Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

On the saturated cases of the distillability conjecture

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Equality in the distillability conjecture for two-copy four-by-four Werner states forces matrices A and B to be two-by-two block-diagonal.

desk verdict The paper unifies known saturation cases for the distillability conjecture under a 2x2 block-diagonal condition on A and B, with analytic reductions of prior results plus numerical checks that stop short of a full proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.03561 v1 pith:INGOHHCF submitted 2026-06-02 quant-ph

Saiqi Liu , Lin Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords distillabilityconjectureWernerstatesblock-diagonalmatricessaturationconditionsmanifoldoptimizationtwo-copyequalitycasesquantuminformation
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 distillability conjecture states an inequality that would determine when two-copy Werner states are distillable. This work focuses on the saturation cases where the inequality becomes an equality. In every previously verified instance of the conjecture, equality occurs only when A and B take a two-by-two block-diagonal form. Earlier partial results on normal matrices, unitary similarities to negatives of A, and anti-diagonal blocks all collapse into this single structural condition. Numerical optimization on the constraint manifold supplies supporting evidence that the block-diagonal structure is required for saturation, and the authors prove these points are critical points of the objective function.

What carries the argument

Reduction of equality cases in the conjectured inequality to the two-by-two block-diagonal form of matrices A and B, together with manifold optimization that locates the saturation points.

What would settle it

Finding a pair of matrices A and B that are not two-by-two block-diagonal yet still achieve equality in the distillability inequality, or locating additional critical points on the manifold outside this structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For all known cases where the distillability conjecture has been verified, equality forces the matrices A and B to be two-by-two block-diagonal. In particular, several previously obtained partial results, including the cases of one normal matrix, unitary similarity between B and -A or -A^T, and anti-diagonal block structures, are reduced to this common block-diagonal structure. Manifold optimization provides numerical evidence that the two-by-two block-diagonal structure is essential for saturating the inequality, and the identified saturation points are critical points of the objective function on the constraint manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical manifold optimization and analytic reductions are assumed to cover the relevant saturation cases without missing other structures that could achieve equality outside the block-diagonal form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All previously verified saturation cases of the conjecture share the two-by-two block-diagonal structure.
  • Partial results on normal matrices, unitary similarities, and anti-diagonal blocks reduce to the same block-diagonal form.
  • The saturation points identified are critical points of the objective function on the constraint manifold.
  • Numerical optimization indicates that non-block-diagonal structures do not saturate the inequality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the block-diagonal form is the only saturation structure, further analytic work on the conjecture can restrict attention to this reduced case.
  • The common structure may allow a single proof technique to cover multiple previously separate partial results.
  • Manifold optimization could be applied to saturation analysis of related quantum inequalities involving Werner or isotropic states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper examines saturation conditions for the distillability conjecture on two-copy 4x4 Werner states. It analytically reduces all previously verified cases (including one normal matrix, unitary similarity between B and -A or -A^T, and anti-diagonal blocks) to the requirement that A and B are 2x2 block-diagonal. Manifold optimization supplies numerical evidence that this block-diagonal form is essential for equality, and the identified points are shown to be critical points of the objective on the constraint manifold.

Significance. If the analytic reductions and numerical findings hold, the work unifies disparate partial results under a single structural condition, narrowing the search space for potential counterexamples or proofs of the conjecture. The explicit reduction of multiple known cases to block-diagonality and the proof that saturation points are critical are concrete contributions; the numerical component, while supportive, is secondary.

major comments (2)
  1. [Manifold optimization section] Manifold optimization section: the claim that the search provides evidence that the two-by-two block-diagonal structure is essential rests on an implicit completeness assumption. No information is given on the number or distribution of random initializations, the dimension of the product manifold (Stiefel or unitary), or any guarantee that non-block-diagonal critical points would have been detected if they existed.
  2. [Introduction / analytic reductions] The analytic reductions are stated to cover 'all known cases where the conjecture has been verified,' but the manuscript does not list the precise set of prior results being unified or the explicit mapping from each case to the block-diagonal form; without this enumeration the scope of the unification cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the constraint manifold and the objective function should be introduced once with a single equation reference rather than re-defined in multiple sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Manifold optimization section] Manifold optimization section: the claim that the search provides evidence that the two-by-two block-diagonal structure is essential rests on an implicit completeness assumption. No information is given on the number or distribution of random initializations, the dimension of the product manifold (Stiefel or unitary), or any guarantee that non-block-diagonal critical points would have been detected if they existed.

