving, PPT-preserving, no-signalling from A to B, no-signalling from B to A, respectively. The structure of no-signalling codes is also studied in [4]. Semidefinite programming [50] is a subfield of conve optimization and is a powerful tool in quantum information theory with many applications (e.g., [3, 8, 37, 4, 5 56]). There are known polynomial-time algorithms for semidefinite programming [57]. In this work, we use the CVX software (a Matlab-based conve modeling framework) [58] and QETLAB (A Matlab Toolbo for Quantum Entanglement) [59] to solve the SDPs. Details about semidefinite programming can be found in [60]. IV. CLASSICAL COMMUNICATION ASSISTED BY AND PPT CODES A. Semidefinite programs for optimal success probability Suppose Alice wants to send the classical message labeled by {,..., m} to Bob using the composite channel M = Π N, where Π is a bipartite operation that generalizes the usual encoding scheme E and decoding scheme D, see Fig. for details. In this paper, we consider Π as the bipartite operation implementing the PPT or assistance. After the action of E and N, the message results in quantum state at Bob s side. Bob then performs a POVM with m outcomes on the resulting quantum state. The POVM is a component of the operation D. Since the results of the POVM and the input messages are both classical, it is natural to assume that M is with classical registers throughout this paper, that is, M = M for some completely dephasing channel. If the outcome k {,..., m} happens, he concludes that the message with label k was sent. Let Ω be some class of bipartite operations. The average success probability of the general code Π and the Ω-class code is defined as follows. Definition The average success probability of N to transmit m messages assisted with the code Π is

5 5 A i B o A i A o B i B o N E D E Π D Π C M A o N B i FIG. : Bipartite operation Π(A i B i A o B o ) is equivalently the coding scheme (E,D) with free etra resources, such entanglement or no-signalling correlations. The whole operation is to emulate a noiseless classical (or quantum) channel M(A i B o ) using a given noisy quantum channel N (A o B i ) and the bipartite operation Π. defined by f(n, Π, m) = m m Tr(M( k k ) k k ), (3) k= where M Π N and { k } is the computational basis in system A i. Furthermore, the optimal average success probability of N to transmit m messages assisted with Ω-class code is defined by where the maimum is over the codes in class Ω. f Ω (N, m) = sup f(n, Π, m), (4) Π We now define the Ω-assisted classical capacity of a quantum channel as follows. Definition C Ω (N ) = sup {r lim n f Ω (N n, rn ) = }. (5) As described above, one can simulate a channel M with the channel N and code Π, where Π is a bipartite CPTP operation from A i B i to A o B o which is no-signalling () and PPT-preserving (PPT). In this work we shall also consider other classes of codes, such as entanglement-assisted (EA) code, unassisted (UA) code. The class of entanglement-assisted codes corresponds to bipartite operations of the form Π(A i B i A o B o ) = D(B i ˆB Bo )E(A i  A o )ϕâ ˆB, where E, D are encoding and decoding operations respectively, and ϕâ ˆB can be any shared entangled state of arbitrary systems  and ˆB. we use Ω to denote specific class of codes such as Ω {, PPT, PPT, EA, UA} in the following. Let M(A i B o ) denote the resulting composition channel of Π and N, written M = Π N. As both M and N are quantum channels, there eist quantum channels E(A i A o C) and D(B i C B o ), where E is an isometry operation and C is a quantum register, such that [6] M(A i B o ) = D(B i C B 0 ) N (A o B i ) E(A i A o C). (6) Based on this, the Choi-Jamiołkowski matri of M is given by [8] J M = Tr AoB i (J T N Ai B o )Z Ai A ob i B o. (7)

6 6 The operations E and D can be considered as generalized encoding and decoding operations respectively, ecept that the register C may be not possessed by Alice or Bob. If the Hilbert space with C is trivial, E and D become the unassisted local encoding/decoding operations. Moreover, the coding schemes E, D with register C can be designed to be forward-assisted codes [8]. We are now able to derive the one-shot characterization of classical communication assisted by (or ) codes. Theorem 3 For a given quantum channel N, the optimal success probability of N to transmit m messages assisted by codes is given by f (N, m) = ma Tr J N F AB s. t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = B /m, 0 F T B AB ρ A B (PPT). (8) Similarly, when assisted by codes, one can remove the PPT constraint to obtain the optimal success probability as follows: f (N, m) = ma Tr J N F AB s. t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = B /m. (9) Proof In this proof, we first use the Choi-Jamiołkowski representations of quantum channels to refine the average success probability and then eploit symmetry to simplify the optimization over all possible codes. Finally, we impose the no-signalling and PPT-preserving constraints to obtain the semidefinite program of the optimal average success probability. Without loss of generality, we assume that A i and B o are classical registers with size m, i.e., the inputs and outputs are { k Ai } m k= and { k Bi } m k =, respectively. For some code Π, the Choi-Jamiołkowski matri of M = Π N is given by J M = ij i j Ai M( i j A i ), where A i is isometric to A i. Then, we can simplify f(n, Π, m) to f(n, Π, m) = m m Tr (M( k k A i ) k k Bo ) k= = m Tr = m Tr J M m i,j= m k= ( i j Ai M( i j A i )) kk kk Ai B o. m k= kk kk Ai B o (0) Then, denoting D Ai B o = m k= kk kk A i B o, we have f (N, m) = ma M=Π N m Tr(J MD Ai B o ), where M = Π N and Π is any feasible bipartite operation. (See FIG. for the implementation of M.) Noting that J M = Tr AoB i (J T N A i B o )Z Ai A ob i B o, we can further simplify f(n, m)

