Building Multiple Access Channels with a Single Particle

Clearly \mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};[2])\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{N,K}^{( \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} )}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};[2]), conversely Let p(b|\mathbf{a})=\sum_{s=1}^Np_Sg_S(b|(a_s)_{s\in S}) be an arbitrary separable MAC with b\in\{0,1\}. Consider the deterministic decoder d(0|0)=1 and d(1|\mathbf{e}_i)=1 for all i, and encoders q_S(0|(a_s)_{s\in S})=g_S(0|(a_s)_{s\in S}) and q_S(\mathbf{e}_S|(a_s)_{s\in S})=g_S(1|(a_s)_{s\in S}), where \mathbf{e}_S can be any fixed element in \mathcal{M}_S. With these choices, we can construct any point in \mathcal{C}_{N,K}^{( \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} )}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};[2]) with point in \mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};[2])

We begin by expressing \mathfrak{I}_2([2]\times[2];\mathcal{B})=\{p_{B|\bm{A}}\;|\; \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} \}:

Note that 1=\sum_bp(b|1,1) is also implied when Eqns. (Proof) and (Proof) hold. If we consider MACs in \mathfrak{I}_2([2]\times[2];\mathcal{B}) as elements of \mathbb{R}^{4|\mathcal{B}|} (with components p(b|a_1,a_2)), then \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} is extremal if and only if 4|\mathcal{B}| linearly independent constraints are binding (i.e. tight) among those listed in Eqns. (Proof)–(Proof). We see that Eqns. (Proof) and (Proof) represent 3+|\mathcal{B}| equality constraints. Thus, the remaining binding constraints must come from (Proof). Hence if \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} is extremal, then it has at least 4|\mathcal{B}|-(3+|\mathcal{B}|)=3|\mathcal{B}|-3 vanishing probabilities \hat{p}(b|a_1,a_2).

For the case when |\mathcal{B}|=2, an extremal \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} must have at least 3 vanishing probabilities. Equations (Proof) and (Proof) then imply that the only possibilities for (\hat{p}(0|0,0),\hat{p}(0|0,1),\hat{p}(0|1,0),\hat{p}(0|1,1)) are (0,0,0,0), (1,1,1,1), (0,1,0,1), (1,0,1,0), (0,0,1,1), and (1,1,0,0). Each of these corresponds to a deterministic local MAC (i.e having the form of Eq. (?)).

For the case when |\mathcal{B}|=3, an extremal \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} must have at least 6 vanishing probabilities, and let us consider these for each output b\in\{0,1,2\}. If there is some b' such that \hat{p}(b'|a_i,a_j)=0 for three (or more) distinct input pairs, then Eq. (Proof) implies that it also vanishes for the fourth input pair. In this event, outcome b' occurs with zero probability and \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} reduces to an extremal MAC with |\mathcal{B}|=2; i.e. it is a local deterministic MAC. The only other alternative is that for each b\in\{0,1,2\}, the probabilities \hat{p}(b|a_i,a_j) vanish for exactly two input pairs (a_i,a_j). Hence only two nonzero terms can appear on the right-hand side of Eq. (Proof) for each b\in\{0,1,2\}. This means, up to relabeling, we must have relationships of the form 1=\hat{p}(0|0,0)=\hat{p}(0|0,1), \hat{p}(1|1,1)=\hat{p}(1|1,0)>0, and \hat{p}(2|1,1)=\hat{p}(2|1,0)>0. However, Eq. (Proof) then does not represent three additional linearly independent constraints, and so \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} cannot be extremal.

For |\mathcal{B}|>3, the lemma is easily proven by induction. Indeed, suppose that every extremal MAC is local deterministic for |\mathcal{B}|=N\geq 3. Then consider an extremal MAC \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} in \mathfrak{I}_2([2]\times[2];[N+1]). By the above observation, there must be at least 3|\mathcal{B}|-3 vanishing probabilities. Consequently, there will be at least one outcome b' such that \hat{p}(b'|a_i,a_j)=0 for three (or more) distinct input pairs provided 3|\mathcal{B}|-3>2|\mathcal{B}|, which is true since |\mathcal{B}|=N+1\geq 4. Thus, Eq. (Proof) requires that \hat{p}(b'|a_i,a_j) vanishes for the fourth input pair as well. Like before, this means that outcome b' occurs with zero probability. Hence \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} is extremal in \mathfrak{I}_2([2]\times[2];[N]), which by our inductive assumption means that \hat{p}_{B|\bm{A}} is local deterministic.

