Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Probabilistic entanglement distillation under nearly free operations has exact error exponents given by a single projective-metric quantity.

desk verdict Genuinely new and plausible formulas for probabilistic distillation exponents under NE/DNE operations, but Theorem 2's converse proof contains a concrete false inequality; the DNE result is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.00383 v3 pith:H6FLKARC submitted 2026-01-01 quant-ph

Xian Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P45 PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn
keywords entanglementdistillationerrorexponentsprobabilisticprotocolspostselectedhypothesistestingnon-entanglingoperationsduallyHilbertprojectivemetric
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 proves that probabilistic (postselected) entanglement distillation under operations that can generate only a small amount of entanglement has a closed-form asymptotic error exponent. The exponent equals the regularized Hilbert projective metric to the set of separable states, and under dually non-entangling operations it becomes the same metric restricted to separable measurements. The proof establishes an exact operational equivalence: any distillation protocol can be recast as a postselected hypothesis test against separable states, and any feasible test can be converted back into a distillation subchannel with matching error scaling. This matters because it reduces a complex operational question to a single analytic quantity and shows that small slack in the free-operation condition and arbitrarily large target dimension do not change the asymptotic rate.

What carries the argument

The central objects are three-outcome postselected quantum hypothesis tests (with outcomes 'ρ', 'σ', and 'abstain') and their reversed form, where the conditional type-II error is controlled against all separable states. The bridge to distillation is a twirled subchannel of the form Λ_{M,N}(X)=tr(MX)Ψ_m + tr(NX)τ_m, with τ_m=(I-Ψ_m)/(m²−1). Lemma 3 asserts that such a subchannel is δ-approximately non-entangling if and only if sup_{X∈Sep} tr(MX)/tr(NX) ≤ 2^δ/(m−1), and the dual version adds the cone(Sep) constraints. This lemma converts fidelity constraints of distillation into conditional-error constraints of postselected tests, and the exponent formula follows from the closed form of the r

What would settle it

Construct an explicit bipartite state ρ, a slack δ, and a dimension m for which either (a) a distillation protocol achieves an exponent strictly larger than D̂^{reg}_{Ω,Sep}(ρ), or (b) a postselected test with the required conditional errors cannot be converted into a feasible δ-approximately non-entangling subchannel. More directly, for a specific pair of positive operators M,N on a small bipartite system, compute sup_{X∈Sep} tr(MX)/tr(NX) and compare it with the true Hilbert projective metric D_{Ω,Sep}(Λ_{M,N}(σ)) over all separable σ; a mismatch disproves Lemma 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorems 1 and 2 give exact equalities. For any bipartite state ρ, under δ-approximately non-entangling instruments the asymptotic distillation error exponent is E_{d,err,p}^{NEδ}(ρ) = D̂^{reg}_{Ω,Sep}(ρ), for every finite target dimension m, independent of δ. Under δ-approximately dually non-entangling instruments, E_{d,err,p}^{DNEδ}(ρ) = D̂^{reg,SEP}_{Ω,Sep}(ρ), where the superscript SEP means the postselected test is restricted to separable measurements. The paper further shows that probabilistic entanglement costs under NE and DNE instruments coincide asymptotically, with at most a one-ebit gap in one shot, and gives a lower bound on the cost under NE instruments in terms of the regulari

