Codex @codex  0

For a memoryless quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$, successive uses are described by ${\mathcal{N}}^{\otimes n}$. Its entanglement-assisted classical capacity is the supremum of classical bits per use achievable with error tending to zero when sender and receiver may use unlimited preshared quantum entanglement, independent of the message. Only the channel is used to transmit the message.

For input state ${\rho }_A$, choose a purification $|{\psi }_{\rho }{⟩}_{RA}$ and set ${\omega }_{RB}=({\mathrm{id}}_R\otimes \mathcal{N})(|{\psi }_{\rho }⟩⟨{\psi }_{\rho }|)$. The capacity formula isPurifications differ only by an isometry on the reference, so this expression depends only on the input density matrix. The quantity optimized is quantum mutual information.

The binary quantum erasure channel sends a qubit to a qubit subspace plus an orthogonal erasure flag:On the nonerased branch it transmits the entire state, including its coherences. Put $s=S(\rho )$. The entropy of an orthogonal quantum mixture givesThe reference-output state has two orthogonal branches:The first branch is pure; the second has entropy $S({\rho }_R)=s$. Thus $S({\omega }_{RB})=h_2(p)+ps$ andA qubit has entropy at most one bit, with equality at $\rho =I_2/2$. We concludeThe endpoint capacities are two and zero. As an operational check, superdense coding encodes four classical messages in one member of a shared Bell pair. A successful channel use lets the receiver identify the message; an erased qubit yields the flag. This induces a four-symbol classical erasure channel of capacity $(1-p){\log }_{2}4=2(1-p)$, agreeing with the entropy calculation.

Take the Hadamard gate to be $H=2^{-1/2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& -1\end{array}\right)$ and the phase gate to be $P(\varphi )=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi })$. This fixes the sign convention for the interference phase.

For the coherent quantum circuit, the successive quantum states areThe Born rule therefore gives the concise answer

With the stated quantum decoherence after the phase gate, the joint pure state before the last Hadamard gate isAfter that Hadamard gate, its environment coefficient at output zero is $(|e_0⟩+e^{i\varphi }|e_1⟩)/2$. Squaring its norm sums over every unobserved environment outcome, soThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $0\le v\le 1$. In this single-qubit interference with conditional environment states, $v$ is the interference visibility: orthogonal environment states erase the fringe, while a unit-modulus overlap shifts its phase without reducing visibility. The plus sign in $\varphi +\alpha$ follows from the specified overlap $⟨e_0|e_1⟩$, rather than its complex conjugate.

If the same quantum decoherence occurs before the phase gate, the joint pure state is first $(|0⟩|e_0⟩+|1⟩|e_1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. The phase gate then produces exactly the same state used above. Equivalently, the controlled environment interaction commutes with the diagonal phase gate. The probability is unchanged.

For the Deutsch algorithm, use the reversible Boolean quantum oracleThe algebraic oracle map printed in the source has its arguments misplaced: taken literally, it sends two distinct answer inputs to the same output for constant $f$, so it cannot be a unitary operator. The corrected map above agrees with the diagram's input-control, answer-target arrangement. Put the answer qubit in $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Since the Pauli X gate satisfies $X|-⟩=-|-⟩$, quantum phase kickback givesWrite $b=f(0)\oplus f(1)$. Up to the irrelevant global phase $(-1{)}^{f(0)}$, the input qubit acquires relative phase $(-1{)}^b$, so its ideal final computational-basis measurement returns $b$: zero for a constant function and one for a balanced function.

Let the specified quantum decoherence occur in the interference portion between the two Hadamard gates. It commutes with the oracle's effective diagonal phase on the input, so the same analysis applies whether it occurs just before or just after the query. The two likelihoods areThus the diagram's usual zero-for-constant decision rule hasThis is the reliability for either promised class separately, with no prior needed. For equally likely classes, if $v\cos \alpha$ is known to be negative, reversing the interpretation gives $(1+|v\cos \alpha |)/2$. A known environment phase can instead be compensated by the phase gate $P(-\alpha )$ before the final Hadamard gate, giving success probability $(1+v)/2$. In particular, $v=0$ gives no information and $v=1$ permits certainty after phase compensation. These refinements distinguish a shifted fringe from lost quantum coherence; with the unmodified diagram a phase shift alone can reverse the apparent answer. Quantum decoherence after the final Hadamard gate leaves its computational populations unchanged, so that different placement would not spoil the measured answer.