Each \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in\mathcal{C}_{N,K} satisfies 2^N normalization conditions 1=p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N)+p(1|a_1,\cdots,a_N), with a_i\in\{0,1\}. To facilitate our analysis, instead of working in the previous transition coordinates p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N), we introduce interference coordinates, whose definition is based on the I_K equalities in Eq. (?):

There are \sum_{k=0}^N{{N}\choose{k}}=2^N elements in this set, which is the same as the original set of transition coordinates p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N). Now we show that they are also linearly independent. For |S|=k, consider the specific interference coordinate with S=\{1,\cdots,k\}

Focus on the term p(0|\overbrace{1\cdots1}^{k},\overbrace{0\cdots0}^{N-k}) which appears in this term. Different interference coordinates q(S') with |S'|=k can be obtained by permuting the 0’s and 1’s, yet, for each permutation there will be exactly one and only one distinct probability term in the sum that is conditioned on k values of 1. Hence, the different permutations generate \binom{N}{k} linearly independent coordinates. By the same reasoning, as we consider different k'\in \{0,\cdots,N\}, the coordinates q(S') with |S'|=k' will be linearly independent from the coordinates q(S) with |S|= k<k'. In total, we obtain \sum_{k=0}^N{{N}\choose{k}}=2^N linearly independent coordinates. We can thus represent each point \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in \mathcal{C}_{N,K} in the interference coordinates. In doing so, we use the above observation that I_{k}^{(S)}(\mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}})=0 for all k=|S|\ge K+1. This indicates that \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}} has coordinates q(S)=0 for all |S|\ge K+1, and therefore the dimension of (N,K)-local MAC \mathcal{C}_{N,K} can be upper bounded by:

To compute a lower bound on \dim\mathcal{C}_{N,K}, we are going to form a family of affinely independent points. Consider first the constant MAC that has transition probabilities

which has interference coordinates q(S)=0 for all S\subseteq\{1,\cdots,N\}. Next, for each S\subseteq \{1,\cdots, N\} with 1\leq |S|\leq K, consider the (N,K)-local MAC \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}^{(S)} defined by transition probabilities

When S=\emptyset, we define \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}^{(\emptyset)} as the constant MAC with

It is straightforward to verify that \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}^{(S)} has interference coordinates q(S')=1 if S'=S and q(S')=0 if S'\not=S. In other words, in interference coordinates, the MACs we have constructed in Eqns. (?) and (?) correspond precisely to the standard unit vectors, while the MAC in Eq. (?) corresponds to the all zero vector. Clearly, this generates a set of \sum_{k=0}^K\binom{N}{k}+1 affinely independent points belonging to \mathcal{C}_{N,K}. In summary, the dimension of the \mathcal{C}_{N,K} polytope is \sum_{k=0}^K\binom{N}{k} for any 1\le K\le N. Note that we can use the same coordinates and affinely independent points (Eqs. (?) and (?)) to arrive at \dim\mathfrak{I}_{N,K}=\sum_{k=0}^K\binom{N}{k}.

The list of affinely independent points saturating the inequality in Eq. (?) is not unique, and here we construct one using MACs similar to those in the proof of Theorem 2. Among the \sum_{k=0}^K{N\choose{k}}+1 affinely independent points constructed in Theorem 2 (Eqns. (?) – (?)), a total of \sum_{k=0}^K{N\choose{k}}-K-1 will saturate the inequality in Eq. (?). In particular, it will not be saturated by the constant MAC, with p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N)=1, as well as the MACs with p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N)=\prod_{s\in S}\delta_{1,a_s} for |S|=1 and S\subset\{1,\cdots,K+1\}. We replace K+1 of these points by MACs defined by

for each i\in\{1,\cdots,K+1\}. Each of these is an (N,K)-local MAC since it only depends on the inputs of K parties, and it can be readily seen to saturate the inequality in Eq. (?). They are also affinely independent from each other and from the \sum_{k=0}^K{N\choose{k}}-K-1 previous points since they have probability values p(0|a_1 \cdots a_N) equaling 1 when only one or fewer parties have an input equaling 1. In summary, we have identified \sum_{k=0}^K{N\choose{k}} affinely independent points saturating Inequality (?). This inequality and all its permutations are thus valid facets of the \mathcal{C}_{N,K} polytope.

For p(b|\mathbf{a})=\sum_{i=1}^Np_ig_i(b|a_i) we define decoders with d_i(b|0)=g_i(b|0) and d_i(b|\mathbf{e}_i)=g_i(b|1), as well as deterministic encoders q_i(0|0)=1 and q_i(\mathbf{e}_i|1)=1. With these choices, \sum_{i=1}^Np_ig_i(b|a_i) has the form of Eq. (?).