7 7 as f (N, m) = ma Tr(J T N Ai B o )Z Ai A ob i B o ( AoB i D Ai B o )/m, s. t. Z Ai A ob i B o satisfies Eq. (). () The net step is to simplify f(n, m) by eploiting symmetry. For any permutation τ S m, where S m is the symmetric group of degree m, if Z Ai A ob i B o is feasible (satisfying the constraints in Eq. ()), then it is not difficult to check that Z A i A ob i B o = (τ Ai τ Bo AoB i )Z Ai A ob i B o (τ Ai τ Bo AoB i ) () is also feasible. And any conve combination λz +( λ)z (0 λ ) of two operators satisfying Eq. () can also checked to be feasible. Therefore, if Z Ai A ob i B o is feasible, so is Z Ai A ob i B o = P Ai B o (Z Ai A ob i B o ) = m! (τ Ai τ Bo )Z Ai A ob i B o (τ Ai τ Bo ), τ Ai,τ Bo S m (3) where P Ai B o is a twirling operation on A i B o. Noticing that P Ai B o (D Ai B o ) = D Ai B o, we have Tr Ai B o (Z Ai B i A ob o ( AoB i D Ai B o )) = Tr Ai B o (Z Ai B i A ob o ( AoB i P Ai B o (D Ai B o )) = Tr Ai B o ( Z Ai A ob i B o ( AoB i D Ai B o )). (4) Thus, it is easy to see that the optimal success probability equals to f (N, m) = ma Tr(J T N Ai B o ) Z Ai A ob i B o ( AoB i D Ai B o )/m s. t. Z Ai A ob i B o satisfies Eq. (). It is worth noting that Z Ai A ob i B o can be rewritten as [4] Z Ai A ob i B o = F AoB i D Ai B o + E AoB i ( D Ai B o ), for some operators E AoB i and F AoB i. Thus, the objective function can be simplified to Tr J T N F. Also, the CP and PPT constraints are equivalent to E AoB i 0, F AoB i 0, E T B i A ob i 0, F T B i A ob i 0. (5) Furthermore, the B / A constraint is equivalent to Tr Bo ZAi A ob i B o = Tr BoB i ZAi A ob i B o Bi /d Bi, i.e. F AoB i + (m )E AoB i = Tr Bi (F AoB i + (m )E AoB i ) B i d Bi = ρ Ao Bi. (6) and the TP constraint holds if and only if Tr AoB o Z Ai A ob i B o = Ai B i, i.e., Tr Ao (F AoB i + (m )E AoB i ) = Bi, (7)

8 8 which is equivalent to Tr ρ Ao = Tr(F AoB i + (m )E AoB i )/d Bi = Tr Bi /d Bi =. (8) As Π is no-signalling from A to B, we have Tr Ao ZAi A ob i B o = Tr AoA i ZAi A ob i B o A i m, i.e., Tr Ao F AoB i D Ai B o + Tr Ao E AoB i ( D Ai B o ) = Tr Ao (F AoB i + (m )E AoB i ) A i B o m = A i B i B o /m. Since D Ai B o and D Ai B o are orthogonal positive operators, we have (9) Finally, combining Eq. (5), (6), (8), (0), we have that Tr Ao F AoB i = Tr Ao E AoB i = Bi /m. (0) f (N, m) = ma Tr J N F AoB i s.t. 0 F AoB i ρ Ao Bi, Tr ρ Ao =, Tr Ao F AoB i = Bi /m, 0 F T B i A ob i ρ Ao Bi. () This gives the SDP in Theorem 3, where we assume that A o = A and B i = B for simplification. Remark: The dual SDP for f (N, m) is given by f (N, m) = min t + Tr S B /m s.t.j N X AB + A S B + (W AB Y AB ) T B, Tr B (X AB + W AB ) t A, X AB, Y AB, W AB 0, S B = S B. () To remove the PPT constraint, set Y AB = W AB = 0. It is worth noting that the strong duality holds here since the Slater s condition can be easily checked. Indeed, choosing X AB = Y AB = W AB = J N AB, S B = B and t = 3d B J N in SDP (), we have (X AB, Y AB, W AB, S B, t) is in the relative interior of the feasible region. It is worthing noting that f (N, m) can be obtained by removing the PPT constraint and it corresponds with the optimal -assisted channel fidelity in [8]. B. Improved SDP converse bounds in finite blocklength For given 0 ɛ <, the one-shot ɛ-error classical capacity assisted by Ω-class codes is defined as Ω (N, ɛ) = sup{log λ f Ω(N, λ) ɛ}. (3) We now derive the one-shot ɛ-error classical capacity assisted by or codes as follows.

