Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Reliability Function of Classical-Quantum Channels
arXiv
Authors: Ke Li, Dong Yang
Year
2024
Paper ID
65293
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
130
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We study the reliability function of general classical-quantum channels, which describes the optimal exponent of the decay of decoding error when the communication rate is below the capacity. As the main result, we prove a lower bound, in terms of the quantum Renyi information in Petz's form, for the reliability function. This resolves Holevo's conjecture proposed in 2000, a long-standing open problem in quantum information theory. It turns out that the obtained lower bound matches the upper bound derived by Dalai in 2013, when the communication rate is above a critical value. Thus, we have determined the reliability function in this high-rate case. Our approach relies on Renes' breakthrough made in 2022, which relates classical-quantum channel coding to that of privacy amplification, as well as our new characterization of the channel Renyi information.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We study the reliability function of general classical-quantum channels, which describes the optimal exponent of the decay of decoding error when the communication rate is...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.