As discussed in Eq. (?), every NPE operation \mathcal{E}_{a}^{\mathsf{A}_i} on qubit system \mathsf{A}_i is characterized by Kraus operators \left\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&y_{a_i}^{i}\end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&z_{a_i}^{i}\\0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right\} such that |y_{a_i}^i|^2+|z_{a_i}^i|^2=1. Notice that

in which \kappa_{a_i,a_j}=y^j_{a_j}y^{i*}_{a_i} and \lambda_a^i=|y^i_{a}|^2. If \mathcal{E}^{\overline{\mathsf{A}_i\mathsf{A}_j}} is any local NPE map collectively performed by all parties other than \mathsf{A}_i and \mathsf{A}_j, it can then be easily seen that

where

For any decoding POVM \{\Pi_0,\Pi_1\} we have

where the last inequality follows from the triangle inequality and the fact that \Pi_0\leq \mathbb{I}. The inequalities are saturated when choosing \{0,\pi\} phase encoding and \Pi_0 = |\psi_{ij}\rangle\langle \psi_{ij}|, where \displaystyle|\psi_{ij}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle+\frac{\rho_{ij}^*}{|\rho_{ij}|}|\mathbf{e}_j\rangle).

Clearly, for an incoherent state \rho with \rho_{ij}=0 for all i\ne j, the state is incoherent and it cannot even violate any I_{K+1} equality. Conversely, suppose that \rho_{ij}\not=0. To get a quantum violation for the I_{2K} equality, let us consider two K-collaborating groups S_i and S_j with i\in S_i, j\in S_j, and S_i\cap S_j=\emptyset. Each group performs a \{0,\pi\} phase encoding on path i and j conditioned on the parity of their inputs in S_i and S_j respectively, i.e. \mathcal{E}^{(\mathsf{A}_s)_{s\in S_i}}_{(a_s)_{s\in S_i}}(X)=\bigotimes_{s\in S_i\setminus \{i\}} \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_s}\otimes (\sigma_z^{\oplus_{s\in S}a_s})^{\mathsf{A}_i}(X)(\sigma_z^{\oplus_{s\in S}a_s})^{\mathsf{A}_i} where \sigma_z=|0\rangle\langle 0|+e^{i\pi}|1\rangle\langle 1|. The decoder then measures with POVM \left\{\Pi_0=|\psi_{ij}\rangle\langle \psi_{ij}|^{\bm{\mathsf{A}}},\;\Pi_1=\mathbb{I}-\Pi_0\right\}, where \displaystyle|\psi_{ij}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle+\frac{\rho_{ij}^*}{|\rho_{ij}|}|\mathbf{e}_j\rangle\right). With this scheme, we can achieve I^{(S_i\cup S_j)}_{2K}=2^{2K}|\rho_{ij}|.

As discussed in Section ?, MACs in \mathcal{Q}_N can exhibit second order interference, whereas they never violate the I_3 equality. Now, we will to generalize this result and demonstrate that any given MAC \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in \mathcal{Q}_{N,K} always satisfies I_{2K+1}=0. For a general quantum state \rho=\sum_{ij}\rho_{ij}|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle\langle \mathbf{e}_j| \in \mathcal{H}^{\bm{\mathsf{A}}}, we have

where we have G different groups with |S_i|\le K, S_i\cap S_j=\emptyset for any i,j\in \{1,\cdots,G\} (i\ne j) and \bigcup_{i=1}^G S_i=\{1,\cdots,N\}. To get the last equality, we assume i\in S_I and j\in S_J, and thus only \mathcal{E}^{(\mathsf{A}_s)_{s\in S_I}}_{(a_s)_{s\in S_I}} and \mathcal{E}^{(\mathsf{A}_s)_{s\in S_J}}_{(a_s)_{s\in S_J}} act non-trivially on the operator \rho_{ij}|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle\langle \mathbf{e}_j| since these maps are NPE operations; i.e. \mathcal{E}^{(\mathsf{A}_s)_{s\in S_K}}_{(a_s)_{s\in S_K}}[|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle\langle \mathbf{e}_j|]=|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle\langle \mathbf{e}_j| for any S_I\cap S_K=\emptyset and S_ J\cap S_K=\emptyset. Hence, the I^{(S)}_{2K+1}(\rho) quantity for a given S with |S|=2K+1 becomes

where the final equality holds because each map on \rho_{ij}|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle\langle \mathbf{e}_j| depends on at most |S_I\cup S_J|\le 2K inputs, but the summation is over 2K+1 parameters.

Let us first consider the case when K\le\lfloor\frac{N}{2}\rfloor. The set \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}([2]^N;[2]) lives in a (2\cdot2^N)-dimensional space, and there are 2^N normalization condition for each \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in\mathcal{Q}_{N}([2]^N;[2]). Additionally, Proposition ?, ? shows that any \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}} \in \mathcal{Q}_{N,K} is constrained to have vanishing I_{2K+1} and any higher-order interference. This means that there are a total of 2^N+\sum^{N}_{k=2K+1} \binom{N}{k} constraints. Hence, we have

To lower bound \dim\mathcal{Q}_{N,K}([2]^N;[2]), we use a subset of the interference coordinates, originally defined in Eq. (?) by keeping k\in \{0,\cdots,2K\} only:

We consider two classes of points:
(i) Classical MACs: This is the set of \sum_{k=0}^K{N\choose{k}}+1 affinely independent points in \mathcal{C}_{N,K} as we discussed in Theorem 2 (Eq. ?). Since these MACs are in \mathcal{C}_{N,K}, they are also in \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}.
(ii) Quantum MACs: we consider quantum state |\psi\rangle^{\mathsf{A}_i\mathsf{A}_j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle+|\mathbf{e}_j\rangle) (with |\rho_{ij}|=\frac{1}{2}) shared between parties i\in S_i, j\in S_j and disjoint groups S_i\cap S_j=\emptyset, then we can construct quantum MAC \mathbf{p}^{(S)}_{B|\bm{A}} as in Proposition 10 and the remark below. This quantum MAC can demonstrate maximal k^{ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} }-order interference among and only among senders S=S_i\cup S_j where |S|=k. The above strategy applies for different groups S with K<|S|\le2K. Clearly, there are in total \sum_{k=K+1}^{2K}\binom{N}{k} such quantum MACs. Points in class (i) do not violate I_k equalities for any k>K hence have q(S)=0 for any |S|>K, while each point considered in class (ii) violates one and only one I_k equality for integer k=|S|>K. Specifically, it has q(S)=2^{k-1} but q(S')=0 for any S'\ne S and |S'|\ge k (For any S' we can find one element s'\in S' but s'\notin S, and therefore q(S') will vanish since the quantum MAC \mathbf{p}^{(S)}_{B|\bm{A}} doesn’t depend on input a_{s'}). Hence these points form a upper-triangular matrix and thus are affinely independent. e.g. the upper-traingular matrix for \mathcal{Q}_{3,1} is:

where the first five columns correspond to the classical MACs, and the sixth to final columns are \mathbf{p}^{(S)}_{B|\bm{A}} introduced above with |S|=2. In total then, we obtain a collection of \sum_{k=0}^{2K}\binom{N}{k}+1 affinely independent points belonging to \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}. Hence we have:

In summary, the dimension of the set \mathcal{Q}_{N,K} is \sum_{k=0}^{2K}\binom{N}{k} for any 1\le K\le \lfloor\frac{N}{2}\rfloor. Following the same line of reasoning, we can also deduce that \dim\mathcal{Q}_{N,K}=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\binom{N}{k}=2^N for \lfloor\frac{N}{2}\rfloor<K\le N

By definition, an N-level state without (K+1)-level coherence can be written as \rho=\sum_{i}p_{i}|\psi_i\rangle\langle \psi_i| where |\psi_i\rangle has coherent rank no more than K and thus has support on a subspace \mathcal{H}_1^{\mathsf{A}_{i_1}\cdots\mathsf{A}_{i_K}}. States of this form will only admit MACs having transition probabilities

where \textrm{Tr}\left\{\Pi_0\left[\mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{A}_{i_1}}_{a_{i_1}}\otimes\cdots\otimes \mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{A}_{i_K}}_{a_{i_K}}\left(|\psi_i\rangle\langle \psi_i|\right)\right]\right\}=g_i(0|a_{i_1},\cdots,a_{i_K}) with \mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{A}_1}_{a_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes \mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{A}_N}_{a_N} being arbitrary NP encoding operation, and \{\Pi_0,\mathbb{I}-\Pi_0\} being any decoding POVM. If the encoding maps are required to be NPE operations, these MACs will belong to \mathcal{C}_{N,K}, and thus they cannot violate any (N,K)-generalized fingerprinting inequality. To show that the converse is also true for pure state, let us consider an arbitrary pure state |\psi\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^N c_i|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle in \mathcal{H}_1^{\bm{\mathsf{A}}} with coherent rank \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} {|\psi\rangle}=K+1. Without loss of generality, we assume the state has non-zero amplitude c_i\ne 0 for i\in\{1,\cdots,K+1\} and consider the (N,K)-party generalized fingerprinting inequality among the first K+1 parties of the form of Eq. (?). Since |\psi\rangle only has support on a subspace \mathcal{H}_1^{{\mathsf{A}_1}\cdots{\mathsf{A}_{K+1}}}, we can treat the (N,K)-party generalized fingerprinting inequality as a (K+1,K)-party generalized fingerprinting inequality among the first K+1 parties with all the other parties having fixed inputs. And then we will show the violation of this inequality based on the violation we obtained for maximally coherent state in section ? To begin with, let us rewrite the quantum state |\psi\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{K+1}c_i|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle in terms of the (K+1)-party maximally coherent state |\Psi_{K+1}\rangle as: |\psi\rangle=C|\Psi_{K+1}\rangle, where C is the coefficient matrix C=\sqrt{K+1} \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} [c_1,\dots,c_{K+1}]. Since the map \mathcal{E}_{a_i}^{\mathsf{A}_i} we used in defining M in Eq. (?) consists of diagonal unitaries, we can define a similar matrix M(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|) for any pure state |\psi\rangle\langle \psi| as:

In Section ?, we have shown that \textrm{Tr}{M}=K but \left\lVertM\right\rVert_1>K for some specific encoding strategies, which implies that there exists some normalized vector |\alpha\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{K+1} \alpha_i|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle such that \langle \alpha|M|\alpha\rangle<0. Based on this result, for an pure state with (K+1)-coherent rank, we can define a normalized vector |\alpha'\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_C}}C^{-1}|\alpha\rangle, where N_C is the normalization factor. Hence we can easily observe that:

Thus, M(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|) is not positive semi-definite. Since \textrm{Tr}{M(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|)}=K still holds, we have \left\lVertM(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|)\right\rVert_1>K, which implies quantum violation \delta>0 in Eq. (?). To summarize, by using the same encoding strategy we have found for the maximally coherent state |\Psi_{K+1}\rangle in section ?, we can always obtain a quantum violation of a (N,K)-party generalized fingerprinting inequality for any pure state as long as it has (K+1)-level coherence. We can apply the same strategy above for any N-1\ge K\ge 1, the violation of different (N,K)-party generalized fingerprinting inequality will then herald the existence of different level of coherence for a given pure state.

From Theorem 4, if a state \rho has rank at most 2, it does not violate the fingerprinting inequality. Conversely, consider a state \rho\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1^{\mathsf{A}_1\mathsf{A}_2\mathsf{A}_3}). As has been discussed in section ?, the violation of fingerprinting inequality is equivalent to \left\lVert\mathcal{E}_{M}(\rho)\right\rVert_1> 2. If we take the \{0,\pi\} phase encoding strategy with \mathcal{E}_{a}(X)=\sigma_z^a(X)\sigma_z^a for a\in\{0,1\} and \sigma_z=|0\rangle\langle 0|+e^{i\pi}|1\rangle\langle 1|, it is easy to see that:

where M(A) is defined similar as in Eq. (?).

For a three-level coherent state \rho in \mathcal{H}_1^{\mathsf{A}_1\mathsf{A}_2\mathsf{A}_3}, {{M}}(\rho) has a similar form as the associate comparison matrix {\tilde{M}}(\rho). More precisely, if there exists some unitary U such that U^{\dagger}\rho U is a non-negative matrix, {\tilde{M}}(\rho) and M(\rho) are only different by a global unitary and a factor of 2, i.e 2{\tilde{M}}(\rho^{\mathsf{A}_1\mathsf{A}_2\mathsf{A}_3})=U^{\dagger}{M}(\rho^{\mathsf{A}_1\mathsf{A}_2\mathsf{A}_3})U , hence from Eq.(?):

It suffices to prove the statement for \mathcal{C}_{2}([2]^2;[3]). Consider \mathbf{p}'_{B|A_1A_2},\mathbf{p}''_{B|A_1A_2}\in \mathcal{C}_{2}([2]^2;[3]) having respective coordinates p'(b|a_1,a_2)=g_1(b|a_1), with g_1(0|0)=1 and g_1(1|1)=1, and p''(b|a_1,a_2)=g_2(b|a_2), with g_2(0|0)=g_2(1|0)=1/2 and g_2(2|1)=1. We will show their mixture \mathbf{p}_{B|A_1,A_2}=\lambda\mathbf{p}'_{B|A_1,A_2}+(1-\lambda)\mathbf{p}''_{B|A_1,A_2} does not belong to \mathcal{C}_{2}([2]^2;[3]) for \lambda\in(0,1). For if it did, then we could write

Define g_i'(b|a_i)=\sum_{m=0,\mathbf{e}_i}d(b|m)q_i(m|a_i)

Then p(0|1,1)=p(1|0,1)=p(2|a_1,0)=0 for a_1=0,1 implies g_1'(0|1)=g_2'(0|1)=0, g_1'(1|0)=g_2'(1|1)=0, and g_1'(2|a_1)=0 for a_1=0,1. Hence

Hence we have g_1'(b|a_1)\propto g_1(b|a_1) for all b,a_1. By normalization, they must, in fact be equal. A similar argument shows g_2'(b|a_2)=g_2(b|a_2).

