Discarding an output subsystem is a local post-processing operation, so an entanglement-breaking channel remains entanglement breaking after output reduction. The converse need not hold: a reduced channel can be entanglement breaking even when a richer output still carries reference entanglement. This preprint gives an exactly solvable two-parameter benchmark that quantifies this asymmetry. On two qubits, let (Π_±=(I± Z⊗ I)/2), let ( L(X)=∑_sΠ_sXΠ_s) be sector dephasing, let ( M(X)=∑_sTr(Π_sX)Π_s/2) be measure-and-prepare within the two sectors, and let ( D_4(X)=Tr(X)I_4/4). The channel family is [Φt,η=(1-η)[(1-t) L+t M]+η D_4, 0≤ t,η≤1.] For the reduced task, a variable second-qubit input is embedded with an arbitrary fixed first-qubit state and the first output qubit is discarded. The induced qubit channel is depolarizing with parameter (q=(1-η)(1-t)), and is entanglement breaking exactly when (q≤1/3). For the full four-dimensional output, the partially transposed normalized Choi state has one potentially negative eigenvalue, [λ_- = -4(1-η)+6(1-η)t+η/16,] with multiplicity two. The block structure makes PPT sufficient for separability in this family. Hence, for (η<1), [tred(η)=max!{0,1-1/3(1-η)},full(η)=max!{0,4-5η/6(1-η)}.] The exact region in which the reduced channel is already entanglement breaking while the full channel is not is (tred(η)≤ t<tfull(η)). Its width is [w(η)={cases}η/[6(1-η)],&0≤η≤2/3,\(4-5η)/[6(1-η)],&2/3≤η<4/5,\0,&4/5≤η≤1,{cases}] and reaches the exact maximum (wₘₐₓ=1/3) at (η=2/3). The Choi negativities are [ Nred=[3(1-η)(1-t)-1]+/4, N{ full}=[4-5η-6(1-η)t]_+/8.] Therefore the maximal full-output Choi negativity compatible with an already entanglement-breaking reduced output is (1/12), attained at ((η,t)=(2/3,0)). The result is a controlled benchmark for output-access dependence: the same physical channel family can cross the entanglement-breaking boundary at different noise values solely because an output subsystem is retained or discarded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oliver Tuma (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: