Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Erasing, Converting, and Communicating: The Power of Resource-Nongenerating Operations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that resource-nongenerating operations give a common, quantitative handle on state conversion, channel resource, erasure, and communication in any convex quantum resource theory.

desk verdict A genuinely new dynamical RNO framework with serious but repairable proof gaps; worth reviewing, not yet citable as proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.12604 v2 pith:IU7XZVYZ submitted 2025-09-16 quant-ph

Xian Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P4781P48 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Hk03.67.Mn
keywords quantumresourcetheoriesnongeneratingoperationsdynamicaltheorystateconvertibilitygeneralizedrobustnessasymptoticcostchannelerasureclassicalcommunicationcapacity
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 argues that resource-nongenerating operations (RNOs)—maps that send every free state to a free state—provide a common, quantitative handle on state conversion, channel resource, erasure, and communication in any convex quantum resource theory. In the static setting, it proves a simple sufficient condition: a pure state can be converted to a target state by an RNO whenever the target's generalized robustness and the pure state's geometric distance to the free set satisfy 1/(1+R_G(σ)) + G_R(|ψ⟩) ≥ 1. It then builds a dynamical resource theory on the same operations, defining a channel measure from any state distance that obeys data processing, and bounds the cost of erasing channel resource by a smoothed robustness. As applications, the asymptotic cost of preparing a state by near-RNO maps is sandwiched between a regularized robustness lower bound and an overlap-decay upper bound, and the success probability of coherence-assisted classical communication is capped in terms of the channel's smoothed RNO robustness. If true, the results let researchers transfer conversion, erasure, and capacity statements between resource theories instead of proving them case by case.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set M_R of resource-nongenerating operations (maps sending every free state to a free state) and its tensor-stable subclass M~T_R of absolutely resource-nongenerating operations (ARNOs), which remain RNOs when tensored with any RNO. The quantitative work is done by the generalized robustness R_G, the geometric measure G_R for pure states, and the channel quantifier F_D(E) = inf_Λ sup_{ρ,Γ} D[(E⊗Γ)(ρ),(Λ⊗Γ)(ρ)]. The asymptotic upper bound is carried by the overlap decay function c(n), which bounds how closely any n-copy free state can approach the n-copy maximally resourceful state; its inverse converts 'how much free-looking' into 'how many resource states needed'.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compute the exact asymptotic RNO cost in a small concrete resource theory (e.g., qutrit coherence or two-qubit entanglement) using semidefinite programming. If any state's true cost falls below LR_G(ρ), Theorem 6 fails; if the expression with floor(c^{-1}(1/(1+R_G(ρ^{⊗n}))))/n is not an achievable cost, Theorem 7's construction fails. Simpler: exhibit a pure-target pair (ψ,σ) satisfying 1/(1+R_G(σ))+G_R(|ψ⟩)≥1 but for which no RNO maps ψ to σ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that resource-nongenerating operations (RNOs)—the largest class of operations that cannot create a resource from nothing—can serve as the organizing free-operation set for quantitative resource theory. The paper proves that a pure state ψ can be converted to a state σ by an RNO whenever 1/(1+R_G(σ)) + G_R(|ψ⟩) ≥ 1, constructing the converting map explicitly. It defines a channel measure F_D from any data-processing distance D and shows it is monotone under the free superchannels of the resulting dynamical theory, additive when tensoring with absolutely RNOs, and faithful under a closure condition. For asymptotic state preparation it proves E_an_C(ρ) ≥ LR_G(ρ) and E_an_C(

Load-bearing premise

The main theorems assume that the state distance used to define the dynamical resource is a genuine metric (symmetric, triangle inequality, data-processing), and that the overlap-decay function c(n) is monotone decreasing and invertible in the direction the upper-bound proof needs; the written proof of Theorem 7 applies the inverse with a floor, which for a decreasing c reverses the needed inequality. If those structural conditions or the inversion direction are wrong, the st

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In every convex resource theory satisfying R1–R9, the asymptotic RNO cost of a state is bounded below by its regularized log-generalized robustness and bounded above by the inverse-overlap expression; this turns a previously theory-specific question into a two-quantifier estimate.
  • The explicit construction behind Theorem 2 gives a ready-made RNO for any pair (ψ,σ) meeting the threshold, so convertibility checks reduce to computing one robustness and one geometric measure.
  • The channel measure F_D is monotone under the free superchannels of the dynamical theory, additive when tensoring with ARNOs, and faithful when the ARNO set is closed, so each valid distance D yields a legitimate resource quantifier for RNO channels.
  • Erasure (destruction) cost of a channel is controlled by its smoothed RNO robustness L^ε, connecting resource erasure to robust channel approximations.
  • For coherence-based classical communication, the one-shot capacity satisfies 2^{c_θ} ≤ 1/(L^δ(1-θ-δ)), so the smoothed RNO robustness of a channel directly limits how much classical information it can transmit under free encoding/decoding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The upper bound in Theorem 7 depends only on the overlap-decay profile c(n); this suggests that in theories where free states approach the maximally resourceful state exponentially slowly, the RNO cost coincides with the regularized robustness, and the two bounds pinch—an explicit testable prediction for specific theories.
  • Because max-relative entropy is asymmetric and does not satisfy the triangle inequality, replacing the metric axioms D1–D3 by one-sided data-processing inequalities is a natural companion construction that would extend the dynamical measure to standard divergences.
  • The static sufficient condition of Theorem 2 has the shape of a trade-off between free-state overlap and target-state robustness; a natural neighbouring question is whether this threshold is also necessary for pure-to-mixed RNO conversion, which would give a full single-shot convertibility criterion.
  • The communication bound is one-shot; iterating it with block-coding and smoothing would yield a regularized capacity bound, and comparing that with the asymptotic RNO cost may reveal a direct operational duality between communication and resource erasure under the same operation class.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies resource-nongenerating operations (RNOs) in generic convex quantum resource theories. It claims a sufficient condition for pure-state to arbitrary-state conversion under RNOs (Theorem 2), constructs a dynamical resource theory whose free superchannels are composed of RNOs and absolutely RNOs (ARNOs), defines a distance-based channel quantifier F_D (Theorem 4), studies an erasure/destruction cost (Theorem 5), and derives asymptotic RNO cost bounds (Theorems 6 and 7) as well as a classical communication capacity bound (Theorem 8). Proofs are gathered in an appendix.

