Bosonic Quantum Communication Beyond the Thermal Threshold
Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.
Statement
Holevo and Werner's 1999 lower bound on the quantum capacity of the bosonic thermal attenuator comes from thermal inputs. Is it optimal? The paper proves it is exactly the supremum over single-mode Gaussian states, then exhibits a non-Gaussian state that beats it, giving positive quantum capacity in a region where every single-mode Gaussian input yields none.
Context
Breaks a lower bound standing since Holevo and Werner in 1999 and shows a complete theory of noisy bosonic communication cannot stay within single-mode Gaussian states.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
From the paper's own AI-assisted research statement: some of the authors had tried hard to find such a non-Gaussian counterexample several years ago and failed; they tried again with ChatGPT 5.5 and failed again; ChatGPT 5.6 Sol then gave them the families of non-Gaussian counterexamples. They call the AI crucial to the work while taking full responsibility for its content.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.