Additivity of Quantum Capacities in Simple Non-Degradable Quantum Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum channel capacities give the fundamental performance limits for information flow over a communication channel. However, the prevalence of superadditivity is a major obstacle to understanding capacities, both quantitatively and conceptually. Examples of additivity, while rare, provide key insight into the origins of nonadditivity and enable our best upper bounds on capacities. Degradable channels, which have additive coherent information, are some of the only channels for which we can calculate the quantum capacity. In this paper, we introduce two families of non-degradable channels whose coherent information remains additive, making their quantum capacities tractable. First, we demonstrate that channels capable of “outperforming” their environment, under conditions weaker than degradability, can exhibit either strong or weak additivity of coherent information. Second, we explore a complementary construction that modifies a channel to preserve coherent information additivity while destroying the “outperforming” property. We analyze how structural constraints guarantee strong and weak additivity and investigate how relaxing these constraints leads to the failure of strong additivity, with weak additivity potentially persisting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".