9 9 Theorem 4 For given channel N and error threshold ɛ, the one-shot ɛ-error -assisted and assisted capacities are given by and respectively. (N, ɛ) = log min η s. t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, 0 F T B AB ρ A B (PPT), (N, ɛ) = log min η s.t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, (4) (5) Proof When assisted by codes, by Eq. (3), we have that To simplify Eq. (6), we suppose that (N, ɛ) = log ma λ s.t.f (N, λ) ɛ. (6) Υ(N, ɛ) = log min η s. t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, 0 F T B AB ρ A B (PPT). On one hand, for given ɛ, suppose that the optimal solution to the SDP (7) of Υ(N, ɛ) is {ρ, F, η}. Then, it is clear that {ρ, F } is a feasible solution of the SDP (8) of f (N, η ), which means that f (N, η ) Tr J N F ɛ. Therefore, (7) (N, ɛ) log η = Υ(N, ɛ). (8) On the other hand, for given ɛ, suppose that the value of (N, ɛ) is log λ and the optimal solution of f (N, λ) is {ρ, F }. It is easy to check that {ρ, F, λ } satisfies the constrains in SDP (7) of Υ(N, ɛ). Therefore, Υ(N, ɛ) log λ = (N, ɛ). (9) Hence, combining Eqs. (7), (8) and (9), it is clear that (N, ɛ) = Υ(N, ɛ) = log min η s.t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, 0 F T B AB ρ A B (PPT). (30)

10 0 And one can obtain (N, ɛ) by removing the PPT constraint. Noticing that no-signalling-assisted codes are potentially stronger than the entanglementassisted codes, (N, ɛ) and C() (N, ɛ) provide converse bounds of classical communication for entanglement-assisted and unassisted codes, respectively. Corollary 5 For a given channel N and error threshold ɛ, E (N, ɛ) C() (N, ɛ), (N, ɛ) (N, ɛ). We further compare our one-shot ɛ-error capacities with the previous SDP converse bounds derived by the quantum hypothesis testing technique in [3]. To be specific, for a given channel N (A B) and error thresold ɛ, Matthews and Wehner [3] establish that and E (N, ɛ) R E(N, ɛ) = ma min D ɛ ρ A σ B H((id A N )(ρ A A) ρ A σ B ) = log min η s.t.0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, (N, ɛ) R E PPT (N, ɛ) Tr A F AB η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, = ma mind ρ A σ H,P ɛ P T ((id A N )(ρ A A) ρ A σ B ) B = log min η s.t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB η B, Tr J N F AB ɛ, 0 F T B AB ρ A B, where ρ A A = ( A ρ A )Φ A A( A ρ A ) is a purification of ρ A and ρ A = Tr A ρ A A. Moreover, D ɛ H(ρ 0 ρ ) = log min Tr T ρ s.t. Tr T ρ 0 ɛ, 0 T is the hypothesis testing relative entropy [3, 4] and D ɛ H,P P T (ρ 0 ρ ) is the similar quantity with a PPT constraint on the POVM. Interestingly, our one-shot ɛ-error capacities are similar to these quantum hypothesis testing relative entropy converse bounds. However, there is a crucial difference that our quantities require that a stricter condition, i.e., Tr A F AB = η B. This makes one-shot ɛ-error capacities ( (N, ɛ) and C() (N, ɛ)) always smaller than or equal to the SDP converse bounds in [3], and the inequalities can be strict. Proposition 6 For a given channel N (A B) and error threshold ɛ, (N, ɛ) R E(N, ɛ) = ma min D ɛ ρ A σ B H((id A N )(ρ A A) ρ A σ B ), (N, ɛ) R E PPT(N, ɛ) = ma min D ρ A σ H,P ɛ P T ((id A N )(ρ A A) ρ A σ B ). B (3) (3) (33)

11 In particular, both inequalities can be strict for some quantum channels such as the amplitude damping channels and the simplest classical-quantum channels. Proof This can be proved by the fact that any feasible solution of the SDP (5) of (N, ɛ) (or (N, ɛ)) is also feasible to the SDP (3) of R E(N, ɛ) (or R E PPT (N, ɛ)). We further show that the inequality can be strict by the eample of qubit amplitude damping channel N AD γ = i=0 E i E i (0 γ ), with E 0 = γ and E = γ 0. We compare the above bounds in FIG. and FIG. 3. It is clear that our bounds can be strictly better than the quantum hypothesis testing bounds in [3] in this case. Bits Bits from 0.5 to from 0. to FIG. 3: The red solid and dash-dot lines depict FIG. : The red solid and dash-dot lines depict AD (Nγ, 0.0) and AD AD (Nγ, 0.0) and AD (Nγ, 0.005), (Nγ, 0.005), respectively. The blue dashed and dotted lines depict respectively. The blue dashed and dotted lines depict R E PPT (Nγ AD, 0.0) and R E PPT (Nγ AD, 0.005), R E (Nγ AD, 0.0) and R E (Nγ AD, 0.005). respectively. 0 Another eample is the simplest classical-quantum channel Na cq and two pure output states ψ i ψ i, w.l.o.g. which has only two inputs ψ 0 = a 0 + b, ψ = a 0 b, with a b = a. The comparison is presented in FIG. 4 and it is clear that our bound can be strictly tighter for this class of classical-quantum channels. We then consider the asymptotic performance of the one-shot -assisted ɛ-error capacity. Interestingly, in common with the bound R E (N, ɛ) [3] and the bound of Datta and Hsieh [43], the asymptotic behaviour of R (N, ɛ) also recovers the converse part of the formula for entanglement-assisted capacity [44] and it implies that C (N ) = C E (N ). (See Corollary 7.) In [8], Leung and Matthews have already shown that the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity of a quantum channel is equal to the -assisted quantum capacity. It is worth noting that our result is equivalent to their result due to superdense coding [6] and teleportation [63]. Corollary 7 For any quantum channel N (A B), lim ɛ 0 lim n n C() (N n, ɛ) ma ρ A I(ρ A ; N ),

