A Complete Resource Theory of Quantum Incompatibility as Quantum Programmability

Eric Chitambar; Francesco Buscemi; Wenbin Zhou

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Complete Resource Theory of Quantum Incompatibility as Quantum Programmability

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that one programmable measurement device can be converted into another by the allowed temporal operations exactly when it performs at least as well in every post-information guessing game, and that measurement…

desk verdict Genuine advance in incompatibility resource theories; the main convertibility theorem is sound once the strictness typo in Theorem 1(b) is changed to non-strict and the sign slip in Theorem 3 is cleaned up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11274 v2 pith:IECE67XI submitted 2019-08-29 quant-ph

Francesco Buscemi , Eric Chitambar , Wenbin Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords measurementincompatibilityjointmeasurabilityquantumresourcetheoryprogrammabledevicespost-informationguessinggamesstatediscriminationgeneralizedrobustnessone-wayLOCC

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that measurement incompatibility, the failure of a family of quantum measurements to be simulable by one mother measurement, is exactly the resource that makes a classically programmable measurement device useful. It constructs a resource theory in which the free operations combine quantum pre-processing with classical conditional post-processing, governed by the temporal rule that the program arrives after the quantum system has been prepared. The main theorem says that one device can be converted into another by these free operations if and only if it achieves at least as high success probability in every post-information guessing game. The paper then draws the consequence that a device is incompatible precisely when it outperforms all simple, classically simulable devices in some such game, and that its generalized robustness equals the maximum guessing advantage. This matters because it gives measurement incompatibility one operational meaning instead of several unrelated witnesses.

What carries the argument

The central object is a programmable measurement device (PMD): a collection of POVMs $\{M_Q(a|x)\}$ on one Hilbert space, where $x$ is the classical program selecting the measurement and $a$ is the classical outcome. A PMD is simple, or compatible, when all its POVMs are classical post-processings of a single mother POVM, which means it can be simulated without storing the quantum system. The free operations are the key machinery: a quantum instrument applied before the program arrives, connected through classical memory only to classical conditional post-processing after the program arrives; in a spatial picture these operations are exactly one-way LOCC. The load-bearing identity is Theorem 1, which uses convex separation to show that convertibility by those free operations is equivalent to dominance in every post-information guessing game, and the dual conic formulation of the same separation gives the robustness-to-advantage equality.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be a numerical search over qubit programmable measurement devices: for pairs $M,N$, solve the semidefinite feasibility problem for the free processing in Eq. (5) and evaluate $P_{\mathrm{guess}}$ over a dense grid of ensembles; finding one pair where $M$ beats or ties $N$ in every game but no free processing exists would refute Theorem 1, while the robustness formula predicts no such pair can be found.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an equivalence between order and performance: for two programmable measurement devices $M$ and $N$, $M\succcurlyeq N$ (convertibility by the free operations of Definition 3) holds if and only if $P_{\mathrm{guess}}(M;\{\rho_{w,z}\})\ge P_{\mathrm{guess}}(N;\{\rho_{w,z}\})$ for every post-information guessing game, and it is enough to test games whose Hilbert space, program set, and outcome set match $N$. The proof runs by convex separation, converting the existence of a free processing into a family of linear inequalities and then reading those inequalities as advantages in guessing games. The corollary is that a PMD is incompatible if and only if there is an ensemble for which its guessing probability exceeds the best probability achievable by any simple PMD. Together with the robustness result, $1+R(\{M(a|x)\}) = \max_{\{\rho_{a,x}\}} P_{\mathrm{guess}}(M;\{\rho_{a,x}\})/P_{\mathrm{guess}}^{\mathrm{simple}}(\{\rho_{a,x}\})$, this makes the guessing-game score a complete family of monotones for the resource theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is the timing of the free operations: the program that selects the measurement must arrive only after the quantum input has been pre-processed, and no external quantum memory is allowed to store the input while waiting; if that ordering were relaxed, the device ordering and the main theorem would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All simple (compatible) PMDs form a single equivalence class: any two can be freely converted into each other, so the zero-resource objects are genuinely interchangeable.
Every incompatible PMD has a witnessing task of the same type: beating the best simple PMD in a post-information guessing game, so incompatibility needs no separate Bell or steering witness.
The generalized robustness of a PMD is operationally meaningful: it is the maximum factor by which the device can outperform the best simple device in a guessing game.
The guessing-game scores form a complete set of monotones: if one device never loses to another in any game, the conversion exists, so no additional invariants are needed to decide convertibility.
For a single POVM, the result reduces to a comparison by minimum-error state discrimination: one measurement is above another exactly when it is better for every discrimination ensemble.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: Because the equivalence is decided by a family of linear guessing inequalities, convertibility between finite-dimensional PMDs can be checked numerically by semidefinite programming, which should make the ordering testable in small Hilbert-space dimensions.
Editorial inference: The temporal reading suggests the actual resource being consumed is quantum memory inside the device until the program arrives; that points toward a unified treatment with resource theories of quantum memories, where timed discrimination tasks play the same role.
Editorial inference: If the program register were made quantum instead of classical, the free operations would naturally change and the same complete-game characterization would not be expected to survive; constructing that variant would stress-test where programmability, rather than incompatibility, does the work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this paper is worth taking seriously. It constructs the first resource theory of measurement incompatibility that treats both quantum pre-processing and classical conditional post-processing as free, and it proves a complete convertibility criterion in terms of post-information guessing games. The core theorem is: M can be freely converted to N if and only if M scores at least as well as N in every such game. Incompatibility robustness is then exactly the maximum guessing advantage over simple devices.