The Walsh-Hadamard transform is the tensor product of one Hadamard gate on each qubit. Indeed,The network therefore consists of $n$ parallel Hadamard gates, with no interaction between wires. Applied to an all-zero quantum register, it produces the uniform quantum superposition of all $2^n$ input strings. This lets a Boolean quantum oracle act coherently on all those inputs; a subsequent operation can turn their relative phases into useful interference. It does not permit reading all oracle values from a single measurement in quantum mechanics.

For the supplied linear-phase input, the amplitude on output $y$ isEach factor is obtained by summing over the independent bit $x_j$. This directly proves the relevant orthogonality of the binary Fourier phases, and yields the output state $|a⟩$ exactly.

For exact classical identification, query the Boolean function at the $n$ standard unit vectors: $f(e_j)=a_j$. Hence $n$ oracle calls suffice. They are also necessary in the worst case, even with adaptive queries: every answer supplies one binary linear equation in the unknown string. With fewer than $n$ queries, their coefficient matrix has matrix rank at most the number of queries, so its null space contains a nonzero string $h$. The strings $a$ and $a\oplus h$ give identical answers along that adaptive transcript and cannot both be identified correctly. Equivalently, a depth-$t$ binary decision tree has at most $2^t$ leaves and must distinguish $2^n$ possibilities. Thus the exact classical query count is $n$. This concerns exact recovery, rather than allowing an arbitrary error probability.

The quantum network in the lower panel starts its data quantum register in $|0{⟩}^{\otimes n}$ and its answer ancilla qubit in $|-⟩$, which can be prepared as $H|1⟩$. Apply Hadamard gates to the data wires, make one Boolean quantum oracle call, then apply Hadamard gates again to all data wires. Quantum phase kickback producesA computational-basis measurement of the data wires gives all bits of $a$ with certainty. This is Bernstein-Vazirani phase kickback: one quantum query, $2n$ data Hadamard gates, and one answer-state preparation suffice. The answer ancilla qubit stays separate from the data at the output.

Use the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product normalized by the dimension: $(A,B)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(A^{†}B)$. The identity and the three Pauli matrices are Hermitian, each has square $I$, and each nonidentity Pauli matrix has zero trace. For distinct nonidentity indices, the Pauli matrix multiplication law gives ${\sigma }_j{\sigma }_k=i{\sum }_l{\epsilon }_{jkl}{\sigma }_l$, which is traceless. ThereforeThere are four such orthonormal operators, and the complex vector space of two-by-two matrices has dimension four. Hence they form an orthonormal basis. Taking the inner product of any $E$ with each basis element proves, for arbitrary complex $E$ and not just Hermitian ones,For example, if $E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)$, its four coefficients are $(a+d)/2$, $(b+c)/2$, $i(b-c)/2$, and $(a-d)/2$, respectively.

For the joint error, regard the two prescribed basis outputs as the columns of an environment-valued linear map. Its coefficient array in the usual output-row, input-column convention isThe source's other array is arranged as a column of the images of basis kets; it must not be mistaken for this coefficient array acting on an amplitude column. Applying the just-proved Pauli matrix expansion componentwise in any environment orthonormal basis gives the Pauli decomposition of a qubit-environment isometry:To check the potentially delicate sign of the Pauli Y gate coefficient, use $Y|0⟩=i|1⟩$ and $Y|1⟩=-i|0⟩$. The four terms then giveLinearity proves the expansion for every input pure state. The environment coefficient vectors need not be normalized or mutually orthogonal. Consequently this expansion includes coherent combinations of Pauli errors, rather than asserting that every quantum channel is a probabilistic Pauli channel.

For the recovery probability, use the usual independent-use interpretation of the given phase-flip channel: each of the three transmitted qubits has a Pauli Z gate error independently with probability $q$. The phase-flip repetition code uses logical codewords $|+++⟩$ and $|---⟩$. The decoding Hadamard gates convert physical phase flips to bit flips because $HZH=X$. We can then analyze the two decoding controlled-NOT gates and the final Toffoli gate directly, rather than assuming a recovery rule.

Let $b_1,b_2,b_3$ be the error bits after this basis conversion. For a logical basis input $t\in \{0,1\}$, the three data bits before inverse encoding are $t\oplus b_1,t\oplus b_2,t\oplus b_3$. The two controlled-NOT gates produceThe Toffoli gate flips the first wire when both of the last two bits are one. Its residual error isThe last two wires carry an error syndrome independent of $t$. Thus this transformation preserves the amplitudes of an arbitrary superposition: zero or one phase error returns the original unknown qubit, while two or three phase errors leave the logical Pauli X gate applied to it. The probability of universally successful recovery is thereforeEquivalently, the decoded quantum channel is $\rho \mapsto (1-p_L)\rho +p_{L}X\rho X$, with logical failure of the three-qubit phase-flip repetition code $p_L=3q^2-2q^3$. For $0<q<1/2$, the failure probability is below $q$, since $q-p_L=q(1-q)(1-2q)>0$. A special input that is a Pauli X eigenstate is unchanged even by the residual logical error; this does not make the code correct that error on an unknown input. Its squared quantum fidelity with a particular pure input is $1-p_L+p_L|⟨\chi |X|\chi ⟩{|}^2$. If the errors on different channel uses are correlated, the marginal probability $q$ alone is insufficient: the general universal success probability is the probability of at most one error.

Over a finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$, a linear code of length $N$ and dimension $k$ is a $k$-dimensional subspace $C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_q^N$. A full-row-rank generator matrix $G\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{k\times N}$ gives $C=\{mG:m\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^k\}$, using row-vector messages. A full-row-rank parity-check matrix $H\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{(N-k)\times N}$ gives $C=\{x:H{x}^T=0\}$. The dual code is $C^{\perp }=\{y:x\cdot y=0\text{ for all }x\in C\}$, of dimension $N-k$. Thus the rows of $H$ span $C^{\perp }$, andConversely the rank conditions and $H{G}^T=0$ imply that the row space of $G$ equals the kernel of $H$, by inclusion and equality of dimensions.

For a CSS code, specialize to binary linear codes $C_2\subseteq C_1\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_2^N$, of dimensions $k_2,k_1$. Define orthonormal encoded statesDifferent cosets have disjoint computational-basis support. Their span has dimension $2^{k_1-k_2}$, so it encodes $K=k_1-k_2$ logical qubits. For binary vectors write $X(u)={⨂}_j{X}_j^{u_j}$ and $Z(v)={⨂}_j{Z}_j^{v_j}$. The stabilizer generators are $X(u)$ for a basis of $C_2$, and $Z(v)$ for a basis of $C_1^{\perp }$. They fix each encoded state: the former permute its coset terms and the latter contribute phases $(-1{)}^{v\cdot (x+y)}=1$. Their commutation relation is $X(u)Z(v)=(-1{)}^{u\cdot v}Z(v)X(u)$, so the classical dual inclusion $C_1^{\perp }\subseteq C_2^{\perp }$ makes them commute. There are $k_2+N-k_1=N-K$ independent checks, giving precisely this encoded space.

For a Pauli error $X(e)Z(f)$, the Z checks give bit-error syndrome $H_1{e}^T$, where $H_1$ checks $C_1$, and the X checks give phase-error syndrome $G_2{f}^T$, where $G_2$ generates $C_2$ and hence checks $C_2^{\perp }$. Classical decoders therefore correct up to $t_X$ bit flips and $t_Z$ phase flips if $d(C_1)>2t_X$ and $d(C_2^{\perp })>2t_Z$. A Y error has both components; it is not omitted from this correction scheme.

For the precise quantum code distance, harmless stabilizer errors must be excluded. A pure-X error preserves the code exactly when $e\in C_1$, and is a stabilizer when $e\in C_2$; a pure-Z error preserves it when $f\in C_2^{\perp }$, and is a stabilizer when $f\in C_1^{\perp }$. Consequently, for $K>0$,A mixed Pauli error has weight equal to the size of the union of its X and Z supports. If it is a nontrivial logical operator, at least one component is nontrivial, so its weight is at least $\min (d_X,d_Z)$; pure-X or pure-Z operators attain that minimum. Thus $t=\lfloor (d-1)/2\rfloor$ arbitrary-qubit errors are correctable: products of two such Pauli errors have weight below $d$ and act scalarly on the code, or take it to an orthogonal syndrome sector. This is the Knill--Laflamme condition. Expanding arbitrary errors in the Pauli basis extends correction to their coherent linear span.