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 3's characterization (Appendix VI D): a twirled subchannel Λ_{M,N} is δ-approximately non-entangling exactly when sup_{X∈Sep} tr(MX)/tr(NX) ≤ 2^δ/(m−1), with the dual version requiring N and (1/m)M+(1−1/m)N in cone(Sep); if this threshold condition is not exactly right, both exponent equalities collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Werner states, the distillation error exponent is exactly max(0, log((1−p)/p)), with a sharp transition at p=1/2.
  • The NE and DNE exponents are ordered: because separable measurements form a subset of all measurements, the DNE exponent is never larger than the NE exponent.
  • The asymptotic exponent is independent of both the slack δ and the target dimension m; only the input state and the class of operations matter.
  • Probabilistic entanglement costs under NE and DNE operations are asymptotically equal, and the one-shot cost differs by at most one ebit.
  • The probabilistic cost under NE operations is at least the regularized max-relative entropy to separable states, providing a quantitative lower bound on dilution difficulty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the exponent is δ-independent, the same formula may survive other natural definitions of 'approximately free' operations, provided the threshold in the twirled subchannel characterization scales similarly.
  • The one-shot NE-versus-DNE cost gap of at most one ebit suggests the dual constraint is asymptotically negligible; a direct test would be to check whether distillation rates under NE and DNE also converge when δ is fixed and m grows.
  • The equivalence with postselected testing may generalize to other convex resource theories with a canonical maximally resourceful state, such as coherence or athermality—directions the paper itself lists as open.
  • Since the Hilbert projective metric admits a semidefinite programming formulation, the exponents are computable in principle for small states; numerical experiments on random states could reveal how quickly the regularized quantity converges to its limit.
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 probabilistic (postselected) entanglement distillation and dilution under \delta-approximately non-entangling (NE_\delta) and dually non-entangling (DNE_\delta) instruments. The central claims are Theorem 1, asserting that the asymptotic NE_\delta distillation error exponent equals \hat{D}^{\mathrm{reg}}_{\Omega,\mathrm{Sep}}(\rho), and Theorem 2, asserting that the DNE_\delta exponent equals \hat{D}^{\mathrm{reg},\mathrm{SEP}}_{\Omega,\mathrm{Sep}}(\rho), a regularized Hilbert projective metric to separable states restricted to separable measurements. The proofs proceed by converting distillation protocols into three-outcome postselected hypothesis tests and by using a closed form for the reversed composite testing exponent. Additional results compare probabilistic entanglement costs under NE and DNE operations and give a lower bound on the non-entangling cost.

Significance. If correct, these would be the first exact asymptotic error exponents for probabilistic entanglement distillation under these operationally motivated relaxations, complementing prior work on postselected testing and non-entangling operations. A notable strength is that the results are derived from operational definitions with no fitted parameters, and Example 1 gives an explicit closed-form value for Werner states. The claimed \delta- and m-independence of the exponents is a strong, falsifiable statement. However, several load-bearing proofs in the current manuscript are incomplete or contain incorrect inequalities, so the central claims are not yet supported as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix VI E, Eq. (27), Theorem 2 proof] The displayed bound in the converse part of Theorem 2, trM2σ / tr(M1+M2)σ ≤ 2/m + m/(m+1) min[(2δ−1),2], is quantitatively false. Take m=2, δ=0, and E1 to be the twirling channel, which is dually non-entangling. For σ=|00⟩⟨00|, one has M2=(I+2Ψ)/3, M1=2(I−Ψ)/3, M1+M2=I, and the left side equals (1+2⟨σ|Ψ|σ⟩)/3 = 2/3. The printed right side is 1/3 if '2δ−1' is read literally, and 1 if '2^δ−1' was intended; in the latter case the postselected-test parameter ε becomes 1, making the β_SEP_1 bound vacuous. Thus the upper bound (29) does not follow and Theorem 2 is not established. A corrected bound can be derived from the NE_δ condition alone, namely trM2σ/tr(M1+M2)σ ≤ 1/(m+1) + m 2^δ / [(m+1)(2^δ + m −1)], but the proof must be rewritten with this or an equivalent argument.
  2. [Appendix VI D, Lemma 3] Lemma 3 is the bridge used in both Theorems 1 and 2, but its proof is a sketch rather than a derivation. For Λ_{M,N}(X)=tr(MX)Ψ_m + tr(NX)τ_m, the claimed equivalence with sup_{X∈Sep} tr(MX)/tr(NX) ≤ 2^ε/(m−1) requires showing that D_{Ω,Sep}(Λ(X)) = max(0, log(tr(MX)(m−1)/tr(NX))) for isotropic substates. The proof instead states an inequality involving undefined p,q and uses '2ε' where an exponent is needed. The DNE part is also asserted with a one-line justification. Because every conversion between distillation protocols and postselected tests passes through this lemma, a complete proof is essential.
  3. [Appendix C, Corollary 3] The proof of Eq. (9), the closed form of the reversed composite postselected testing exponent, contains unjustified algebraic steps. After the substitution M′_2 = t/(1−t)M_2, the constraint involves an undefined variable t′; the step from the optimization over M_1,M′_2 to 1 + ε/(1−ε) trM_1σ/trM′_2σ is not derived; and the infimum over σ and the supremum over measurements are interchanged without justification. Since Corollary 3 is used to identify the distillation exponent with the regularized projective metric, this proof cannot remain as is. If the formula is meant to be imported from Ref. [29], that should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Appendix VI E, Theorem 1 proof] In the meta-converse part of Theorem 1, Lemma 3 is applied to an arbitrary NE_δ subchannel E_i without first replacing it by its twirled version. Lemma 3 applies to subchannels of the form Λ_{M,N}(X)=tr(MX)Ψ_m + tr(NX)τ_m, and the required bound on tr(E_i(σ)Ψ_m)/tr(E_i(σ)) does not follow for a general E_i. One must use that T∘E_i has the same fidelity to Ψ_m and also lies in NE_δ. Lemma 5 supplies this reduction, but Theorem 1 does not cite it; the proof should state this step explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definitions, Lemma 3] The manuscript frequently writes '2δ' or '2ε' where an exponent '2^δ' or '2^ε' is clearly intended (e.g., Lemma 3, Theorem 2 proof). This must be corrected throughout.
  2. [Theorem 2, final line] The final limit in the proof of Theorem 2 writes lim_{m→∞} E^{NE_δ}_{d,err,p}(ρ), but it should be E^{DNE_δ}_{d,err,p}(ρ).
  3. [Lemma 5 statement] Lemma 5's statement says 'probabilistic distillation exponent' but then writes E^{(m),Fδ}_{c,err,p}; the subscript should be d,err,p.
  4. [Example 1 proof] In Example 1, 'As p 1/2 is separable' should read 'As ρ_{1/2} is separable'.
  5. [Appendix, Lemma 8] In the proof of Lemma 8, λ_min(σ^{⊗n}) is written as nλ_min(σ); this should be λ_min(σ)^n. This is in a technical appendix and not used in the main theorems, but it should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central exponent equalities are operational equivalences proved via an iff lemma, not by construction; the only self-citation is background.

full rationale

Theorems 1 and 2 relate two independently defined quantities: the probabilistic distillation error exponent under δ-approximately non-entangling / dually non-entangling instruments and the reversed postselected hypothesis-testing exponent against the separable set. These quantities are defined differently — one through output fidelity to Ψ_m under allowed instruments, the other through conditional type-I/type-II errors of three-outcome measurements. The proof bridges them by explicit constructions: from a protocol one forms M = E†(Ψ_m), N = E†(I − Ψ_m), and from a test one builds E1(X)=tr(MX)Ψ_m + tr(NX)τ_m. The entire bridge rests on Lemma 3's iff characterization of when such twirled subchannels are δ-NE/DNE, which is a mathematical claim about isotropic substates and the Hilbert projective metric, not an identity with the theorem's target. No fitted parameters, no data subsets, and no quantity defined in terms of the theorem's conclusion are used; the δ-dependence drops out because the regularized postselected-testing exponent is independent of the fixed error ε (Corollaries 3 and 4). The only self-citation is [18], which appears in the introduction's list of prior operational frameworks and is not used in any proof of Theorem 1 or Theorem 2. The apparent quantitative errors in the proof of Theorem 2's converse — e.g., the printed bound involving min[(2δ−1),2] and the questionable separability of (I+mΨ_m)/(m+1) — are correctness risks, not circularity, because they do not make the claimed equality true by definition or by a self-referential chain. Under the stated rules, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced. The axiomatic load is concentrated in Lemma 3/4 and Corollary 3, which are the unproved or under-proved links in the chain.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 3: Λ_{M,N} ∈ NE_ε iff sup_{X∈Sep} tr(MX)/tr(NX) ≤ 2^ε/(m−1)
    This is the central bridge between NEδ instruments and postselected measurements. The proof is a single paragraph and does not derive the metric bound; with the printed τ_m=(I−Ψ)/(m²−1), the threshold is dimensionally suspect.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 4(3): any NEδ twirled subchannel can be converted to a DNEδ subchannel using one extra ebit
    Load-bearing for Corollary 1's equality of NE and DNE probabilistic costs; proof only checks the Hilbert metric part and leaves the dual-cone part incomplete.
  • ad hoc to paper Corollary 3: β̂_{ε,F}(ρ)=log[1+ε/(1−ε)Ω̂_F(ρ)]
    Used to turn finite-m exponents into the regularized D̂; the proof's change of variables includes undefined t' and an unjustified equality, so the formula is assumed rather than demonstrated in this text.
  • standard math Fekete's lemma and quantum asymptotic equipartition for max-relative entropy
    Used in Corollary 3 and Theorem 3 to replace smoothed/max quantities by relative entropies; standard results, not the source of the main risk.
  • domain assumption δ-approx NE/DNE instruments are closed under composition with LOCC twirling
    Used in Lemma 5 to pass from arbitrary instruments to twirled form; probably true but not proven in text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probabilistic Entanglement Distillation: Error Exponents via Postselected Quantum Hypothesis Testing Against Separable States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6FLKARC

@misc{pith2026260100383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probabilistic Entanglement Distillation: Error Exponents via Postselected Quantum Hypothesis Testing Against Separable States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6FLKARC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00383}
}
abstract

Entanglement distillation is a fundamental task in quantum entanglement theory. While recent progress has clarified limitations of probabilistic transformations in general resource theories, an analytic formula for the error exponent of probabilistic entanglement distillation under approximately (dually) nonentangling operations has remained unavailable. This work considers the error exponents of probabilistic entanglement distillation under the finite block length scenario and zero rate scenario when the operational model is $\delta$-approximately nonentangling or $\delta$-approximately dually nonentangling quantum instruments. Building on the framework of postselected quantum hypothesis testing, we establish a direct connection between probabilistic distillation and postselected hypothesis testing against the set of separable states. In particular, we derive an analytical characterization of the distillation error exponent under $\delta$-(dually) approximately nonentangling quantum instruments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [29]

    Postselected quantum hypothesis testing,

    B. Regula, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde, “Postselected quantum hypothesis testing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 3453–3469, 2023

    2023

  2. [1]

    Quantum entanglement,

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

    2009

  3. [2]

    An introduction to entanglement theory,

    M. B. Plenio and S. S. Virmani, “An introduction to entanglement theory,” in Quantum Information and Coherence . Springer, 2014, pp. 173–209

    2014

  4. [3]

    Quantum cryptography based on bells theorem,

    A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on bells theorem,” Physical review letters , vol. 67, no. 6, p. 661, 1991

    1991

  5. [4]

    Communication via one-and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one-and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states,” Physical review letters , vol. 69, no. 20, p. 2881, 1992

    1992

  6. [5]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,” Physical review letters , vol. 70, no. 13, p. 1895, 1993

    1993

  7. [6]

    Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical Review A , vol. 54, no. 5, p. 3824, 1996

    1996

  8. [7]

    Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask),

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mancinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, “Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask),” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 328, no. 1, pp. 303–326, 2014

    2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Separability criterion for density matrices,

    A. Peres, “Separability criterion for density matrices,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 77, no. 11, p. 1413, 1996

    1996

  2. [9]

    Robustness of quantum gates in the presence of noise,

    A. W. Harrow and M. A. Nielsen, “Robustness of quantum gates in the presence of noise,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 68, p. 012308, 2003

    2003

  3. [10]

    Entanglement manipulation beyond local operations and classical communication,

    E. Chitambar, J. I. De Vicente, M. W. Girard, and G. Gour, “Entanglement manipulation beyond local operations and classical communication,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 61, no. 4, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    A reversible theory of entanglement and its relation to the second law,

    F. G. Brandao and M. B. Plenio, “A reversible theory of entanglement and its relation to the second law,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 295, no. 3, pp. 829–851, 2010

    2010

  5. [12]

    One-shot rates for entanglement manipulation under non-entangling maps,

    F. G. Brandao and N. Datta, “One-shot rates for entanglement manipulation under non-entangling maps,” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory , vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1754–1760, 2011

    2011

  6. [13]

    One-shot entanglement distillation beyond local operations and classical communication,

    B. Regula, K. Fang, X. Wang, and M. Gu, “One-shot entanglement distillation beyond local operations and classical communication,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 21, no. 10, p. 103017, 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Non-asymptotic entanglement distillation,

    K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and R. Duan, “Non-asymptotic entanglement distillation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 6454–6465, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    No second law of entanglement manipulation after all,

    L. Lami and B. Regula, “No second law of entanglement manipulation after all,” Nature Physics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 184–189, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Distillable entanglement under dually non-entangling operations,

    ——, “Distillable entanglement under dually non-entangling operations,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 10120, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Fundamental quality bound on optical quantum communication,

    T. Rippchen, L. Lami, G. Adesso, and M. Berta, “Fundamental quality bound on optical quantum communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07121 , 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Erasing, converting, and communicating: The power of resource-nongenerating operations,

    X. Shi, “Erasing, converting, and communicating: The power of resource-nongenerating operations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12604, 2025. 7

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Multipartite entanglement theory with entanglement-nonincreasing operations,