What's actually new is the framework of programmable measurement devices with classical control and classical output, and the realization that the memory needed to wait for the program is the resource. That is a clean way to unify pre- and post-processing, which earlier incompatibility resource theories treated separately. The proof is a convex-separation argument adapted from Buscemi's statistical comparison results, and it is a real derivation, not a restatement. The authors are transparent about borrowing those tools, so there is no circularity.

Now the soft spots. They are local and fixable, but they need to be fixed. Theorem 1(b) as printed has a strict inequality: Pguess(M) > Pguess(N). That cannot be right. Take M=N: convertibility is trivial but the guessing probabilities are equal, so strict failure. The proof actually yields the non-strict version, and the equivalence is only true with '≥'. This is a typo in the main theorem, not a structural flaw, but it has to be corrected. In the proof of Theorem 3, the inequality between Eqs (30) and (31) has the wrong direction; you only get '≥' there. The final equality still goes through, but the reasoning should be rewritten. There is also a '>0' in the shift-rescale step that should be '≥0'—minor.

The choice of free operations is a modeling decision; if you allowed quantum memory or program-dependent pre-processing for free, the ordering would change. The authors justify their choice well. Within their setup, the mathematics is sound.

Bottom line: this is a significant paper that deserves peer review. I would not desk reject it. The referee should ask for the typo fixes and a careful pass on Theorem 3, but the central result holds. I'd cite it if I were working on incompatibility.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a resource theory of quantum measurement incompatibility in terms of programmable measurement devices (PMDs). It defines PMDs as collections of POVMs on a quantum system, identifies simple (compatible) PMDs as free objects, and takes free operations to be quantum pre-processing followed by classical conditional post-processing connected by a classical memory, motivated by the temporal separation between obtaining a device and programming it. The central result (Theorem 1) claims that one PMD is convertible into another by free operations if and only if it dominates the other in every post-information guessing game. A corollary characterizes incompatible PMDs as those that outperform all simple PMDs in some such game, and a further theorem equates the generalized robustness of incompatibility with the maximum ratio of guessing advantages. The proof strategy uses convex separation and conic duality, with details in a Supplemental Material, and the paper also connects free PMD processing to one-way LOCC in a spatial picture.