With g_1 being a deterministic MAC, we must have that d(b|0)\in\{0,1\} and 0=d(2|0). By considering 1=g_2(2|1)=d(2|0)q_2(0|1)+d(2|\mathbf{e}_2)q_2(\mathbf{e}_2|1)=d(2|\mathbf{e}_2)q_2(\mathbf{e}_2|1), we then have d(2|\mathbf{e}_2)=1. But since d(b|0)\in\{0,1\}, it follows that g_2 cannot output values \{0,1,2\} each with nonzero probability. As this is a contradiction, we conclude that \mathcal{C}_{2}([2]^2;[3]) is non-convex. On the other hand, since \mathcal{C}'_2([2]^2;[3]) is convex by the Proposition 5, it follows that \mathcal{C}_N(\bm{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B})\ne\mathcal{C}'_N(\bm{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}).

We consider the extreme case of one party with N=1 and K=1; i.e. one-local MACs \mathcal{C}'_{1}([3];[3]). Note that in this case we always have \mathcal{C}'_{1}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B})=\mathcal{C}_{1}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B}). Let \mathbf{p}'_{B|A}\in\mathcal{C}'_{1}([3];[3]) have coordinates p'(b|0)=\delta_{b,0} and p'(b|1)=p'(b|2)=\delta_{b,2}, and let \mathbf{p}''_{B|A}\in \mathcal{C}'_{1}([3];[3]) have coordinates p''(b|1)=\delta_{b,1} and p''(b|0)= p''(b|2)=\delta_{b,2}. We will show that their mixture \mathbf{p}_{B|A}=\lambda\mathbf{p}'_{B|A}+(1-\lambda)\mathbf{p}''_{B|A} does not belong to \mathcal{C}'_{1}([3];[3]) for any \lambda\in (0,1). For if it does, we could write

If follows \exists m\in \{0,\mathbf{e}_1\} such that d(2|m)=1. Without loss of generality, we let d(2|0)=1, and so d(1|0)=d(0|0)=0. This means that

However, it easily leads to a contradiction. The mixture \mathbf{p}_{B|A} has coordinates \{p(0|0),p(0|1)\}=\{\lambda,0\} which requires q(\mathbf{e}_1|0)\ne 0 and q(\mathbf{e}_1|1)= 0. Likewise, \mathbf{p}_{B|A} has coordinates \{p(1|0),p(1|1)\}=\{0,1-\lambda\} which can only be obtained when q(\mathbf{e}_1|0)= 0 and q(\mathbf{e}_1|1)\ne 0. Therefore, \mathbf{p}_{B|A} cannot belong to \mathcal{C}'_{1}([3];[3]).

We consider \mathbf{p}'_{B|A_1A_2A_3},\mathbf{p}''_{B|A_1A_2A_3}~ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ~\mathbf{p}'''_{B|A_1A_2A_3}\in\mathcal{C}_{3,2}([2]^3;[3]) having coordinates p'(b|a_1,a_2,a_3)=g_{12}(b|a_1,a_2), p''(b|a_1,a_2,a_3)=g_{13}(b|a_1,a_3) and p''(b|a_1,a_2,a_3)=g_{23}(b|a_2,a_3) with g_S(0|0,0)=1, g_S(1|0,1)=1, g_S(2|1,0)=1 and g_S(2|1,1)=1 for any S\in\{12,13,23\}. We will show that their mixture \mathbf{p}_{B|A_1A_2A_3}=\lambda_1\mathbf{p}'_{B|A_1A_2A_3}+\lambda_2\mathbf{p}'_{B|A_1A_2A_3}+(1-\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\mathbf{p}''_{B|A_1A_2A_3} does not belong to \mathcal{C}_{3,2}([2]^3;[3]) for \lambda_1\in(0,1) and \lambda_2\in(0,1-\lambda_1). For if it did, we could write p(b|a_1, a_2,a_3) as:

Since all g_S are extreme, one can verify that p(b|a_1,a_2,a_3) has unique decomposition similarly as what we did in proposition 4, thus the previous equation implies that:

Because g_S are deterministic MAC with three distinct outputs conditional on different inputs, we should have d(b|0)=d(b'|\mathbf{e}_1)=d(b''|\mathbf{e}_2)= d(b'''|\mathbf{e}_3)=1 for some b\ne b'\ne b''\ne b'''. This contradicts with the fact |\mathcal{B}|=3 hence \mathbf{p}_{B|A_1A_2A_3} is not in \mathcal{C}_{3,2}([2]^3;[3]) and it follows that \mathcal{C}_{3,2}([2]^3;[3]) is non-convex. On the other hand, as has been shown in Proposition ?, ?, \mathcal{C}'_{3,2}([2]^3;[3]) is convex, we have in general \mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B})\ne\mathcal{C}'_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B}).