    S. Alexander, “Multipartite entanglement theory with entanglement-nonincreasing operations,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1841–1850, 2025

    2025

  13. [20]

    A quantum version of sanov’s theorem,

    I. Bjelaković, J.-D. Deuschel, T. Krüger, R. Seiler, R. Siegmund-Schultze, and A. Szkoła, “A quantum version of sanov’s theorem,” Communications in mathematical physics , vol. 260, no. 3, pp. 659–671, 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    Hypothesis testing on invariant subspaces of the symmetric group: part i. quantum sanov’s theorem and arbitrarily varying sources,

    J. Nötzel, “Hypothesis testing on invariant subspaces of the symmetric group: part i. quantum sanov’s theorem and arbitrarily varying sources,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , vol. 47, no. 23, p. 235303, 2014

    2014

  15. [22]

    Entanglement measures for detectability,

    M. Hayashi and Y. Ito, “Entanglement measures for detectability,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 4385 – 4405, 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    General detectability measure,

    M. Hayashi, “General detectability measure,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 406, no. 12, p. 289, 2025

    2025

  17. [24]

    Asymptotic quantification of entanglement with a single copy,

    L. Lami, M. Berta, and B. Regula, “Asymptotic quantification of entanglement with a single copy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07067, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Probabilistic transformations of quantum resources,

    B. Regula, “Probabilistic transformations of quantum resources,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 128, no. 11, p. 110505, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Tight constraints on probabilistic convertibility of quantum states,

    ——, “Tight constraints on probabilistic convertibility of quantum states,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 817, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Overcoming entropic limitations on asymptotic state transformations through probabilistic protocols,

    B. Regula, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde, “Overcoming entropic limitations on asymptotic state transformations through probabilistic protocols,” Physical Review A , vol. 107, no. 4, p. 042401, 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Reversibility of quantum resources through probabilistic protocols,

    B. Regula and L. Lami, “Reversibility of quantum resources through probabilistic protocols,” Nature Communications , vol. 15, p. 3096, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Hilbert’s projective metric in quantum information theory,

    D. Reed, M. J. Kastoryano, and M. M. Wolf, “Hilbert’s projective metric in quantum information theory,” J. Math. Phys. , vol. 52, no. 8, p. 082201, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Completing the grand tour of asymptotic quantum coherence manipulation,

    L. Lami, “Completing the grand tour of asymptotic quantum coherence manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 2165 – 2183, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    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, no. 2, p. 022447, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Quantum thermodynamics,

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, “Quantum thermodynamics,” Contemporary Physics, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 545–579, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum Thermodynamics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum information . Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Computable and faithful lower bound on entanglement cost,

    X. Wang, M. Jing, and C. Zhu, “Computable and faithful lower bound on entanglement cost,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 134, no. 19, p. 190202, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Computable entanglement cost under positive partial transpose operations,

    L. Lami, F. A. Mele, and B. Regula, “Computable entanglement cost under positive partial transpose operations,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 134, no. 9, p. 090202, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    On strong converse theorems for quantum hypothesis testing and channel coding,

    H.-C. Cheng and L. Gao, “On strong converse theorems for quantum hypothesis testing and channel coding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13584, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quantum channel coding: Approximation algorithms and strong converse exponents,

    A. Oufkir and M. Berta, “Quantum channel coding: Approximation algorithms and strong converse exponents,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1877, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Channel simulation: Tight meta converse for error and strong converse exponents,

    M. Berta, M. X. Cao, H.-C. Cheng, O. Fawzi, A. Oufkir, and Y. Yao, “Channel simulation: Tight meta converse for error and strong converse exponents,” in QIP 2025 , 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Second-order asymptotics for quantum hypothesis testing,

    K. Li, “Second-order asymptotics for quantum hypothesis testing,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 171–189, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols,

    M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, “Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols,” Physical Review A , vol. 59, no. 6, p. 4206, 1999

    1999

  35. [43]

    Tomamichel, Quantum information processing with finite resources: mathematical foundations

    M. Tomamichel, Quantum information processing with finite resources: mathematical foundations . Springer, 2015, vol. 5

    2015

  36. [44]

    Quantum resource theories,

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, “Quantum resource theories,” Reviews of modern physics , vol. 91, no. 2, p. 025001, 2019. 8 VI. Appendix A. Entanglement Assume HAB is the Hilbert space with finite dimensions. A state ρAB is separable if it can be written as ρ = ∑ i piρA i ⊗ρB i , her...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.