Significance. Once the strictness issue in the main theorem is corrected, this is a substantial contribution. It provides a complete family of operational monotones for measurement incompatibility, generalizes earlier state-discrimination characterizations, and gives a physically motivated free-operation set in which all compatible PMDs are freely interconvertible. The corollary and robustness theorem convert the resource-theoretic ordering into quantitative, operationally meaningful statements. The reliance on convex-separation and conic-duality arguments is structurally sound, and the results are concrete and testable through explicit guessing-game constructions. The authors also appropriately acknowledge prior related work. I regard the contribution as suitable for a strong journal, provided the mathematical statements and proof steps identified below are corrected.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 1 and Supplemental Theorem 2, statement (b)] The printed statement of Theorem 1(b), and its supplement version Theorem 2(b), require Pguess(M;rho) > Pguess(N;rho) for every post-information guessing game. This is not equivalent to convertibility: whenever M ≽ N and N ≽ M, for instance when M = N or when both are simple PMDs by Lemma 1, condition (a) holds while the two guessing probabilities are equal for all ensembles, so condition (b) fails. The supplied proof supports only the non-strict version: Eq. (8) is derived with a non-strict inequality, and the implication (a) implies (b) is at best with '≥'. The strict symbol in both theorem statements should therefore be replaced by '≥'.
[Proof of Theorem 3, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The chain of inequalities in the robustness proof has an incorrect direction between Eq. (30) and Eq. (31). The second inequality is justified by the positivity of ∑_{a,x} ⟨T(F)(a|x), γ_x - ω_{a,x}⟩, which makes the denominator in Eq. (31) larger than the denominator in Eq. (30). Replacing a denominator by a larger quantity cannot yield a lower bound on the ratio, so the displayed chain does not prove the claimed inequality 1 + R ≤ max_ρ Pguess(M;ρ)/P_simple(ρ). The final equality may be recoverable by a corrected argument using strong duality and the Slater point, but as written the proof is invalid at this step.

minor comments (4)

[Definition 2] The text says that Eq. (4) is equivalent to the definition of compatibility, but Eq. (4) is the equation number in the Supplemental Material; in the main text the displayed definition is Eq. (1).
[Paragraph after Theorem 2 in main text] The passage referring to 'Theorem 2' as providing necessary and sufficient conditions for a single POVM appears to mean Theorem 1, and the displayed condition uses MQ(a) ≻ NQ'(b) and Pguess(MQ(b); ρ_z), where the strict order and the argument b appear to be typos.
[Supplemental Material, general presentation] The supplement contains numerous spelling and typographical errors, including 'usefullness', 'becasue', 'constriant', and 'quantifer'; these should be corrected in a revision.
[Main text, opening] The phrase 'such violating a Bell Inequality' is grammatically incomplete and should be rephrased, for example as 'such as violating a Bell inequality'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central equivalence is a derived convex-separation theorem, not an input; strictness typos in Theorem 1(b) and the Theorem 3 proof are correctness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the derivation chain. The resource theory is built from independent definitions: PMDs (Definition 1), simple PMDs (Definition 2), free operations (Definition 3, Eq. 5), and post-information guessing success (Eq. 6). The central equivalence in Theorem 1 is not assumed: (a) implies (b) by the simulation argument that any strategy using N can be mimicked by M, and (b) implies (a) is proven in the Supplemental Material by convex separation, constructing a free operation T in the set of allowed processings from the inequality of guessing values. The proof borrows its technique from [Bus16, Bus17] and [TR19b], but the argument is reproduced in the paper, so those citations are not load-bearing black boxes. The corollary and Theorem 3 follow from Theorem 1, Lemma 1, and conic duality; in particular, the robustness equality is a strong-duality statement rather than a rewording of the definition of robustness. The strict inequality '>' in Theorem 1(b) and in the intermediate lines of the Theorem 3 proof is a strictness typo: the separation argument yields 'less than or equal to' in Eq. (8), and only 'greater than or equal to' is guaranteed between Eqs. (30) and (31). That is a correctness issue to be corrected, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a mathematical theorem with no numerical fitting. The free parameters list is empty. The axioms are either standard mathematical tools or the physically motivated definitions of the resource theory. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Free PMD processing is temporally causal: the program arrives after the quantum state is prepared and cannot influence pre-processing; only classical memory connects pre- and post-processing (Definition 3, Eq. (5)).
This is the physical motivation for the set of free operations. If the program could influence pre-processing or quantum memory were free, the ordering of PMDs would change.
domain assumption Simple PMDs (compatible families) are the free resources because they require no quantum memory.
Identifies the zero-resource states. A different choice would give a different resource theory.
standard math The set T of free transformations is convex and closed, and the resulting set S(M) is convex and closed, so the separation theorem applies.
Stated in the proof of Theorem 2 in the Supplemental Material; needed for the convex-separation argument.
standard math Composing free operations yields free operations (closure under composition), used in the trivial direction (a)=>(b).
Implicit in the proof; needed so that simulating N by M then applying further free processing yields a valid strategy for M.
standard math Slater's condition holds for the conic robustness program, ensuring strong duality.
Used in the robustness proof to justify the dual formulation; explicit assignment of strictly feasible variables is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Complete Resource Theory of Quantum Incompatibility as Quantum Programmability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IECE67XI