12 FIG. 4: When ɛ = 0.005, cq (Na, ɛ) (red solid line) can be strictly smaller than the previous SDP bound R E (Na cq, ɛ) (blue dashed line). Note that cq (Na, ɛ) = cq (Na, ɛ) and R E PPT (Na cq, ɛ) = R E (Na cq, ɛ) in this case. where I(ρ A ; N ) = H(ρ A ) + H(N (ρ A )) H((id N )φ ρa ), and φ ρa is a purification of ρ A. As a consequence, C (N ) = C E (N ). Proof In [3], Matthews and Wehner prove that By Proposition 6, we immediately obtain that lim lim ɛ 0 n n R E(N n, ɛ) ma I(ρ A ; N ). ρ A lim lim ɛ 0 n n C() (N n, ɛ) lim lim ɛ 0 n ma ρ A I(ρ A ; N ), n R E(N n, ɛ) (34) which means that C (N ) C E (N ). Noticing that no-signalling codes are potentially stronger than the entanglement codes, it holds that C (N ) C E (N ). Therefore, we have that C (N ) = C E (N ). C. Reduction to Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú converse bound For classical-quantum channels, the one-shot ɛ-error -assisted (or -assisted) capacity can be further simplified based on the structure of the channel. Proposition 8 For the classical-quantum channel that acts as N ρ, the Choi matri of N is given by J N = ρ. Then, the SDP (5) of (N, ɛ) and the SDP (4) of C() (N, ɛ) can be

13 3 simplified to (N, ɛ) = C() (N, ɛ) = log ma s s.t. 0 Q s B,, Q = B, Tr Q ρ ( ɛ)s. Proof When J N = ρ, the SDP (5) easily simplifies to (N, ɛ) = log min η s.t. 0 F p B,, p =, F /η = B, Tr F ρ ( ɛ). By assuming that Q = F /η and s = p /η, the above SDP simplifies to (35) (36) (N, ɛ) = log ma s s.t. 0 Q s B,, Q = B, Tr Q ρ ( ɛ) s, where we use the fact s = p /η = /η. One can use a similar method to simplify (N, ɛ) as well. Furthermore, for the classical channels, Polyanskiy, Poor, and Verdú [0] derive the finite blocklength converse via hypothesis testing. In [], an alternative proof of PPV converse was provided by considering the assistance of the classical no-signalling correlations. Here, we are going to show that both (N, ɛ) and C() (N, ɛ) will reduce to the PPV converse. Let us first recall the linear program for the PPV converse bound of a classical channel N (y ) [0, ]: R P P V (N, ɛ) = ma s s.t. Q y s,, y, Q y, y,,y N (y )Q y ( ɛ) s. For classical channels, we can further simplify the SDP (35) to a linear program which coincides with the Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú converse bound. Proposition 9 For a classical channel N (y ), (37) (38) (N, ɛ) = C() (N, ɛ) = RP P V (N, ɛ). (39)

14 4 Proof The idea is to further simplify the SDP (35) via the structure of classical channels. For input, the corresponding outputs can be seemed as ρ = y N (y ) y y. Then, Q should be diagonal for any, i.e., Q = y Q y. Thus, SDP (35) can be easily simplified to (N, ɛ) = C() (N, ɛ) = log ma s s.t. Q y s,, y, Q y =, y,,y N (y )Q y ( ɛ) s. Using the similar technique in [], the constraint Q y = can be relaed to Q y in this case, which means that the linear program (40) is equal to the linear program (38). (40) V. STRONG CONVERSE BOUNDS FOR CLASSICAL COMMUNICATION A. SDP strong converse bounds for the classical capacity It is well known that evaluating the classical capacity of a general channel is etremely difficult. To the best of our knowledge, the only known nontrivial strong converse bound for the classical capacity is the entanglement-assisted capacity [44] and there is also computable single-shot upper bound derived from entanglement measures [45]. In this section, we will derive two SDP strong converse bounds for the classical capacity of a general quantum channel. Our bounds are efficiently computable and do not depend on any special properties of the channel. We also show that for some classes of quantum channels, our bound can be strictly smaller than the entanglementassisted capacity and the previous bound in [45]. Before introducing the strong converse bounds, we first show a single-shot SDP to estimate the optimal success probability of classical communication via multiple uses of the channel. Proposition 0 For any quantum channel N and given m, where f (N, m) f + (N, m), f + (N, m) = min Tr Z B s.t. R AB J T B N R AB, m A Z B R T B AB m A Z B. Furthermore, it holds that f (N N, m m ) f + (N, m )f + (N, m ). Consequently, (4) f (N n, m n ) f + (N, m) n. (4) Proof We utilize the duality theory of semidefinite programming in the proof. To be specific, the dual SDP of f + (N, m) is given by f + (N, m) = ma Tr J N (V AB X AB ) T B s.t. V AB + X AB (W AB Y AB ) T B, Tr A (W AB + Y AB ) B /m, V AB, X AB, W AB, Y AB 0. (43)