Clearly \mathcal{C}'_{N,K}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B})\subset\mathcal{C}_{N,K}^{( \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} )}(\bm{\mathcal{A}};\mathcal{B}). Conversely, we can construct a deterministic decoder by d_S(0|0)=1 and d_S(b|\mathbf{\tilde{e}}_b)=1; encoders by q_S(0|(a_s)_{s\in S})=g_S(0|(a_s)_{s\in S}) and q_S(\mathbf{\tilde{e}}_b|(a_s)_{s\in S})=g_S(b|(a_s)_{s\in S}), where \mathbf{\tilde{e}}_b is the b^{ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} } non-zero element in \mathcal{M}_S. Thus, any MAC having form Eq. (?, ?). can be written as Eq. (21).

Each \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in\mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) satisfies \prod_{k=1}^N|\mathcal{A}_k| normalization conditions 1=\sum p(b|a_1,\cdots,a_N), with a_i\in [\mathcal{A}_i]. As observed before, I_{K+1}^{(S)}(\mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}})=0 for all |S|\ge K+1 for binary inputs/output case. It is easy to extend these constraints to arbitrary inputs/output by simply considering inputs/output relabeling, and hence we can write each point in a subset of the interference coordinates in Eq. (?):

with all the other elements being redundant. e.g. for k\ge K+1, those terms are actually zero (no k^{ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} }-order interference for k\ge K+1) and for b=|B|-1, the information can be retrieved from the normalization constraints. There are (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} elements in the above set, which upper bound \dim\mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) as:

To compute a lower bound for \dim\mathcal{C}_{N,K} we need to find a set of affinely independent points. To do that, we consider the following (N,K)-local classical MACs (analogy to Eq. (15)):

These MACs have exactly one interference coordinate being 1 (only when the inputs set \{\alpha_s\}_s and output b match with the coordinate in Eq. (?)) and are obviously from \mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}). In total then, we obtain a collection of (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k}+1 affinely independent points. Hence we have:

In summary, the dimension of the \mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) polytope is (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} for any 1\le K\le N. Note the above calculation also works for \mathcal{C}'_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}), \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} [\mathcal{C}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B})], \mathcal{C}^{ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} }_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) and \mathfrak{I}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) since all the above constraints and affinely points constructed in Eq. (?) work for all of them.

The set \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) lives in a (|\mathcal{B}|\cdot\prod_{i=1}^N|\mathcal{A}_i|)-dimensional space, and there are also \prod_{i=1}^N|\mathcal{A}_i| normalization condition for each \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}}\in\mathcal{Q}_{N}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}). Additionally, proposition 8 shows that \mathbf{p}_{B|\bm{A}} \in \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) can not violate I_{2K+1} equality and obviously any higher order equality (The proposition works for arbitrary inputs/output), which introduces some extra constraints. And hence, we can write each point in a subset of the interference coordinates in Eq. (?) with k\in\{0,\cdots,2K\} and b\ne |\mathcal{B}|-1 as:

There are (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} elements in the above set, which upper bound the dimension of \dim\mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) as:

To get the lower bound, we consider the following two classes of points:
(i) Classical MACS: The set of (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} affinely independent points in Eq. (?) in \mathcal{C}_{N,K} as are obviously also in \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}).
(ii) Quantum MACS: We consider quantum MACs generated by quantum state |\psi\rangle^{\mathsf{A}_i\mathsf{A}_j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathbf{e}_i\rangle+|\mathbf{e}_j\rangle) shared between party i\in S_i, j\in S_j in disjoint groups S_i\cap S_j=\emptyset. Each group performs a \{0,\pi\} phase encoding on sender i or j conditional on the ‘parity’ of their inputs, i.e. \mathcal{E}^{(\mathsf{A}_s)_{s\in S_i}}_{(a_s)_{s\in S_i}}(X)=\bigotimes_{s\in S_i\setminus \{i\}} \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_s}\otimes (\sigma_z^{P_S[(a_s)_{s\in S}]})^{\mathsf{A}_i}(X)(\sigma_z^{P_S[(a_s)_{s\in S}]})^{\mathsf{A}_i} where \sigma_z=|0\rangle\langle 0|+e^{i\pi}|1\rangle\langle 1| and the parity function P_S[(a_s)_{s\in S}] depends on the input set \{\alpha_s\}_{s\in S_i\cup S_j} as:

The decoder then measures with POVM \Pi_b=|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|^{\mathsf{A}_i\mathsf{A}_j}and \Pi_{|\mathcal{B}|-1}=\mathbb{I}-|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|^{\mathsf{A}_i\mathsf{A}_j}. This quantum MAC can demonstrate maximal k^{ \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} }-order interference (K<k=|S|) among and only among senders S=S_i\cup S_j, input set \{\alpha_s\}_s and output b. The same strategy applies for all groups S with K<|S|\le2K, input sets \{\alpha_s\}_{s\in S_i\cup S_j} and outputs b, thus we can obtain (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=K+1}^{2K}(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} different MACs, now let’s check whether they are affinely independent. Points in class (i) do not violate I_k equalities for any k>K hence have q(b,S,\{\alpha_s\}_s)=0 for any |S|>K, while each point considered in class (ii) violates one and only one I_k equality for integer k=|S|>K, specifically has q(b,S,\{\alpha_s\}_s)=2^{k-1}. By a similar reasoning as for proposition 9, the collection of these points forms a upper-triangular matrix similarly as Eq. ? thus being affinely linear independent. In total then, we obtain a collection of (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^{2K}(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k}+1 affinely independent points belonging to \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}). Hence we have:

In summary, the dimension of the \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B}) polytope is (|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k} for any 1\le K\le \lfloor\frac{N}{2}\rfloor, and obviously we can similarly conclude that \mathcal{Q}_{N,K}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\mathcal{B})=(|\mathcal{B}|-1)\sum_{k=0}^K(|\mathcal{A}|-1)^k\binom{N}{k}=(|\mathcal{B}|-1)\prod_{s\in S}|\mathcal{A}_s| for \lfloor\frac{N}{2}\rfloor<K\le N

Consider the MAC \mathbf{p}_{B|A_1A_2} given by p(0|a_1a_2)=\delta_{0,a_1}\delta_{0,a_2}, which is clearly in \mathcal{C}_{2,2}([2]^2;[2]) since \mathcal{C}_{2,2}([2]^2;[2]) contains all channels from [2]^2 to [2]. Assume, towards a contradiction, that this channel is in \mathcal{Q}_{2,1}([2]^2;[2]) as well. Suppose that the senders \mathsf{A}_1 and \mathsf{A}_2 share the state \rho having support on \mathcal{H}_1^{\mathsf{A}_1\mathsf{A}_2}, then we have

Notice that the channel \mathbf{p}_{B|A_1A_2} cannot be expressed as a convex combination of two channels; therefore, \rho must in fact be a pure state |\psi\rangle\langle \psi|. Let \rho'=\mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|), then

We can write \rho'=p\rho_0+(1-p)\rho_1 where \rho_0 and \rho_1 are projections of \rho to the vacuum subspace \mathcal{H}_0 and the one-particle subspace \mathcal{H}_1 respectively. This is because NPE operations always map |\psi\rangle\langle \psi| to a block-diagonal state (see Eq. (?)). Then

We then proceed to show that Eq. (Proof) always leads to a contradiction for any p\in[0,1]. If p\in(0,1], then Eq. (Proof) implies that

and

Since \mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_2} and \mathcal{E}_1^{\mathsf{A}_2} are both NPE operations, \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes\mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|00\rangle\langle 00|)= \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes\mathcal{E}_1^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|00\rangle\langle 00|)=|00\rangle\langle 00|. Therefore, these two equations cannot be true simultaneously, and we have a contradiction.

Next, suppose that p=0. In this case, \rho'=\mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|) remains a one-particle state. Following a similar argument, we can see that \mathcal{E}_1^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|) and \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string \ClassError{quantumarticle}{To use the \string\text{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} command please load the mathtools package}{} ^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0,1}^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|) also have to be one-particle states. Therefore, all of the encoded states \sigma_{00}, \sigma_{01}, \sigma_{10}, and \sigma_{11} (recall \sigma_{a_1a_2}=\mathcal{E}_{a_1}^{\mathsf{A}_1}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{a_2}^{\mathsf{A}_2}(|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|)) are operators on the two-dimensional space \mathcal{H}_1. Additionally, note that p(0|a_1a_2)=\delta_{0,a_1}\delta_{0,a_2} implies that the encoder can perfectly distinguish \sigma_{00} from \{\sigma_{01},\sigma_{10},\sigma_{11}\}, i.e., \sigma_{00}\perp\sigma_{01},\sigma_{10},\sigma_{11}. Thus, it must be that \sigma_{01}=\sigma_{10}=\sigma_{11}, which means that \mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_1}=\mathcal{E}_1^{\mathsf{A}_1} and \mathcal{E}_0^{\mathsf{A}_2}=\mathcal{E}_1^{\mathsf{A}_2}. However, this will imply that all of the four encoded states are the same, that is, \sigma_{00}=\sigma_{01}=\sigma_{10}=\sigma_{11}. We thus arrive at a contradiction as well. To conclude, we have shown that the MAC \mathbf{p} is not in \mathcal{Q}_{2,1}([2]^2;[2]), and therefore \mathcal{Q}_{2,1}([2]^2;[2])\ne\mathcal{C}_{2,2}([2]^2;[2]).