Significance. If the results were correct, they would provide a unified set of tools—conversion criteria, monotones, erasure costs, and capacity bounds—for resource-nongenerating operations across all convex resource theories, and the ARNO/dynamical construction would be a useful contribution. The paper contains promising ideas, especially the ARNO definition and the use of generalized robustness in the cost bounds. However, the central results as stated are not supported by the proofs: Theorem 6 omits normalization by the resource value of the unit state, Theorem 7 uses floor with a decreasing c and reverses the key inequality, Theorem 2 uses the wrong extremum, and the Dmax application exceeds the hypotheses of Theorem 4. These are load-bearing issues, although they appear to be locally fixable.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.A, Theorem 6 and its proof (Appendix)] The last step of the proof, '1/n LR_G(φ_+^{⊗k_n}) ≤ k_n/n', is valid only if LR_G(φ_+) ≤ 1. Lemma 15 gives ≤ (k_n/n) LR_G(φ_+), and R1–R9 do not normalize the maximally resourceful state. For coherence in d=4 with ψ_+ maximally coherent, R_G(ψ_+)=3 and LR_G(ψ_+)=2; for ρ with F_max=1/2, Theorem 6 gives Ean_C ≥ 2 while Theorem 7 (with c(n)=4^{-n}) gives Ean_C ≤ 1. The stated lower bound must be divided by LR_G(φ_+) (or the unit state rescaled). As written, Theorems 6 and 7 are mutually inconsistent.
  2. [IV.A, Theorem 7 proof (Appendix)] With k_n = floor(c^{-1}(y)), y = 1/(1+R_G(ρ^{⊗n})), and c decreasing, k_n ≤ c^{-1}(y) implies c(k_n) ≥ y and hence 1/c(k_n)-1 ≤ 1/y-1, the reverse of the inequality used in the displayed chain. Thus the constructed Λ_n is not shown to be an RNO and the upper bound does not follow. Replacing floor by ceiling gives c(k_n) ≤ y and repairs the chain; the asymptotic limit changes by at most 1/n. The proof should also specify that π_n is the optimal free state witnessing R_G(ρ^{⊗n}).
  3. [II, Theorem 2 proof] The proof needs a uniform upper bound on F(ψ,ρ) over free ρ in order to ensure (1-tr(ψρ))/tr(ψρ) ≥ R_G(σ). The displayed condition uses 'min_{ρ∈F_R} F(ψ,ρ)', which is the wrong extremum: a minimum bound does not control states with larger overlap. The geometric-measure hypothesis controls a supremum over pure free states only, so the step from G_R(ψ) to a uniform bound over the convex free set is also missing. The theorem may be repairable by replacing min with max and justifying the pure-to-mixed reduction, but the proof as written is invalid.
  4. [III, Theorem 4 and Dmax application] Max-relative entropy Dmax is asymmetric and fails the triangle inequality, so it is not a distance under D1–D3. The theorem is stated for a distance satisfying those axioms, yet the paper applies it directly to Dmax. The proof of Theorem 4 only invokes data processing, so a weaker axiomatic statement may be possible, but as written the faithfulness and closure arguments rely on D being a symmetric distance. Either prove the Dmax claims directly or state Theorem 4 under axioms that Dmax satisfies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) uses the same symbol R_G for both generalized and standard robustness; this ambiguity affects Theorem 2 and its proof.
  2. [II, Corollary 3] Corollary 3 is stated without proof; no argument is given for the 'sufficiently large m' step, and it is not revisited in the appendix.
  3. [Appendix, Lemma 13 proof] The line '||Λ(π)-Γ(π)||_1 ≤ ϵ. That is, Γ(ρ)∈B_ϵ(Λ(ρ))' should refer to ρ, not π. The intended inference is recoverable from the diamond-norm condition, but the text is incorrect.
  4. [Appendix, Lemma 15 proof] The proof contains undefined symbols (e.g., m in '(1+r)^m') and does not justify the tensor-product expansion. The subadditivity claim is standard, but the proof needs rewriting.
  5. [General] The manuscript contains many typos and typesetting errors ('resoure', 'maximmaly', 'superimum', 'calssical', 'H¨old inequality'), which make verification harder.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main bounds and conversion criteria are derived from independent definitions (robustness, geometric measure, overlap decay) without assuming the target results; the two self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained with respect to their inputs. The generalized robustness RG(ρ)=inf{r:(ρ+rσ)/(1+r)∈FR}, the geometric measure GR, and the overlap decay function c(n) in R8 are defined independently of the asymptotic RNO cost Ean_C(ρ), and Theorems 6 and 7 bound that cost without importing the cost into the definitions. Theorem 2 is a conditional sufficient condition proved by an explicit construction Λ(ρ)=tr(ψρ)σ+(1−tr(ψρ))δ, with no fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The dynamical quantifier FD is defined relative to the ARNO set, but that is a definitional choice; Theorem 4 derives monotonicity and faithfulness from the distance axioms D1–D3 and the data-processing property rather than assuming them. The paper’s self-citations [14] and [47] appear only as background/related-work references and are not used to justify a central premise, forbid an alternative, or import a uniqueness theorem. I therefore find no circular step. For completeness: the manuscript does contain apparent non-circular proof gaps — e.g., in the Appendix proof of Theorem 7, since c is monotone decreasing, kn=floor(c^{-1}(y)) gives c(kn)≥y, so 1/c(kn)−1≤RG(ρ^⊗n), the reverse of the inequality used; replacing floor by ceiling would fix the direction. This is a mathematical correctness issue, not a circularity of the derivation chains.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The paper rests on a long list of convexity, closure, and existence assumptions, several of which are introduced only where needed. The ARNO set is a new mathematical object, not a new physical degree of freedom.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The resource theory is convex and satisfies R1-R9, including convexity of free states and operations, closure under partial trace and tensor, maximal mixed free, tensor powers of free states, closed free sets, and the overlap decay bound c(n).
    Invoked throughout the paper; not proved for arbitrary resource theories, and R6/R8 fail for some resource theories.
  • domain assumption There is a unique pure maximally resourceful state psi+ whose tensor powers remain maximally resourceful (R6).
    Needed for asymptotic cost and conversion statements; not guaranteed in a generic convex resource theory.
  • domain assumption The RNO set MR is convex and closed under composition, tensor, and partial trace (R3-R4).
    Used to ensure RNOs behave like a resource theory; closure under tensor is not automatic for all resource theories.
  • domain assumption D is a bi-linear distance satisfying D1-D3 and the data-processing inequality.
    Defines the channel quantifier F_D and is required by Theorem 4; Dmax is later used without satisfying these axioms.
  • domain assumption M_tilde_T^R is closed under D, MR is closed under permutations, and MR equals M_tilde_T^R for Theorem 5.
    Used in the erasure and faithfulness proofs; substantially restricts the applicability of the erasure bounds.
  • domain assumption For the coherence application, MR is the set of maximally incoherent operations and the ARNO set has the assumed closure properties.
    Specific model used for the communication capacity bound.
  • domain assumption Optimal free and robustness states exist, with F_R closed under limits (R9).
    Used to replace infima by optima in Theorem 1 and Lemma 13; not stated before those proofs are used.
invented entities (1)
  • Absolutely resource nongenerating operations (ARNO), the set M_tilde_T^R
    purpose: Ancillary channels that preserve RNO-ness under tensor product; used to define free superchannels SC_H and the dynamical quantifier F_D.
    A mathematical construction with no external falsifiable handle; its validity is internal to the resource-theoretic axioms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Erasing, Converting, and Communicating: The Power of Resource-Nongenerating Operations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IU7XZVYZ

