The communication power of indefinite causal order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum theory is in principle compatible with scenarios where physical processes occur in an indefinite order, potentially yielding advantages in a broad range of information processing tasks. However, advantages in communication, the most basic form of information processing, have so far remained controversial and hard to prove. Here we provide a framework for assessing the role of causal order in communication, by comparing different causal structures under the constraint that the allowed operations must not generate signaling from signaling-incapable devices. Using this framework, we establish a clear-cut advantage of indefinite causal order, and, at the same time, we identify a series of fundamental limits to the communication power of causal structures in quantum mechanics. Notably, we find that a special form of indefinite causal order, obtained by coherently controlling the order of two processes, enhances the transmission of classical messages in a one-shot scenario, but no quantum operation with indefinite order can offer advantages over shared entanglement when asymptotically many uses of the same communication device are employed. Overall, our results unveil non-trivial relations between communication, causal order, entanglement, and no-signaling quantum processes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".