@misc{pith2026190811274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Complete Resource Theory of Quantum Incompatibility as Quantum Programmability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IECE67XI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11274}
}

read the original abstract

Measurement incompatibility describes two or more quantum measurements whose expected joint outcome on a given system cannot be defined. This purely non-classical phenomenon provides a necessary ingredient in many quantum information tasks such violating a Bell Inequality or nonlocally steering part of an entangled state. In this paper, we characterize incompatibility in terms of programmable measurement devices and the general notion of quantum programmability. This refers to the temporal freedom a user has in issuing programs to a quantum device. For devices with a classical control and classical output, measurement incompatibility emerges as the essential quantum resource embodied in their functioning. Based on the processing of programmable measurement devices, we construct a quantum resource theory of incompatibility. A complete set of convertibility conditions for programmable devices is derived based on quantum state discrimination with post-measurement information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11274 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Measurement incompatibility and quantum steering via linear programming
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A hierarchy of linear programs computes provable upper and lower bounds on measurement incompatibility and quantum steering, scaling polynomially with the number of measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[8]

[CG19] Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour

URL: https: //doi.org/10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F83%2F30004, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/83/30004. [CG19] Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour. Quantum re- source theories. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 91:025001, Apr

doi:10.1209/0295-5075/83/30004
[10]

[CHT19] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.012126. [CHT19] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo. Quantum incompatibility wit- nesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:130402, Apr

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.012126
[11]

[DFK19] S´ ebastien Designolle, M´ at´ e Farkas, and Jedrzej Kaniewski

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.130402. [DFK19] S´ ebastien Designolle, M´ at´ e Farkas, and Jedrzej Kaniewski. Incompatibility robustness of quantum measurements: a uniﬁed framework

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.130402
[12]

[Fin82] Arthur Fine

arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00448v2. [Fin82] Arthur Fine. Joint distributions, quantum cor- relations, and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(7):1306–1310,

arXiv 1906
[14]

[GJB+18] Gilad Gour, David Jennings, Francesco Buscemi, Runyao Duan, and Iman Marvian

doi:10.1063/1.4994303. [GJB+18] Gilad Gour, David Jennings, Francesco Buscemi, Runyao Duan, and Iman Marvian. Quan- tum majorization and a complete set of entropic conditions for quantum thermodynamics. Nature Communications, 9(1), dec

doi:10.1063/1.4994303
[15]

[HKR15] Teiko Heinosaari, Jukka Kiukas, and Daniel Reitzner

doi:10.1109/ TIT.2019.2907989. [HKR15] Teiko Heinosaari, Jukka Kiukas, and Daniel Reitzner. Noise robustness of the incompatibility of quantum measurements. Phys. Rev. A , 92:022115, Aug

arXiv 2019
[16]

[HMZ16] Teiko Heinosaari, Takayuki Miyadera, and M´ ario Ziman

doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.022115. [HMZ16] Teiko Heinosaari, Takayuki Miyadera, and M´ ario Ziman. An invitation to quantum incom- patibility. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(12):123001, feb

doi:10.1103/physreva.92.022115
[17]