@misc{pith2026250912604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Erasing, Converting, and Communicating: The Power of Resource-Nongenerating Operations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IU7XZVYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.12604}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate resource nongenerating operations in both static and dynamical quantum resource theories. For the static scenarios, we derive a sufficient condition for state transformations under resource nongenerating operations. Then we construct a dynamical resource theory where resource nongenerating operations constitute the set of free operations, and we propose an axiomatic approach to quantify the dynamical resource. We further analyze the erasure of the dynamical resources. As applications, we establish bounds on the rate of state conversions under resource nongenerating operations in a generic convex resource theory and obtain capacity bounds for classical communication tasks assisted by dynamical coherence. Our results clarify the key roles of resource nongenerating operations in quantum information processing tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12604 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A protocol for classical communication over a quantum channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

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

  1. Probabilistic Entanglement Distillation: Error Exponents via Postselected Quantum Hypothesis Testing Against Separable States

    quant-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Probabilistic entanglement distillation under approximate (dually) non-entangling instruments has error exponent equal to the regularized Hilbert projective metric to separable states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    [faithfulness]D max(ρ||σ) = 0⇐ ⇒ρ=σ

  2. [2]

    Based on Theorem 4, we haveFDmax (·)is RNO monotone, it is also faithful ifM˜T R is closed underDmax(·||·)

    [data-processing]D max(ρ||σ)≥D max(Λ(ρ)||Λ(σ)), ifΛ∈ O R. Based on Theorem 4, we haveFDmax (·)is RNO monotone, it is also faithful ifM˜T R is closed underDmax(·||·). Next we introduce the RNO robustnessL(·)of a channelE, L(E) = sup{p|pE+ (1−p)G ∈ MR},(4) where the superimum takes over all channels inCH. Itsϵ-smooth RNO robustnessL ϵ(E)is defined as follow...

  3. [3]

    Alice sends classical information to Bob with the aid of channels Π◦ N=E d ◦(N ⊗ W)◦ Ee, hereE d :H B ⊗ Hac →M ′ andE e :M→ HA ⊗ Hac are free operations, andWis a channel inM ˜T c

  4. [4]

    Here if the indexk∈ {1,2,· · ·, m}happens, Bob concludes the classical message sent wask

    Bob then performs a POVM M={|1⟩⟨1|,· · ·,|m⟩⟨m|} on the state afterΠ◦ N. Here if the indexk∈ {1,2,· · ·, m}happens, Bob concludes the classical message sent wask. The average success probability of the classical communication task is defined as f(N, m) = sup Ed,Ee,W P k tr(Ed ◦(N ⊗ W)◦ Ee(|k⟩⟨k|)|k⟩⟨k|) m , where the supremum ofEd,E e andWtakes over all t...

