Quantum reading refers to the task of reading out classical information stored in a classical memory. In any such protocol, the transmitter and receiver are in the same physical location, and the goal of such a protocol is to use these devices, coupled with a quantum strategy, to read out as much information as possible from a classical memory, such as a CD or DVD. In this context, a memory cell is a collection of quantum channels that can be used to encode a classical message in a memory. The maximum rate at which information can be read out from a given memory encoded with a memory cell is called the quantum reading capacity of the memory cell. As a consequence of the physical setup of quantum reading, the most natural and general definition for quantum reading capacity should allow for an adaptive operation after each call to the channel, and this is how we define quantum reading capacity in this paper. In general, an adaptive strategy can give a significant advantage over a non-adaptive strategy in the context of quantum channel discrimination, and this is relevant for quantum reading, due to its close connection with channel discrimination. In this paper, we provide a general definition of quantum reading capacity, and we establish several upper bounds on the quantum reading capacity of a memory cell. We also introduce an environment-parametrized memory cell, and we deliver second-order and strong converse bounds for its quantum reading capacity. We calculate the quantum reading capacities for some exemplary memory cells, including a thermal memory cell, a qudit erasure memory cell, and a qudit depolarizing memory cell. We finally provide an explicit example to illustrate the advantage of using an adaptive strategy in the context of zero-error quantum reading capacity.

Author comments: v2: 34 pages, bounds improved and more examples addedhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03706

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.03706.pdf

This is one of those papers where the contribution of previous literature is omitted and not fairly represented.

1- the LOCC simulation of quantum channels (not necessarily teleportation based) and the corresponding general reduction of adaptive protocols was developed in PLOB15 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08863) not in BDSW96 or MH12 that only contained partial results. Both definition 2 and the reduction in proposition 2 of this Wilde's paper are heavily based on PLOB15 which is not credited here. On the actual status on channel simulation and reduction of adaptive protocols, see Supplementary Notes 8 and 9 in PLOB15 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08863)

2- the statement that covariant channel implies teleportation simulability (Lemma 3) is also directly taken from previous papers, not Wilde's paper WTB17 (again the most general formulation of this statement was made at any dimension in PLOB15, again not credited here). Proposition 1 is another trivial consequence of PLOB15.

3- the simplification of adaptive channel discrimination via teleportation was first proven in Pirandola and Lupo PRL 118, 100502 (2017) on adaptive quantum metrology and channel discrimination, but this relevant literature is here omitted and Wilde's followup paper TW16 is credited. Note that TW16 itself is based on the PRL above, besides another previous PRL (by Lorenzo Maccone).

Edited May 04 2017 15:43 UTC by gae spedalieri

1) Sorry but this is false.

1a) That analysis is specifically for reducing QECC protocol to an entanglement distillation protocol over certain class of discrete variable channels. Exactly as in BDSW96. Task of the protocol is changed in the reduction.

1b) The simulation is not via a general LOCC but relies on teleportation (this is why you reduce the channel to the Choi matrix of the same channel)

1c) It does not apply to CV and asymptotic simulations (even with DV channels, see amplitude damping channel in PLOB15)

2) The result for discrete-variable covariant channels is prior to WTB17, due to Matthews and Leung [IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61, 4486 (2015)] not cited here.

For asymptotic simulations, both WTB17 and Wolf's notes cannot apply since there is no control whatsoever of the channel simulation due to the truncation of the Hilbert space.

3a) TW16, i.e., https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09165 is a straightforward consequence of PRL 118, 100502 (2017), i.e., https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02160 and PRL 113, 250801 (2014), i.e., https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2934. TW16 use exactly the same methods, while trying to come up with different names. I mean for both DV and CV channels, i.e., including bosonic channels. All is included already in those two PRLs above.

3b) Here this specific paper on quantum reading considers adaptive channel discrimination in *discrete-variables*. The ultimate limits and teleportation methods were fully worked out in PRL 118, 100502 (2017), i.e., https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02160v1. This is not even cited here. Why?

Sorry if I cannot be more positive but you should really try to give the right credit to previous literature while avoiding self-referencing as much as possible.

Edited May 04 2017 15:37 UTC by gae spedalieri

Today I have seen on the arXiv the version 2 of this paper on quantum reading. I am sorry to say that this revision still misses to acknowledge important contributions from previous works, especially in relation to the methods on channel simulation and teleportation that are crucial for its claims. Soon after the first submission, Gae pointed out these problems in a couple of comments (above, that I fully endorse). Because these issues are still there, I will better clarify them below:

1) In this paper, Definition 2 on teleportation-simulable channel appears not to be based on teleportation-LOCC but, more generally, on arbitrary LOCCs. This is exactly the more general notion of LOCC-simulation first introduced in:

PLOB15 = [Pirandola, Laurenza, Ottaviani, Banchi, https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08863 ] See page 3 "Simulation of quantum channels"

By contrast, the cited papers ([BDSW96, MH12]) only considered teleportation-LOCCs.

There is a big difference here. In fact, one may LOCC-simulate any channel, while you may teleportation-simulate only a specific class. For instance an amplitude damping channel is LOCC-simulable but not teleportation-simulable (because it is not teleportation covariant).

Therefore, Definition 2 should either be changed or explicitly credit PLOB15 (for the more general use of arbitrary LOCCs).

2) The adaptive-to-block reduction used in Section 5.1 and Proposition 2 is clearly the teleportation-stretching technique devised in [PLOB15]. This is clear for the following reasons:

- You need a reduction that works at any dimension (DV or CVs, both considered here)

- You need a reduction which reduces an adaptive protocol into a block protocol with the same task (not into entanglement distillation)

- You need to use LOCC-simulations (in order to prove the achievability of the bounds).

All these elements can only be found in PLOB15, not in the combination of [BDSW96, Section V], [MH12, Theorem 14 and Remark 11], and [DDM14].

3) In particular, the use of teleportation to simplify adaptive protocols of parameter estimation and channel discrimination (relevant here) was first shown in:

PL16 = [Pirandola, Lupo https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02160 ]

Unfortunately this previous result is not even mentioned. But I see that another Wilde's follow-up paper is instead cited, i.e., [TW16] which employs the same techniques already established by [PL16] and [DDM14].

4) Finally, I think that "environment-parametrized channel" should be changed into "programmable channel". This notion is already well-known in the literature.

Edited May 11 2017 13:00 UTC by Stefano Pirandola