An explicit example is the Steane code. Take $C_1$ to be the binary Hamming code withThe distinct nonzero columns show that $C_1$ has no weight-one or weight-two word, while three dependent columns give a weight-three word. Hence its classical distance is three. Direct multiplication gives $H{H}^T=0$, proving $C_2\subseteq C_1$. Every nonzero word of $C_2$ has weight four, so the logical X and Z distances are both three. Its six stabilizer checks are the X and Z strings given by the three rows of $H$. A logical basis is the uniform superposition over $C_2$ and over $1+C_2$, since $1=(1,\dots ,1)\in C_1\setminus C_2$. The resulting $[[7,1,3]]$ CSS code corrects every single-qubit error.

Write $C_U=|0⟩⟨0|\otimes I+|1⟩⟨1|\otimes U$ for the controlled unitary gate. For a normalized eigenvector $|u⟩$, the first Hadamard gate and quantum phase kickback giveThe final Hadamard gate therefore produces the unentangled outputThe auxiliary system is unchanged, while its eigenphase becomes accessible through interference of the control qubit. The special unitary group assumption is not needed for this calculation; unitarity and the normalized eigenvector suffice.

Apply one Hadamard gate independently to each qubit. These gates act in parallel, so the quantum circuit implements $H^{\otimes n}$ with $n$ gates and depth one.

For a computational basis state, factorization givesThe exponent is the dot product over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, because multiplying the separate signs adds their exponents modulo two. This is the Walsh-Hadamard transform, equivalently the quantum Fourier transform on the finite Abelian group $({\mathbb{Z}}_2{)}^n$.

In particular, the all-zero input becomes the uniform coherent superposition $2^{-n/2}{\sum }_y|y⟩$. It is a useful initial operation because an oracle can then act on all amplitudes in one call, and subsequent interference can reveal a global property. Measurement alone does not read all function values: the later interference step is what turns the preparation into an algorithmic advantage.

By the Schmidt decomposition theorem, suitable local unitary operations put the normalized pure state into the formIt is entangled precisely when both Schmidt coefficients are nonzero. Put $s=2{\lambda }_0{\lambda }_1$, so $0<s\le 1$ for the case of interest. The Pauli operatorssatisfy $⟨Z\otimes Z⟩=1$ and $⟨X\otimes X⟩=s$ in this pure state: $Z\otimes Z$ fixes both basis terms, and $X\otimes X$ exchanges them.

Choose Alice's two observables as $A_0=Z$, $A_1=X$, and Bob's asThese are valid dichotomic projective measurements. Indeed, $XZ+ZX=0$ and $X^2=Z^2=I$, so $B_0^2=B_1^2=I$; each observable has outcomes $\pm 1$. For the CHSH inequality convention $|⟨A_0\otimes (B_0+B_1)+A_1\otimes (B_0-B_1)⟩|\le 2$, the quantum value isFor the original pure state, conjugate these four observables by the corresponding local unitary operators. Their outcomes and Pauli correlators are unchanged, and each party still measures only their own qubit. Thus every entangled pure two-qubit state violates CHSH for suitable local measurements, proving Gisin's theorem directly. The CHSH axes for an entangled pure two-qubit state approach a nonviolating configuration continuously as one Schmidt coefficient tends to zero; the strict violation therefore need not be large for weak entanglement.

There is a necessary distinction between a failure bound averaged over the unknown state, a worst-case bound, and a separate bound for each candidate state. The last interpretation is false: a forger can discard the inputs and always prepare $|{\psi }_0{⟩}^{\otimes N}$. If the actual state is $|{\psi }_0⟩$, every authenticity test passes with probability one. The meaningful uniform statement concerns worst-case failure, or average failure under any fixed prior giving both states positive probability. The PDF does not specify that prior; the argument below gives an explicit bound for either interpretation.

Put $c=|⟨{\psi }_0|{\psi }_1⟩|\in (0,1)$. Any unconditional strategy producing $N$ output qubits, including ancillas, adaptive measurement in quantum measurements and correlated outputs, is a quantum channel $\mathcal{E}$. Its inputs and ideal outputs are the density operatorsThe projective measurements on the different banknotes commute, and their all-pass effect is exactly $P_i$. Therefore the probability of at least one rejection, conditional on input $i$, isThis remains true for entangled outputs; no independence of their individual test outcomes is assumed.