  5. [5]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,”Reviews of modern physics, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 865–942, 2009

    2009

  6. [6]

    Theclassical-quantumboundaryforcorrelations:<? format?> discord and related measures,

    K.Modi, A.Brodutch, H.Cable, T.Paterek, andV.Vedral, “Theclassical-quantumboundaryforcorrelations:<? format?> discord and related measures,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 1655–1707, 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 89, no. 4, p. 041003, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Quantum resource theories,

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, “Quantum resource theories,”Reviews of modern physics, vol. 91, no. 2, p. 025001, 2019

    2019

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Resource theory of entanglement with a unique multipartite maximally entangled state,

    P. Contreras-Tejada, C. Palazuelos, and J. I. De Vicente, “Resource theory of entanglement with a unique multipartite maximally entangled state,”Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 12, p. 120503, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Quantifying superposition,

    J. Aberg, “Quantifying superposition,”arXiv preprint quant-ph/0612146, 2006

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantifying quantumness of channels without entanglement,

    H.-Y. Ku, J. Kadlec, A. Černoch, M. T. Quintino, W. Zhou, K. Lemr, N. Lambert, A. Miranowicz, S.-L. Chen, F. Nori, and Y.-N. Chen, “Quantifying quantumness of channels without entanglement,”PRX Quantum, no. 2, p. 020338, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Transforming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps,

    “Transforming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps,”Europhysics Letters, vol. 83, no. 3, p. 30004, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Comparison of quantum channels by superchannels,

    G. Gour, “Comparison of quantum channels by superchannels,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 5880–5904, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Resource theories of quantum channels and the universal role of resource erasure,

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, “Resource theories of quantum channels and the universal role of resource erasure,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04201, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fundamental limitations on distillation of quantum channel resources,

    B. Regula and R. Takagi, “Fundamental limitations on distillation of quantum channel resources,”Nat Commun, vol. 12, p. 4411, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Operational resource theory of quantum channels,

    Y. Liu and X. Yuan, “Operational resource theory of quantum channels,”Physical Review Research, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 012035, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory,

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, “No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory,”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 010337, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Bounds of generalized unambiguous discrimination tasks for quantum resources,

    X. Shi, “Bounds of generalized unambiguous discrimination tasks for quantum resources,”Proceedings of the Royal society A, vol. 481, p. 20240863, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Classical communication cost of a bipartite quantum channel assisted by non-signalling correlations,

    C. Zhu, X. Zhao, and X. Wang, “Classical communication cost of a bipartite quantum channel assisted by non-signalling correlations,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    One-shot manipulation of dynamical quantum resources,

    B. Regula and R. Takagi, “One-shot manipulation of dynamical quantum resources,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 127, no. 6, p. 060402, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Application of the resource theory of channels to communication scenarios,

    R. Takagi, K. Wang, and M. Hayashi, “Application of the resource theory of channels to communication scenarios,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 124, no. 12, p. 120502, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Hypothesis testing and entropies of quantum channels,

    X. Yuan, “Hypothesis testing and entropies of quantum channels,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, p. 032317, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Entropy of a quantum channel,

    G. Gour and M. M. Wilde, “Entropy of a quantum channel,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 3, p. 023096, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Uniqueness and optimality of dynamical extensions of divergences,

    G. Gour, “Uniqueness and optimality of dynamical extensions of divergences,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 010313, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    How to quantify a dynamical quantum resource,

    G. Gour and A. Winter, “How to quantify a dynamical quantum resource,”Physical review letters, vol. 123, no. 15, p. 150401, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Operational resource theory of quantum channels,

    Y. Liu and X. Yuan, “Operational resource theory of quantum channels,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 2, p. 012035, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability for quantum channels,

    X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, “Resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability for quantum channels,”Physical Review Research, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 033169, 2019. 10

    2019

  20. [28]

    Quantifying the magic of quantum channels,

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, “Quantifying the magic of quantum channels,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 103002, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Dynamical entanglement,

    G. Gour and C. M. Scandolo, “Dynamical entanglement,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 125, no. 18, p. 180505, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    One-shot yield-cost relations in general quantum resource theories,