15 5 It is worth noting that the optimal values of the primal and the dual SDPs above coincide. This is a consequence of strong duality. By Slater s condition, one simply needs to show that there eists positive definite V AB, X AB, W AB and Y AB such that V AB + X AB < (W AB Y AB ) T B and Tr A (W AB + Y AB ) < B /m, which holds for W AB = Y AB = 5V AB = X AB = AB /md A. In SDP (43), let us choose X AB = Y AB = 0 and V T B AB = W AB, then we have that f + (N, m) K f (N, m), (44) where K = ma Tr J N W AB s.t.w AB, W T B AB 0, Tr A W AB B /m. This means that the SDP (43) of f + (N, m) is a relaation of the SDP (8) of f (N, m). To see f (N N, m m ) f + (N, m )f + (N, m ), we first suppose that the optimal solution to SDP (4) of f + (N, m ) is {Z, R } and the optimal solution to SDP (4) of f + (N, m ) is {Z, R }. Let us denote the Choi-Jamiołkowski matri of N and N by J and J, respectively. It is easy to see that R R ± J T B J T B 0 since R R + J T B J T B = [(R + J T B ) (R + J T B ) + (R J T B ) (R J T B )], R R J T B J T B = [(R + J T B ) (R J T B ) + (R J T B ) (R + J T B )]. Therefore, we have that R R J T B J T B R R. Applying similar techniques, it is easy to prove that m m AA Z Z R T B R T B m m AA Z Z. Hence, {Z Z, R R } is a feasible solution to the SDP (4) of f + (N N, m m ), which means that f (N N, m m ) f + (N N, m m ) Tr Z Z = f + (N, m )f + (N, m ). Now, we are able to derive the strong converse bounds of the classical capacity. Theorem For any quantum channel N, where C(N ) C (N ) C β (N ) log β(n ) log(d B J T B N ), β(n ) = min Tr S B s.t. R AB J T B N R AB, A S B R T B AB A S B. In particular, when the communication rate eceeds C β (N ), the error probability goes to one eponentially fast as the number of channel uses increases. (45)

16 6 Proof For n uses of the channel, we suppose that the rate of the communication is r. By Proposition 0, we have that Therefore, the n-shot error probability satisfies that f (N n, rn ) f + (N, r ) n. (46) ɛ n = f (N n, rn ) f + (N, r ) n. (47) Suppose that the optimal solution to the SDP (45) of β(n ) is {S 0, R 0 }. It is easy to verify that {S 0 / Tr S 0, R 0 } is a feasible solution to the SDP (4) of f + (N, Tr S 0 ). Therefore, f + (N, β(n )) Tr(S 0 / Tr S 0 ) =. It is not difficult to see that f + (N, m) monotonically decreases when m increases. Thus, for any r > β(n ), we have f + (N, r ) <. Then, by Eq. (47), it is clear that the corresponding n-shot error probability ɛ n will go to one eponentially fast as n increases. Hence, C β (N ) is a strong converse bound for the -assisted classical capacity of N. Furthermore, let us choose R AB = J T B N AB and S B = J T B N B. It is clear that {R AB, S B } is a feasible solution to the SDP (45) of β(n ), which means that β(n ) d B J T B N. Remark C β has some remarkable properties. For eample, it is additive: C β (N N ) = C β (N ) + C β (N ) for different quantum channels N and N. This can be proved by utilizing semidefinite programming duality. With similar techniques, we are going to show another SDP strong converse bound for the classical capacity of a general quantum channel. Theorem For a quantum channel N, we derive the following strong converse bound for the assisted classical capacity, i.e., with C(N ) C (N ) C ζ (N ) = log ζ(n ) ζ(n ) = min Tr S B s.t.v AB J N, A S B V T B AB A S B (48) And if the communication rate eceeds C ζ (N ), the error probability will go to one eponentially fast as the number of channel uses increase. Proof We first introduce the following SDP to estimate the optimal success probability: f + (N, m) = min Tr S B s.t. V AB J N, Similar to Proposition 0, we can prove that m A S B V T B AB m A S B. (49) f (N n, m n ) f + (N, m) n. (50) Then, when the communication rate eceeds C ζ (N ), we can use the technique in Theorem to prove that the error probability will go to one eponentially fast as the number of channel uses increase. As an eample, we first apply our bounds to the qudit noiseless channel. In this case, the bounds are tight and strictly smaller than the entanglement-assisted classical capacity.