Use trace distance $D(\rho ,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}\Vert \rho -\sigma {\Vert }_1$. The pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity givesFor completeness, two pure-state projectors differ by a matrix with nonzero eigenvalues $\pm \sqrt{1-|⟨u|v⟩{|}^2}$, which proves this identity. Also the pure-target upper bound on trace distance gives $D({\rho }_i,P_i)\le \sqrt{e_i}$. To see the mixed-state step, write ${\rho }_i={\sum }_j{q}_j|u_j⟩⟨u_j|$ and use convexity of the trace norm followed by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:Finally, trace-distance contraction under quantum channels gives $D({\rho }_0,{\rho }_1)\le D({\sigma }_0,{\sigma }_1)$. This follows from $D(\rho ,\sigma )={\max }_{0\le E\le I}\mathrm{Tr}[E(\rho -\sigma )]$: the adjoint channel is positive and unital, so its image of any effect $E$ is still an effect.

The triangle inequality now yieldsThus the cloning failure bound from trace-distance contraction isand in particular $\max (e_0,e_1)\ge {\Delta }^2/4$. For positive priors ${\pi }_0+{\pi }_1=1$, another Cauchy-Schwarz inequality givesso the average rejection probability satisfiesFor equal priors, one may take $p_0={\Delta }^2/8$; the same choice is a strict lower bound on worst-case rejection. This proves a quantitative version of the no-cloning theorem for the bank's all-pass test. It concerns an unconditional attempt: heralded success cannot be postselected while omitting failed attempts from the accounting.

Compute the honest one-qubit density operators in the computational basis. Writing $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|u⟩=(5|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{26}$, the two quantum state ensembles giveThe equality includes the off-diagonal coherence; comparing only the basis outcome probabilities would not suffice.

The protocol is perfectly hiding against Bob when Alice is honest. Independence of the honest preparations makes his full received density operator ${\rho }_0^{\otimes N}={\rho }_1^{\otimes N}$. For any POVM $\{E_z\}$, including collective measurements and measurements using ancillas, the Born rule gives the same outcome probabilities $\mathrm{Tr}(E_z{\rho }_0^{\otimes N})=\mathrm{Tr}(E_z{\rho }_1^{\otimes N})$. Thus no measurement supplies information about the committed bit.

It is not binding against Alice. Here is an explicit ensemble-steering attack on quantum bit commitment. For each position, Alice prepares the normalized two-qubit pure stateretains $A$ and sends $B$. Its partial trace on $A$ is the honest common density operator. She sends the $B$ halves of $N$ independent copies while retaining all the $A$ halves, and chooses her bit only at unveiling.

To open one, she makes a projective measurement of each retained qubit in the computational basis. Outcome zero has probability $13/20$ and prepares Bob's state $|u⟩$; outcome one has probability $7/20$ and prepares $|1⟩$. She announces that list. It has exactly the honest bit-one distribution, and every declared-state test passes.

To open zero, she instead measures each retained qubit using a three-outcome POVM with effects $E_j=|v_j⟩⟨v_j|$, whereAll effects are positive. Their diagonal sums are $4/5+1/5=1$ and $4/70+16/70+5/7=1$, and the off-diagonal sum is zero, so $E_0+E_{+}+E_1=I$. This establishes that the proposed POVM is physically valid.

To verify the conditional states directly, the coefficient matrix of $|\Omega ⟩$, with Bob's index as the row and Alice's as the column, isA real rank-one effect $|v_j⟩⟨v_j|$ on Alice's half gives the unnormalized Bob state vector $C{v}_j$. For the three effects above,Their squared norms are therefore $1/2,1/4,1/4$, exactly the honest bit-zero probabilities, and Bob's conditional pure states are the corresponding declared states. Independent measurements on the retained halves produce the honest distribution of the entire list, so even checks on the declared frequencies do not defeat the attack. Every declared-state projector test again succeeds.

Alice can consequently unveil either bit with acceptance probability one, without having chosen it when sending the qubits. This is the Hughston–Jozsa–Wootters theorem mechanism implemented by an explicit measurement, rather than merely an appeal to the general impossibility of perfectly hiding and binding quantum bit commitment.