[Lah03] Pekka Lahti

doi:10.1007/s10701-008-9256-7 . [Lah03] Pekka Lahti. Coexistence and joint measurabil- ity in quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 42(5):893–906, May

doi:10.1007/s10701-008-9256-7

Show all 26 references

[19]

[OB19] Micha l Oszmaniec and Tanmoy Biswas

arXiv: 1906.09859. [OB19] Micha l Oszmaniec and Tanmoy Biswas. Op- erational relevance of resource theories of quan- tum measurements. Quantum, 3:133, April

1906 arXiv
[20]

[OGWA17] Micha l Oszmaniec, Leonardo Guerini, Peter Wittek, and Antonio Ac´ ın

doi:10.22331/q-2019-04-26-133 . [OGWA17] Micha l Oszmaniec, Leonardo Guerini, Peter Wittek, and Antonio Ac´ ın. Simulating positive- operator-valued measures with projective measure- ments. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:190501, Nov

2019 doi
[21]

[QBHB16] Marco T´ ulio Quintino, Joseph Bowles, Flavien Hirsch, and Nicolas Brunner

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.190501. [QBHB16] Marco T´ ulio Quintino, Joseph Bowles, Flavien Hirsch, and Nicolas Brunner. Incompatible quantum measurements admitting a local-hidden- variable model. Phys. Rev. A , 93:052115, May

doi
[22]

[QVB14] Marco T´ ulio Quintino, Tam´ as V´ ertesi, and Nicolas Brunner

doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052115. [QVB14] Marco T´ ulio Quintino, Tam´ as V´ ertesi, and Nicolas Brunner. Joint measurability, einstein- podolsky-rosen steering, and bell nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 113:160402, Oct

doi
[23]

[SˇSC19] Paul Skrzypczyk, Ivan ˇSupi´ c, and Daniel Caval- canti

doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.021033. [SˇSC19] Paul Skrzypczyk, Ivan ˇSupi´ c, and Daniel Caval- canti. All sets of incompatible measurements give an advantage in quantum state discrimination. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:130403, Apr

doi
[24]

[TR19b] Ryuji Takagi and Bartosz Regula

arXiv:arXiv:1901.08127. [TR19b] Ryuji Takagi and Bartosz Regula. General re- source theories in quantum mechanics and beyond: Operational characterization via discrimination 6 tasks. Phys. Rev. X , 9:031053, Sep

1901 arXiv
[25]

9.031053, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031053

URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 9.031053, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031053. [UKS+19] Roope Uola, Tristan Kraft, Jiangwei Shang, Xiao-Dong Yu, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Quantifying quantum resources with conic programming. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:130404, Apr

doi
[1953]

org/stable/2236332

URL: http://www.jstor. org/stable/2236332. [Bus12] Francesco Buscemi. Comparison of Quan- tum Statistical Models: Equivalent Conditions for Suﬃciency. Communications in Mathematical 5 Physics, 310(3):625–647, jan
[1982]

[GBCA17] Leonardo Guerini, Jessica Bavaresco, Marcelo Terra Cunha, and Antonio Ac´ ın

doi: 10.1063/1.525514. [GBCA17] Leonardo Guerini, Jessica Bavaresco, Marcelo Terra Cunha, and Antonio Ac´ ın. Op- erational framework for quantum measurement simulability. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 58(9):092102,

doi
[2003]

[Mor19] Junki Mori

doi:10.1023/A:1025406103210. [Mor19] Junki Mori. Operational characterization of in- compatibility of quantum channels with quantum state discrimination. arXiv e-prints ,

doi
[2008]

2008.928276

doi:10.1109/TIT. 2008.928276. [CDP08] G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Transforming quantum opera- tions: Quantum supermaps. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 83(3):30004, jul

2008
[2009]