    R. Takagi, B. Regula, and M. M. Wilde, “One-shot yield-cost relations in general quantum resource theories,”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 010348, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Quantifying the entanglement of quantum channel,

    H. Zhou, T. Gao, and F. Yan, “Quantifying the entanglement of quantum channel,”Physical Review Research, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 013200, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Resource marginal problems,

    C.-Y. Hsieh, G. N. M. Tabia, Y.-C. Yin, and Y.-C. Liang, “Resource marginal problems,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1353, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Dephasing superchannels,

    Z. Puchała, K. Korzekwa, R. Salazar, P. Horodecki, and K. Życzkowski, “Dephasing superchannels,”Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 5, p. 052611, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    One-shot manipulation of entanglement for quantum channels,

    H.-J. Kim, S. Lee, L. Lami, and M. B. Plenio, “One-shot manipulation of entanglement for quantum channels,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 5339–5351, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Dynamical resource theory of incompatibility preservability,

    C.-Y. Hsieh, B. Stratton, C.-H. Wu, and H.-Y. Ku, “Dynamical resource theory of incompatibility preservability,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, no. 2, p. 022422, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory,

    Y. Luo, “One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, p. 022447, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Activation of genuine multipartite entan- glement: Beyond the single-copy paradigm of entanglement characterisation,

    H. Yamasaki, S. Morelli, M. Miethlinger, J. Bavaresco, N. Friis, and M. Huber, “Activation of genuine multipartite entan- glement: Beyond the single-copy paradigm of entanglement characterisation,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 695, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario,

    C. Palazuelos and J. I. De Vicente, “Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 735, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Robustness of entanglement,

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, “Robustness of entanglement,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 141, 1999

    1999

  32. [40]

    Robustness of coherence: an operational and observable measure of quantum coherence,

    C. Napoli, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. Johnston, and G. Adesso, “Robustness of coherence: an operational and observable measure of quantum coherence,”Physical review letters, vol. 116, no. 15, p. 150502, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Necessary and sufficient quantum information characterization of einsteinpodolsky-rosen steer- ing,

    M. Piani and J. Watrous, “Necessary and sufficient quantum information characterization of einsteinpodolsky-rosen steer- ing,”Physical review letters, vol. 114, no. 06, p. 060404, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Generalized robustness of entanglement,

    M. Steiner, “Generalized robustness of entanglement,”Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 5, p. 054305, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Degree of entanglement,

    A. SHIMONY, “Degree of entanglement,”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 755, no. 1, pp. 675–679, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states,

    H. Barnum and N. Linden, “Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states,”Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General, vol. 34, no. 35, p. 6787, aug 2001

    2001

  37. [45]

    Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states,

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, “Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states,”Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 4, p. 042307, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Comparison of different definitions of the geometric measure of entanglement,

    L. Chen, M. Aulbach, and M. Hajdušek, “Comparison of different definitions of the geometric measure of entanglement,” Physical Review A, vol. 89, no. 4, p. 042305, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Estimation on geometric measure of quantum coherence,

    H.-J. Zhang, B. Chen, M. Li, S.-M. Fei, and G.-L. Long, “Estimation on geometric measure of quantum coherence,” Communications in Theoretical Physics, vol. 67, no. 2, p. 166, feb 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, “Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state,” Physical Review A, vol. 72, no. 3, p. 032317, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    Disentanglement cost of quantum states,

    M. Berta and C. Majenz, “Disentanglement cost of quantum states,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, no. 19, p. 190503, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Symmetrizing cost of quantum states,

    E. Wakakuwa, “Symmetrizing cost of quantum states,”Physical Review A, vol. 95, no. 3, p. 032328, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Erasing imaginarity: An operational method,

    X. Shi, “Erasing imaginarity: An operational method,”Physical Review A, vol. 111, no. 5, p. L050401, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    M. M. Wilde,Quantum information theory. Cambridge university press, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    Semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms,

    J. Watrous, “Semidefinite programs for completely bounded norms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:0901.4709, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Resource preservability,

    C.-Y. Hsieh, “Resource preservability,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 244, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. 1 VII. APPENDIX Proof of Theorem 1 Theorem 1:AssumeF R is a set of free states in a generic resource theory, the quantifiersRG(·)andR G(·)sat...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.