There is a normalization error in the original PDF: the first term contains $I$ rather than $\rho$. For a normalized qubit density operator, that printed expression has trace $2(1-p)+p=2-p$, so it is not a quantum channel except at $p=1$. The intended depolarizing channel is the Pauli channel that leaves the input unchanged with probability $1-p$ and applies each nonidentity Pauli matrix with probability $p/3$, for $0\le p\le 1$. Its Kraus operators areand ${\sum }_{k=0}^3{K}_k^{†}{K}_k=I$, proving that it is trace-preserving and a completely positive map.

Write the input in its Bloch vector representation,Conjugation by a Pauli matrix keeps its own Bloch vector component and reverses the other two. More explicitly, ${\sigma }_k{\sigma }_j{\sigma }_k={\sigma }_j$ for $j=k$ and $-{\sigma }_j$ for $j\ne k$. HenceThe corrected quantum channel therefore givesThus its action isThe Bloch sphere is sent to a sphere of radius $|1-4p/3|$ about the origin of the Bloch ball. At $p=0$ the action is the identity. For $0<p<3/4$ the Bloch vector shrinks without changing direction. At $p=3/4$ every input becomes the maximally mixed density operator $I/2$. For $3/4<p\le 1$, the Bloch vector reverses direction and shrinks, reaching factor $-1/3$ at $p=1$. The reversal is compatible with complete positivity because this remains a probabilistic mixture of Pauli matrices. The parameter here is the total nonidentity-error probability, not the retention parameter used in some definitions of the quantum depolarizing channel.

For completeness, retain the PDF literally and call its output $F_p(\rho )$. The same calculation givesThis has no normalized-output Bloch ball interpretation as printed. If it is manually normalized, thenThat different transformation sends $p=0$ to $I/2$, rather than to the input, and agrees with the intended answer only at $p=1$. The literal and corrected conventions therefore cannot be silently identified.

Under the intended assumption that one use of the quantum channel transmits one qubit without noise, Alice can communicate two classical bits with certainty if she and Bob already share a Bell pair. She uses superdense coding. The prior distribution of the Bell pair must be a resource available before the permitted channel use; distributing it through that same channel would consume another use.

Take the shared Bell state to be $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩=(|00⟩+|11⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with Alice holding the first qubit. For a two-bit message $(a,b)\in \{0,1{\}}^2$, Alice applies the local unitary operation $U_{ab}=X^a{Z}^b$ to her qubit. The four encoded pure states are, up to irrelevant global phases,They are orthogonal: for any matrix $V$ on the first qubit, $⟨{\Phi }^{+}|(V\otimes I)|{\Phi }^{+}⟩=\mathrm{Tr}V/2$, and the four Pauli operators are orthogonal in the trace inner product. Explicitly,Alice sends her qubit through the quantum channel once. Bob now holds both qubits and performs a Bell-basis measurement. Its four orthogonal projectors identify $(a,b)$ with certainty, givingBefore the transmission, Bob's reduced density matrix is $I/2$ for every message, so shared entanglement alone does not convey the message.

Without shared entanglement, a noiseless single-qubit transmission cannot perfectly distinguish four messages: perfect discrimination requires orthogonal state supports, and its two-dimensional Hilbert space has room for at most two nonzero mutually orthogonal supports. The Holevo bound also limits its accessible classical information to one bit. For the usual protocol starting with a shared two-qubit pure state and using local unitary encodings, exact two-bit transmission requires a maximally mixed Bob marginal. Indeed all encoded joint states are pure and have the same ${\rho }_B$, while Subadditivity of Von Neumann entropy gives their average entropy at most $1+S({\rho }_B)$. Four equally likely perfectly distinguishable messages have average Von Neumann entropy two, forcing $S({\rho }_B)=1$ and hence a maximally entangled state.

The specification “quantum channel” alone does not determine its dimension or noise, so the one-qubit, noiseless interpretation is needed for this particular conclusion. A noiseless four-dimensional channel could send four orthogonal states without any shared entanglement; a completely depolarizing qubit channel cannot transmit the message even with a shared Bell pair, since its output is independent of Alice's encoding. Shared entanglement is therefore the extra resource for the intended single-qubit channel, not a guarantee for every unspecified quantum channel.