17 7 Proposition 3 For the qudit noiseless channel I d (ρ) = ρ, it holds that C(I d ) = C β (I d ) = C ζ (I d ) = log d < log d = C E (I d ). (5) Proof It is clear that C(I d ) log d. By the fact that J T B I d =, it is easy to see that C β (I d ) log d J T B I d = log d. Similarly, we also have C ζ (I d ) log d. And C E (I d ) = log d is due to the superdense coding [6]. B. Amplitude damping channel For the amplitude damping channel Nγ AD = i=0 E i E i (0 γ ) with E 0 = γ and E = γ 0, the Holevo capacity χ(nγ AD ) is given in [64]. However, its classical capacity remains unknown. The only known nontrivial and meaningful upper bound for the classical capacity of the amplitude damping channel was established in [45]. As an application of theorems and, we show a strong converse bound for the classical capacity of the qubit amplitude damping channel. Remarkably, our bound improves the best previously known upper bound [45]. Theorem 4 For amplitude damping channel N AD γ, As a consequence, Proof Suppose that and with v = ( 00 + ). C (N AD γ ) C ζ (N AD γ ) = C β (Nγ AD ) = log( + γ). C(Nγ AD ) log( + γ). γ + + γ γ + γ S B = V AB = J AD γ + ( γ + γ) v v It is clear that V AB Jγ AD. Moreover, it is easy to see that A S B V T B γ + γ AB = ( 0 0 )( 0 0 ) 0 and A S B + V T B AB = ( γ + + γ) ( γ + γ) ) + γ++3γ Therefore, {S B, V AB } is a feasible solution to SDP (48), which means that C ζ (Nγ AD ) log Tr S B = log( + γ). γ+ γ ( One can also use the dual SDP of C β to show that C β (Nγ AD ) log( + γ). Hence, we have that C ζ (Nγ AD ) = log( + γ). Similarly, it can also be calculated that C β (Nγ AD ) = log( + γ). Remark: It is worth noting that our bound is strictly smaller than the entanglement-assisted capacity when γ 0.75 as shown in the following FIG. 5. We further compare our bound with the previous upper bound [45] and lower bound [64] in FIG. 6. The authors of [64] show that C(Nγ AD ) ma 0 p {H [( γ)p] H [(+ 4( γ)γp )/]}, where H is the binary entropy. It is clear that our bound provides a tighter bound to the classical capacity than the previous bound [45].

18 8 FIG. 5: The solid line depicts C β (Nγ AD ) while the dashed line depicts C E (Nγ AD ). It is worth noting that C β (Nγ AD ) is strictly smaller than C E (Nγ AD ) for any γ FIG. 6: The solid line depicts C β (Nγ AD ), the dashed line depicts the previous bound of C(Nγ AD ) [45], and the dotted line depicts the lower bound [64]. Our bound is tighter than the previous bound in [45]. C. Strong converse property for a new class of quantum channels In [65], a class of qutrit-to-qutrit channels was introduced to show the separation between quantum Lovász number and entanglement-assisted zero-error classical capacity. It turns out that this class of channels also has strong converse property for classical or private communication. To be specific, the channel from register A to B is given by N α (ρ) = E 0 ρe 0 + E ρe (0 < α π/4) with E 0 = sin α 0 +, E = cos α + 0. It follows that the complementary channel of N α is N c α(ρ) = i=0 F iρf i with F 0 = sin α 0, F = 0 + 0, F = cos α. Proposition 5 For N α (0 < α π/4), we have that C(N α ) = C (N α ) = C β (N α ) =. Proof Suppose the Z B = sin α cos α + and It is easy to check that R AB = sin α( ) + cos α( ) + sin α cos α( ). R AB J T B N α R AB and A Z B R T B AB A Z B, where J Nα is the Choi-Jamiołkowski matri of N α. Therefore, {Z B, R AB } is a feasible solution of SDP (45) of β(n α ), which means that β(n α ) Tr Z B =.

19 9 Noticing that we can use input 0 0 and to transmit two messages via N, we can conclude that C(N α ) = C (N α ) =. Remark In [65], the entanglement-assisted capacity of N α is shown to be C E (N α ) =. Therefore, for N α (0 < α π/4), our bound C β is strictly smaller than the entanglement-assisted capacity. In this case, we also note that C β (N α ) < C ζ (N α ). However, it remains unknown whether C β is always smaller than or equal to C ζ. Furthermore, it is easy to see that N α is neither an entanglement-breaking channel nor a Hadamard channel. Note also that N α is not belong to the three classes in [7], for which the strong converse for classical capacity has been established. Thus, our results show a new class of quantum channels which satisfy the strong converse property for classical capacity. Moreover, we find that the strong converse property also holds for the private classical capacity [66, 67] of N α. Note that private capacity requires that no information leaked to the environment and is usually called P (N ). Recently, several converse bounds for private communication were established in [68 7]. Proposition 6 The private capacity of N α is eactly one bit, i.e., P (N α ) =. In particular, Q(N α ) log( + cos α) < = P (N α ) = C(N α ) = C E(N α ). Proof On one hand, it is easy to see that P (N α ) C(N α ) = C β (N α ) =. On the other hand, Alice can choose two input states ψ 0 = and ψ = cos α 0 + sin α, then the corresponding output states Bob received are N α ( ψ 0 ψ 0 ) = sin α cos α, N α ( ψ ψ ) =. It is clear that Bob can perfectly distinguish these two output states. Meanwhile, the corresponding outputs of the complementary channel N c α are same, i.e., N c α( ψ 0 ψ 0 ) = N c α( ψ ψ ) = sin α cos α, which means that the environment obtain zero information during the communication. Applying the SDP bound of the quantum capacity in [73], the quantum capacity of N α is strictly smaller than log( + cos α). Our result establishes the strong converse property for both the classical and private capacities of N α. For the classical capacity, such a property was previously only known for classical channels, identity channel, entanglement-breaking channels, Hadamard channels and particular covariant quantum channels [7, 9]. For the private capacity, such a property was previously only known for generalized dephasing channels and quantum erasure channels [68]. Moreover, our result also shows a simple eample of the distinction between the private and the quantum capacities, which were discussed in [74, 75].

