Communication Power of a Noisy Qubit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental limitation of quantum communication is that a single qubit can carry at most one bit of classical information. For an important class of quantum communication channels, known as entanglement breaking, this limitation holds even if the sender and receiver share entangled particles. But does this mean that, for the purpose of communicating classical messages, a noisy entanglement-breaking qubit channel can be replaced by a noisy bit channel? Here we answer the question in the negative. We introduce a game, similar to the Monty Hall problem in classical statistics, where a sender assists a receiver in finding a valuable item (the "prize") hidden in one of four possible boxes, while avoiding a hazardous item (the "bomb") hidden in one of the remaining three boxes. We show that no classical strategy using a noisy bit channel can ensure that the bomb is avoided, even if the sender and receiver share arbitrary amounts of randomness. In contrast, communication of a qubit through a class of noisy entanglement-breaking channels, which we call quantum not channels, allows the players to deterministically avoid the bomb and to find the prize with a guaranteed nonzero probability. Our findings show that the communication of classical messages through a noisy entanglement-breaking qubit channel assisted by quantum entanglement cannot, in general, be simulated by communication through a noisy bit channel assisted by classical correlations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".