103.230402

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 103.230402. Convexity of Simple PMDs Recall the deﬁnition of simple PMDs. Deﬁnition 4 (Simple PMDs, alias Compatible POVMs). A PMDMQ(a|x) is called simple if its constituting POVMs can be written as MQ(a|x) = ∑ i∈I p(a|i,x ) ˜MQ(i), (4) where the ˜MQ(i...

doi
[2015]

[Bla53] David Blackwell

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.070503. [Bla53] David Blackwell. Equivalent comparisons of ex- periments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 24(2):265–272,

doi
[2016]

1134/s0032946016030017

doi:10. 1134/s0032946016030017. [Bus17] Francesco Buscemi. Comparison of noisy chan- nels and reverse data-processing theorems. In 2017 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) . IEEE, nov

2017
[2017]

[BV18] Erika Bene and Tam´ as V´ ertesi

doi:10.1109/itw.2017.8278038. [BV18] Erika Bene and Tam´ as V´ ertesi. Measurement incompatibility does not give rise to bell violation in general. New Journal of Physics , 20(1):013021, jan

2017
[2018]

[BWW08] M

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa9ca3. [BWW08] M. A. Ballester, S. Wehner, and A. Win- ter. State discrimination with post-measurement information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 54(9):4183–4198,

doi
[2019]

[CHT18] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo

doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001. [CHT18] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo. State discrimination with post- measurement information and incompatibility of quantum measurements. Physical Review A , 98(1), jul

doi
[2020]

Measurement incompatibility describes two or more quantum measurements whose expected joint outcome on a given system cannot be deﬁned. This purely non-classical phenomenon provides a necessary ingredient in many quantum information tasks such violating a Bell Inequality or no...

1908 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

[CG19] Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour

URL: https: //doi.org/10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F83%2F30004, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/83/30004. [CG19] Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour. Quantum re- source theories. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 91:025001, Apr

doi:10.1209/0295-5075/83/30004

[2] [10]

[CHT19] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.012126. [CHT19] Claudio Carmeli, Teiko Heinosaari, and Alessandro Toigo. Quantum incompatibility wit- nesses. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:130402, Apr

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.012126

[3] [11]

[DFK19] S´ ebastien Designolle, M´ at´ e Farkas, and Jedrzej Kaniewski

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.130402. [DFK19] S´ ebastien Designolle, M´ at´ e Farkas, and Jedrzej Kaniewski. Incompatibility robustness of quantum measurements: a uniﬁed framework

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.130402

[4] [12]

[Fin82] Arthur Fine

arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00448v2. [Fin82] Arthur Fine. Joint distributions, quantum cor- relations, and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(7):1306–1310,

arXiv 1906

[5] [14]

[GJB+18] Gilad Gour, David Jennings, Francesco Buscemi, Runyao Duan, and Iman Marvian

doi:10.1063/1.4994303. [GJB+18] Gilad Gour, David Jennings, Francesco Buscemi, Runyao Duan, and Iman Marvian. Quan- tum majorization and a complete set of entropic conditions for quantum thermodynamics. Nature Communications, 9(1), dec

doi:10.1063/1.4994303

[6] [15]

[HKR15] Teiko Heinosaari, Jukka Kiukas, and Daniel Reitzner

doi:10.1109/ TIT.2019.2907989. [HKR15] Teiko Heinosaari, Jukka Kiukas, and Daniel Reitzner. Noise robustness of the incompatibility of quantum measurements. Phys. Rev. A , 92:022115, Aug

arXiv 2019

[7] [16]

[HMZ16] Teiko Heinosaari, Takayuki Miyadera, and M´ ario Ziman

doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.022115. [HMZ16] Teiko Heinosaari, Takayuki Miyadera, and M´ ario Ziman. An invitation to quantum incom- patibility. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(12):123001, feb

doi:10.1103/physreva.92.022115

[8] [17]

[Lah03] Pekka Lahti

doi:10.1007/s10701-008-9256-7 . [Lah03] Pekka Lahti. Coexistence and joint measurabil- ity in quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 42(5):893–906, May

doi:10.1007/s10701-008-9256-7