20 0 VI. ZERO-ERROR CAPACITY While ordinary information theory focuses on sending messages with asymptotically vanishing errors [76], Shannon also investigated this problem in the zero-error setting and described the zero-error capacity of a channel as the maimum rate at which it can be used to transmit information with zero probability of error [46]. Recently the zero-error information theory has been studied in the quantum setting and many new interesting phenomena have been found [47, 77 83]. The one-shot zero-error capacity of a quantum channel N is the maimum number of inputs such that the receiver can perfectly distinguish the corresponding output states. Cubitt et al. [84] first introduced the zero-error communication via classical channels assisted by classical nosignalling correlations. Recently, no-signalling-assisted zero-error communication over quantum channels was introduced in [4]. Using the epression (4) for our one-shot ɛ-error capacity, we are going to show a formula for the one-shot zero-error classical capacity assisted by (or ) codes. Theorem 7 The one-shot zero-error classical capacity (quantified as messages) of N assisted by PPT codes is given by M 0, (N ) = ma Tr S A s.t. 0 U AB S A B, Tr A U AB = B, Tr J N (S A B U AB ) = 0, 0 U T B AB S A B (PPT). (5) To obtain M 0, (N ), one only needs to remove the PPT constraint. By the regularization, the Ω-assisted zero-error classical capacity is Proof When ɛ = 0, it is easy to see that C 0,Ω (N ) = sup n n log M 0,Ω(N n ). (N, 0) = log min η s.t. 0 F AB ρ A B, Tr ρ A =, Tr A F AB = η B, Tr J N F AB, 0 F T B AB ρ A B. (53) Then, assuming that = /η, U AB = F AB and S A = ρ A, we have that M 0, (N ) = C() (N,0) = ma Tr S A s.t. 0 U AB S A B, Tr A U AB = B, Tr J N U AB Tr S A, 0 U T B AB S A B. (54)

21 By the fact that Tr S A = Tr J N (S A B ), the third constraint in Eq. (54) is equivalent to Tr J N (S A B U AB ) 0. Noticing that S A B U AB 0, we can simplify Eq. (54) to M 0, (N ) = ma Tr S A s.t. 0 U AB S A B, Tr A U AB = B, Tr J N (S A B U AB ) = 0, 0 U T B AB S A B. Remark It is worth noting that M 0, (N ) coincides with the no-signalling assisted zero-error capacity in [4]. Also, it can be proved that M 0, also depends only on the non-commutative bipartite graph [4] of N. A natural application of M 0,Ω (N ) is to upper bound the one-shot zero-error capacity, i.e., M 0 (N ) M 0, (N ) M 0, (N ). It is known that computing the one-shot zero-error capacity of a quantum channel is QMAcomplete [3]. However, our bounds can be efficiently solved by semidefinite programming. To the best of our knowledge, for a general quantum channel N = i E i E i, the best known bound of the one-shot zero-error capacity is the naive form of the Lovász number ϑ(n ) in [47], i.e., ϑ(n ) = ϑ(s) = ma{ + T T S, + T 0}, where S = span{e j E k} is the non-commutative graph of N. In the net Proposition, we show that M 0, (N ) can be strictly smaller than ϑ(n ) for some quantum channel N. This implies that M 0, (N ) can provide a more accurate estimation of the one-shot zero-error capacity of some general quantum channels. Proposition 8 For N α (0 < α π/4), M 0, (N α ) < ϑ(n α ). Proof One one hand, one can also use the prime and dual SDPs of M 0, to prove M 0, (N α ). Indeed, this is also easy to see by Proposition 5. On the other hand, we are going to prove ϑ(n α ) + cos α. Suppose that T 0 = cos α + ( cos α). It is clear that T 0 S and + T 0 0. Thus, ϑ(n α ) + T 0 = ( + T 0 ) = + cos α >. For this class of quantum channels, it is worth noting that the private zero-error capacity is also one bit while its quantum zero-error capacity is strictly smaller than one qubit, i.e., Q 0 (N α ) < = P 0 (N α ) = C 0 (N α ). This shows a difference between the quantum and the private capacities of a quantum channel in the zero-error setting, which relates to the work about maimum privacy without coherence in the zero-error case [85]. (55)

22 VII. CONCLUSIO AND DISCUSSIO In summary, we have established fundamental limits for classical communication over quantum channels by considering general codes with constraint or constraint. New SDP bounds for classical communication under both finite blocklength and asymptotic settings are obtained in this work. We first study the finite blocklength regime. By imposing both no-signalling and PPTpreserving constraints, we have obtained the optimal success probabilities of transmitting classical information assisted by and codes. Based on this, we have also derived the oneshot ɛ-error -assisted and -assisted capacities. In particular, all of these one-shot characterizations are in the form of semidefinite programs. The one-shot -assisted and assisted) ɛ-error capacities provide an improved finite blocklength estimation of the classical communication than the previous quantum hypothesis testing converse bounds in [3]. Moreover, for classical channels, the one-shot -assisted and -assisted ɛ-error capacities are equal to the linear program for the Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú converse bound [0, ], thus giving an alternative proof of that result. Furthermore, in the asymptotic regime, we derive two SDP strong converse bounds of the classical capacity of a general quantum channel, which are efficiently computable and can be strictly smaller than the entanglement-assisted capacity. As an eample, we have shown an improved upper bound on the classical capacity of the qubit amplitude damping channel. Moreover, we have proved that the strong converse property holds for both classical and private capacities for a new class of quantum channels. This result may help us deepen the understanding of the limit ability of a quantum channel to transmit classical information. Finally, we apply our results to the study of zero-error capacity. To be specific, based on our SDPs of optimal success probability, we have derived the one-shot -assisted (or assisted ) zero-error capacity. Our result of -assisted capacity provides an alternative derivation for the -assisted zero-error capacity in [4]. Moreover, the one-shot -assisted zero-error capacity also provide some insights in quantum zero-error information theory. It would be interesting to study the asymptotic capacity C using such techniques as quantum hypothesis testing. Maybe it also has a single-letter formula similar to entanglementassisted classical capacity. Perhaps one can obtain tighter converse bounds via the study of C. Another direction is to further tighten the one-shot and strong converse bounds by involving the separable constraint [5]. It would also be interesting to study how to implement the no-signalling and PPT-preserving codes. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to Jens Eisert, Stefano Pirandola, Mark M. Wilde and Dong Yang for their helpful suggestions. Xin Wang would like to thank Mario Berta, Hao-Chung Cheng, Omar Fawzi, William Matthews, Volkher B. Scholz, Marco Tomamichel and Andreas Winter for helpful discussions. We also thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous referees for valuable comments that helped improving the paper. This work was partly supported by the Australian Research Council under Grant Nos. DP and FT [] X. Wang, W. Xie, and R. Duan, Semidefinite programming converse bounds for classical communication over quantum channels, 07 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). pp. 7873, 07.

23 [] A. S. Holevo, Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel, Problemy Peredachi Informatsii (Problems of Information Transmission), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 3, 973. [3], The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no., pp , 998. [4] B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Sending classical information via noisy quantum channels, Physical Review A, vol. 56, no., p. 3, 997. [5] C. King, The capacity of the quantum depolarizing channel, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no., pp. 9, 003. [6] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, Capacities of quantum erasure channels, Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, no. 6, p. 37, 997. [7] C. King, Additivity for unital qubit channels, Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 0, pp , 00. [8] G. G. Amosov, A. S. Holevo, and R. F. Werner, On Some Additivity Problems in Quantum Information Theory, Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 5 34, 000. [9] N. Datta, A. S. Holevo, and Y. Suhov, Additivity for transpose depolarizing channels, International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 4, no. 0, pp , 006. [0] M. Fukuda, Etending additivity from symmetric to asymmetric channels, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 38, no. 45, p. L753, 005. [] R. Konig, S. Wehner, and J. Wullschleger, Unconditional security from noisy quantum storage, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 58, no. 3, pp , 0. [] M. B. Hastings, Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled inputs, Nature Physics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp , apr 009. [3] S. Beigi and P. W. Shor, On the compleity of computing zero-error and Holevo capacity of quantum channels, arxiv: , 007. [4] J. Wolfowitz, Coding theorems of information theory, Mathematics of Computation, 978. [5] T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, Strong converse to the quantum channel coding theorem, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 45, no. 7, pp , 999. [6] A. Winter, Coding theorem and strong converse for quantum channels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 45, no. 7, pp , 999. [7] R. Koenig and S. Wehner, A strong converse for classical channel coding using entangled inputs, Physical Review Letters, vol. 03, no. 7, p , 009. [8] M. M. Wilde and A. Winter, Strong converse for the classical capacity of the pure-loss bosonic channel, Problems of Information Transmission, vol. 50, no., pp. 7 3, 03. [9] M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang, Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglementbreaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched Rényi relative entropy, Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 33, no., pp , 04. [0] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 5, pp , 00. [] M. Hayashi, Information spectrum approach to second-order coding rate in channel coding, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no., pp , 009. [] W. Matthews, A linear program for the finite block length converse of polyanskiy-poor-verdú via nonsignaling codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 58, no., pp , 0. [3] W. Matthews and S. Wehner, Finite blocklength converse bounds for quantum channels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no., pp , 04. [4] L. Wang and R. Renner, One-shot classical-quantum capacity and hypothesis testing, Physical Review Letters, vol. 08, no. 0, p. 0050, 0. [5] J. M. Renes and R. Renner, Noisy channel coding via privacy amplification and information reconciliation, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no., pp , 0. [6] M. Tomamichel and M. Hayashi, A hierarchy of information quantities for finite block length analysis of quantum tasks, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no., pp , 03. [7] M. Berta, M. Christandl, and R. Renner, The quantum reverse Shannon theorem based on one-shot information theory, Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 306, no. 3, pp , 0. [8] D. Leung and W. Matthews, On the power of PPT-preserving and non-signalling codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 6, no. 8, pp , 05. 3