Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Riemannian Optimization for Holevo Capacity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Holevo capacity of any quantum channel can be lower-bounded efficiently by a Riemannian gradient descent on a product of a simplex and spheres.

desk verdict Original Riemannian approach to Holevo capacity, but the probability-component gradient is not tangent, so the headline convergence guarantee does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11576 v1 pith:F5JPYZWC submitted 2025-01-20 quant-ph math.OC

Chengkai Zhu , Renfeng Peng , Bin Gao , Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.OC MSC 81P4581P6890C2665K10 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Hk
keywords HolevocapacityquantumchannelRiemannianoptimizationgradientdescentclassicallowerboundnonconvexinformationtheory
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 tries to establish that the Holevo capacity of an arbitrary quantum channel can be usefully lower-bounded by solving a nonconvex optimization problem on a product of a probability simplex and complex unit spheres. It proposes a Riemannian gradient descent algorithm with an Armijo line search that, by the paper's claim, reaches a first-order critical point in $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ iterations and thereby yields a valid lower bound on the classical capacity. The authors argue that the geometric formulation makes the method scale to much larger channels than existing semidefinite-programming approaches, and they support this with numerical comparisons on depolarizing, classical-quantum, entanglement-breaking, Pauli, and qutrit channels. A sympathetic reader would care because exact capacity computation is intractable in general, so a fast and provably converging lower bound is the practical alternative.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product manifold $M_{d_A^2+1}$ of one probability simplex (for the ensemble weights) and $d_A^2$ complex unit spheres (for the pure input states), equipped with the Euclidean product metric. The mechanism is the Riemannian gradient formula of Proposition 1, which projects the Euclidean partial derivatives onto the tangent spaces of the simplex and spheres; this gradient is then used with a retraction (the sphere retraction via normalization, and a second-order retraction on the simplex) in a standard Riemannian gradient descent with Armijo backtracking. The convergence guarantee is imported from the general $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ global rate theorem for nonconvex Riemannian optimization.

What would settle it

Compute $\sum_j q_j$ from Proposition 1 at a random ensemble for a specific channel, say a 2-qubit depolarizing channel, and check whether the sum vanishes; if it does not, the gradient is not tangent, so the retraction step and the cited $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ convergence do not apply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a closed-form Riemannian gradient for the Holevo cost function on the product manifold $M_{d_A^2+1} = \Delta_{d_A^2-1}^+ \times (S^{d_A-1})^{\times d_A^2}$. For a channel $N$ and an ensemble $\{p_i, |\psi_i\rangle\}$, with $\sigma_i = N(|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i|)$ and $\sigma = \sum_i p_i \sigma_i$, the gradient components are $q_j = 1 - D(\sigma_j\|\sigma) + p_j(\sum_k p_k D(\sigma_k\|\sigma) - 1)$ for the probabilities and $2 p_i [N^\dagger(\log \sigma - \log \sigma_i) + D(\sigma_i\|\sigma)] |\psi_i\rangle$ for the pure states. Using this gradient, the paper's Riemannian gradient descent (Algorithm 1) is claimed to converge to a first-order critical point, giving a lower bound on the Holevo capacity $\chi(N)$ for arbitrary quantum channels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the probability component of the computed gradient lies in the tangent space of the simplex, meaning its entries sum to zero; the paper's formula does not guarantee this sum vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the algorithm converges as claimed, it provides a practical lower bound on the Holevo capacity of any finite-dimensional quantum channel, including channels where regularization via n-fold tensor products is needed.
  • The method scales to substantially larger input and output dimensions than existing SDP-based estimators, as demonstrated on classical-quantum channels with $|X| = 100$ and output dimension 500.
  • On channels with known analytic capacity, such as d-dimensional depolarizing channels, the method achieves absolute errors around $10^{-13}$–$10^{-11}$ in seconds, versus roughly $10^4$ seconds for a prior first-order method.
  • Because the gradient on a tensor product satisfies a factorization identity, product-state starting points are stationary traps, which the authors identify as a caution for superadditivity searches.
  • Combined with existing semidefinite upper bounds, the lower bounds give bracketing intervals for the classical capacity of general channels, enabling numerical tests of additivity violations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cheap sanity check inside the loop could assert that the probability-gradient components sum to zero; if they do not, the computed step is not a true Riemannian step and the convergence certificate does not apply.
  • The method could be adapted to estimate the regularized capacity $\chi(N^{\otimes n})/n$ directly by running the same algorithm on the tensor-product channel, though the dimension grows exponentially and the product-state gradient formula suggests that non-product random initializations are needed.
  • Testing on additional analytically solvable channels, such as Werner or Holevo-Werner channels, would show whether the reported accuracy generalizes beyond the paper's examples.
  • Even if the tangent-space condition for the gradient were violated, the algorithm might still reduce the cost in practice, but its theoretical convergence claim would no longer be supported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates the computation of the Holevo capacity of a quantum channel as a minimization problem over the product manifold M_{d_A^2+1} = Δ_+^{d_A^2-1} × (S^{d_A-1})^{d_A^2}, where the variables are a probability vector and a collection of pure input states. A Riemannian gradient descent (RGD) algorithm with Armijo backtracking is proposed, together with a stated O(1/ε²) convergence guarantee to first-order critical points. The authors also present numerical experiments for depolarizing, classical-quantum, entanglement-breaking, Pauli, and composed qutrit channels, reporting high accuracy and large speedups over SDP-based methods.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were correct, this would be a valuable contribution: a scalable, geometrically principled heuristic for lower-bounding Holevo capacities of general quantum channels, with numerical evidence of substantial improvements over existing SDP-based approaches. The numerical validation against King's analytical formula for depolarizing channels and independent SDP upper bounds is a positive feature, as is the availability of the implementation. However, the central Riemannian gradient formula for the probability component is inconsistent with the paper's own metric, and the stated convergence guarantee is therefore not established as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (4) and Proposition 1] The probability component q of the claimed Riemannian gradient is not tangent to the simplex. With T_pΔ = {ṗ : Σ_j ṗ_j = 0} and the Euclidean metric (4), any tangent vector must have zero component sum. However, q_j = 1 − D(σ_j∥σ) + p_j(Σ_k p_k D(σ_k∥σ) − 1) gives Σ_j q_j = d_A^2 − 1 − Σ_j D(σ_j∥σ) + Σ_k p_k D(σ_k∥σ), which is not identically zero. The correct orthogonal projection of the Euclidean derivative e_j = 1 − D(σ_j∥σ) onto T_pΔ is e_j − (1/d_A^2)Σ_k e_k, not the stated formula. Because q is not a tangent vector, the retraction in Eq. (5) is applied to an invalid direction, the update in Algorithm 1 is not Riemannian gradient descent under the metric (4), and the O(1/ε²) convergence guarantee from [32] cannot be invoked. This invalidates the stated convergence claim for Algorithm 1.
  2. [Section III, paragraph after Algorithm 1] The smoothing N' = (1−δ)N + δD changes the objective, but the paper does not quantify the effect. The convergence theorem is stated for the Holevo cost f_N, whereas the algorithm in practice minimizes f_{N'}; a first-order critical point of f_{N'} need not be near a critical point of f_N, and a lower bound on χ(N') does not by itself give a lower bound on χ(N). The paper should either restrict the claim to channels for which N(|ψ⟩⟨ψ|) is nonsingular for all pure inputs, or add a perturbation bound showing that the smoothed problem approximates the original problem in the appropriate sense.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Corollary 2] The summation in the last term should be Σ_j p_j D(ρ_j∥ρ); as written it uses D(ρ_x∥ρ) inside the sum, which changes the formula.
  2. [Algorithm 1, output line] The output line 'm(t) ∈ M_{dA+1}' should read 'm(t) ∈ M_{d_A^2+1}'.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (4)] The symbol q is used both for the probability-component tangent vector in Eq. (4) and for the gradient component in Proposition 1; this reuse is confusing and should be avoided.
  4. [Proposition 1] The indexing in Proposition 1 is inconsistent: q_j is indexed from 0 to d_A^2−1 while the state components are indexed from 1 to d_A^2; please unify.
  5. [Table II] The analytical value h2((1+ϵ)/2) for binary cq channels uses ϵ, which is never defined in the text.
  6. [Proposition 3] Proposition 3 is stated without proof and its formula is not self-evident; in particular the factors (1−q_j)|ψ_j⟩ and (1−p_i)|ψ_i⟩ mix different components of the product ensemble. A precise statement and derivation are needed before the remark on product input states can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, and the main concern is a mathematical error in the gradient formula, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper reformulates the Holevo-capacity maximization as an equivalent minimization problem on a product manifold; this reformulation is definitional rather than circular, since the cost function is exactly the negative Holevo information and every feasible point yields a valid lower bound by construction. The Riemannian-gradient formula in Proposition 1 is derived directly from calculus of the entropy expressions, and the convergence guarantee is imported from the external, non-self-cited theorem of Boumal, Absil, and Cartis [32]. The self-citations in the paper are not load-bearing: reference [30] is cited only for an illustration of product-manifold geometry, and the gradient, metric, and retraction formulas are either derived in the text or are standard material. Numerical validation uses independent benchmarks, including King's analytical depolarizing-channel capacity, the analytical binary cq-channel capacity, and SDP-based upper bounds, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reader-identified defect in Proposition 1 — that the probability-component gradient may fail the simplex tangent condition — is a correctness issue in the derivation of the algorithm's theoretical guarantee, not a circular dependence of the claimed result on its own inputs. Therefore no circular step meeting the required evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only free parameter is the smoothing δ. The main assumptions are the pure-state reduction theorem and the closeness of the smoothed channel. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • δ = 1e-9
    Introduced to make the Holevo cost function smooth by replacing N with (1-δ)N + δD. The error in the computed capacity due to this perturbation is not quantified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Holevo capacity of a channel is achieved by a pure-state ensemble of cardinality at most d_A^2
    Invoked in Section III to restrict the search space to d_A^2 pure states and a probability vector in the simplex. This is a standard theorem from Schumacher and Westmoreland, but the paper relies on it without proof.
  • domain assumption The smoothed channel N' = (1-δ)N + δD has a Holevo capacity close to that of N for δ=1e-9
    Introduced after Algorithm 1 to avoid singular outputs. The paper does not provide an error bound on the capacity difference.
  • standard math The convergence theorem for nonconvex Riemannian gradient descent applies to the product manifold problem
    The paper cites Boumal et al. for O(1/ε^2) convergence to first-order critical points. This requires the gradient to be a tangent vector and the retraction to be valid, which is not satisfied if the gradient formula is incorrect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Riemannian Optimization for Holevo Capacity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5JPYZWC

@misc{pith2026250111576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Riemannian Optimization for Holevo Capacity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5JPYZWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11576}
}
read the original abstract

Computing the classical capacity of a noisy quantum channel is crucial for understanding the limits of communication over quantum channels. However, its evaluation remains challenging due to the difficulty of computing the Holevo capacity and the even greater difficulty of regularization. In this work, we formulate the computation of the Holevo capacity as an optimization problem on a product manifold constructed from probability distributions and their corresponding pure input states for a quantum channel. A Riemannian gradient descent algorithm is proposed to solve the problem, providing lower bounds on the classical capacity of general quantum channels and outperforming existing methods in numerical experiments in both efficiency and scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11576 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of optimization on the manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper and lower bounds on the classical capacity of () [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Global rates of convergence for nonconvex optimization on manifolds,

    N. Boumal, P.-A. Absil, and C. Cartis, “Global rates of convergence for nonconvex optimization on manifolds,” IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, vol. 39, no. 1, p. 1–33, Feb. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drx080

    doi:10.1093/imanum/drx080 2018

  2. [1]

    Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel,

    A. S. Holevo, “Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel,” 1973. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118312737

    work page 1973

  3. [2]

    Sending classical information via noisy quantum channels,

    B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, “Sending classical information via noisy quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 56, pp. 131–138, Jul

    work page

  4. [3]

    The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states,

    A. Holevo, “The capacity of the quantum channel with general signal states,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 269–273, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement- breaking quantum channels,

    P. W. Shor, “Additivity of the classical capacity of entanglement- breaking quantum channels,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 43, no. 9, p. 4334–4340, Sep. 2002. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1498000

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1498000 2002

  6. [5]

    Additivity for unital qubit channels,

    C. King, “Additivity for unital qubit channels,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 10, p. 4641–4653, Oct. 2002. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1500791

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1500791 2002

  7. [6]

    The capacity of the quantum depolarizing channel,

    ——, “The capacity of the quantum depolarizing channel,” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory , vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 221–229, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [7]

    Capacities of quantum erasure channels,

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, “Capacities of quantum erasure channels,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 78, no. 16, p. 3217–3220, Apr. 1997. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.78.3217

    work page 1997

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    An application of a matrix inequality in quantum information theory,

    C. King, “An application of a matrix inequality in quantum information theory,” 2004. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ quant-ph/0412046

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Properties of conjugate channels with applications to additivity and multiplicativity,

    C. King, K. Matsumoto, M. Nathanson, and M. B. Ruskai, “Properties of conjugate channels with applications to additivity and multiplicativity,”

  3. [10]

    Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled inputs,

    M. B. Hastings, “Superadditivity of communication capacity using entangled inputs,” Nature Physics , vol. 5, no. 4, p. 255–257, Mar

  4. [11]

    On the complexity of computing zero-error and Holevo capacity of quantum channels,

    S. Beigi and P. W. Shor, “On the complexity of computing zero-error and Holevo capacity of quantum channels,” 2008. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2090

    2008 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Semidefinite programming strong converse bounds for classical capacity,

    X. Wang, W. Xie, and R. Duan, “Semidefinite programming strong converse bounds for classical capacity,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 640–653, jan 2018. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8012535/

    2018

  6. [13]

    On converse bounds for classical communication over quantum channels,

    X. Wang, K. Fang, and M. Tomamichel, “On converse bounds for classical communication over quantum channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 4609–4619, jul 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05258

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Geometric Rényi divergence and its applica- tions in quantum channel capacities,

    K. Fang and H. Fawzi, “Geometric Rényi divergence and its applica- tions in quantum channel capacities,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 384, no. 3, pp. 1615–1677, jun 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Approaches for approximate additivity of the Holevo information of quantum channels,

    F. Leditzky, E. Kaur, N. Datta, and M. M. Wilde, “Approaches for approximate additivity of the Holevo information of quantum channels,” Physical Review A , vol. 97, no. 1, p. 012332, jan 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.012332

    2018 doi

  9. [16]

    Computation of channel capacity and rate-distortion func- tions,

    R. Blahut, “Computation of channel capacity and rate-distortion func- tions,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 460–473, 1972

    1972

  10. [17]

    An algorithm for computing the capacity of arbitrary dis- crete memoryless channels,

    S. Arimoto, “An algorithm for computing the capacity of arbitrary dis- crete memoryless channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 1972

    1972

  11. [18]

    Algorithms of Arimoto–Blahut type for computing quan- tum channel capacity,

    H. Nagaoka, “Algorithms of Arimoto–Blahut type for computing quan- tum channel capacity,” in Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Sym- posium on Information Theory (Cat. No.98CH36252) , 1998, pp. 354–

    1998

  12. [19]

    Capacities of quantum channels and how to find them,

    P. W. Shor, “Capacities of quantum channels and how to find them,” Mathematical Programming , vol. 97, no. 1, p. 311–335, Jul. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10107-003-0446-y

    2003 doi

  13. [20]

    Numerical experiments on the capacity of quantum channel with entangled input states,

    S. Osawa and H. Nagaoka, “Numerical experiments on the capacity of quantum channel with entangled input states,” IEICE transactions on fundamentals of electronics, communications and computer sciences , vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 2583–2590, 2001

    2001

  14. [21]

    Computational geometry anal- ysis of quantum state space and its applications,

    K. Kato, M. Oto, H. Imai, and K. Imai, “Computational geometry anal- ysis of quantum state space and its applications,” Generalized V oronoi Diagram: A Geometry-Based Approach to Computational Intelligence , pp. 67–108, 2008

    2008

  15. [22]

    Efficient approximation of quantum channel capacities,

    D. Sutter, T. Sutter, P. Mohajerin Esfahani, and R. Renner, “Efficient approximation of quantum channel capacities,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 62, no. 1, p. 578–598, Jan. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2015.2503755

    2016

  16. [23]

    A Blahut–Arimoto type algorithm for computing classical-quantum channel capacity,

    H. Li and N. Cai, “A Blahut–Arimoto type algorithm for computing classical-quantum channel capacity,” in 2019 IEEE International Sym- posium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2019, pp. 255–259

    2019

  17. [24]

    Computing the classical-quantum channel capacity: experiments on a Blahut–Arimoto type algorithm and an approximate solution for the binary inputs, two-dimensional outputs channel,

    ——, “Computing the classical-quantum channel capacity: experiments on a Blahut–Arimoto type algorithm and an approximate solution for the binary inputs, two-dimensional outputs channel,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08235

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Computing quantum channel capacities,

    N. Ramakrishnan, R. Iten, V . B. Scholz, and M. Berta, “Computing quantum channel capacities,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 2, p. 946–960, Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2020.3034471

    2021

  19. [26]

    Semidefinite approximations of the matrix logarithm,

    H. Fawzi, J. Saunderson, and P. A. Parrilo, “Semidefinite approximations of the matrix logarithm,” F oundations of Computational Mathematics , vol. 19, no. 2, p. 259–296, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10208-018-9385-0

    2018 doi

  20. [27]

    Efficient optimization of the quantum relative entropy,

    H. Fawzi and O. Fawzi, “Efficient optimization of the quantum relative entropy,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , vol. 51, no. 15, p. 154003, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aab285

    2018 doi

  21. [28]

    Absil, R

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, in Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds . Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  22. [29]

    Boumal, An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds

    N. Boumal, An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds . Cambridge University Press, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www. nicolasboumal.net/book

    2023

  23. [30]

    Optimization on product manifolds under a preconditioned metric,

    B. Gao, R. Peng, and Y .-x. Yuan, “Optimization on product manifolds under a preconditioned metric,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08873 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A bregman proximal perspective on classical and quantum Blahut–Arimoto algorithms,

    K. He, J. Saunderson, and H. Fawzi, “A bregman proximal perspective on classical and quantum Blahut–Arimoto algorithms,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory , vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 5710–5730, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Manopt, a Matlab toolbox for optimization on manifolds,

    N. Boumal, B. Mishra, P.-A. Absil, and R. Sepulchre, “Manopt, a Matlab toolbox for optimization on manifolds,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1455–1459, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/boumal14a.html

    2014

  26. [34]

    Updates will be provided soon

    The code used in this work is available at https://github.com/ Chengkai-Zhu/Riemannian-Opt-for-Holevo-Capacity and is currently under polishing. Updates will be provided soon

  27. [35]

    Quantum channels and their entropic characteristics,

    A. S. Holevo and V . Giovannetti, “Quantum channels and their entropic characteristics,” Reports on Progress in Physics , vol. 75, no. 4, p. 046001, Mar. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0034-4885/75/4/046001

    2012

  28. [36]

    Entanglement breaking channels,

    M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, “Entanglement breaking channels,” Reviews in Mathematical Physics , vol. 15, no. 06, p. 629–641, Aug. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ S0129055X03001709

    2003

  29. [37]

    Separation between quantum Lovász number and entanglement-assisted zero-error classical capacity,

    X. Wang and R. Duan, “Separation between quantum Lovász number and entanglement-assisted zero-error classical capacity,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 64, no. 3, p. 1454–1460, Mar

  30. [38]

    The platypus of the quantum channel zoo,

    F. Leditzky, D. Leung, V . Siddhu, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, “The platypus of the quantum channel zoo,” IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory , vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 3825–3849, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Semidefinite optimization for quantum information,

    X. Wang, “Semidefinite optimization for quantum information,” PhD thesis, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/ 10453/127996

    2018

  32. [40]

    Semidefinite programming relaxations for quantum correlations,

    A. Tavakoli, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, P. Brown, and M. Araújo, “Semidefinite programming relaxations for quantum correlations,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 96, no. 4, p. 045006, dec 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.96.045006

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Unified framework for calculating convex roof resource measures,

    X. Zhu, C. Zhang, Z. An, and B. Zeng, “Unified framework for calculating convex roof resource measures,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19683

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Finding quantum codes via Riemannian optimization,

    M. Casanova, K. Ohki, and F. Ticozzi, “Finding quantum codes via Riemannian optimization,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.08423

    2024 arXiv

  35. [1997]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 56.131

    doi

  36. [2006]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509126

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509126

    arXiv

  37. [2009]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1224

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1224

    doi

  38. [2018]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2018.2794391

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2018.2794391

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.