    Authors: We agree that the numerical section requires additional methodological details to support the claim. In the revision we will report the number of random initializations performed, the sampling distribution on the product manifold (Stiefel or unitary group), the manifold dimensions, and an explicit discussion of the method's limitations, including the absence of a rigorous completeness guarantee. We will also temper the language to present the results as supportive numerical evidence rather than conclusive proof of essentiality. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Introduction / analytic reductions] The analytic reductions are stated to cover 'all known cases where the conjecture has been verified,' but the manuscript does not list the precise set of prior results being unified or the explicit mapping from each case to the block-diagonal form; without this enumeration the scope of the unification cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept that an explicit enumeration is needed for clarity. The revised manuscript will add a short subsection (or table) in the introduction that lists the specific prior results being unified—namely the cases of one normal matrix, unitary similarity between B and −A or −A^T, and anti-diagonal block structures—and provides the explicit reduction steps showing how each case forces A and B to be 2×2 block-diagonal. This will make the scope of the unification transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper analytically reduces known saturation cases to the two-by-two block-diagonal form for A and B by direct manipulation of the conjectured inequality, without presupposing that structure. Manifold optimization is used only for numerical evidence that the structure is essential, not as a definitional fit or self-referential prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results appear in the provided text. The central claim remains a derived characterization rather than a tautology or fitted input renamed as output.

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

Insufficient information in the abstract to identify specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work relies on the standard framework of quantum information and the distillability conjecture itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the saturated cases of the distillability conjecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INGOHHCF

@misc{pith2026260603561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the saturated cases of the distillability conjecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INGOHHCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.03561}
}
abstract

The distillability conjecture for two-copy four-by-four Werner states has been an open problem in quantum information for years. We investigate the conditions under which the conjectured inequality becomes an equality. For all known cases where the conjecture has been verified, we characterize the saturation conditions and show that equality forces the matrices $A$ and $B$ to be two-by-two block-diagonal. In particular, several previously obtained partial results, including the cases of one normal matrix, unitary similarity between $B$ and $-A$ or $-A^T$, and anti-diagonal block structures, are reduced to this common block-diagonal structure. We also employ a manifold optimization method, which provides numerical evidence that the two-by-two block-diagonal structure is essential for saturating the inequality. Furthermore, we prove that the identified saturation points are critical points of the objective function on the constraint manifold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A solution to 2-copy distillability of Werner states

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Werner states are 2-copy distillable if and only if they are 1-copy distillable, for every local dimension.

  2. Two-copy nondistillability of Werner states: sharp partial-trace inequalities and finite-copy extensions

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Werner states ρ_α are two-copy distillable if and only if α < −1/2, via a sharp dimension-free rank-two partial-trace inequality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A and B are normal. [ 14]

  2. [2]

    A or B is normal. [ 15]

  3. [3]

    A and B are 2 2 block-diagonal. [ 16]

  4. [4]

    B is unitarily similar to A or A⊤. [ 16]

  5. [5]

    [ 17] Definition 3

    Two 2 2 diagonal blocks of both A and B are zero. [ 17] Definition 3. The Ky-Fan 2 2 norm is defined as follows: k k(2),2 : X 7! σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X). Lemma 4. [19] Let X, Y 2 M2(C). Then XY Y X ⊤ F p 2kXkF kY kF . (5) Moreover, equality holds if and only if there exists a unitary U 2 M2 such that U ∗XU = x11 x12 0 x11 U ∗Y ¯U = 0 y12 y21 y22 (6) where ¯x12 ...

  6. [6]

    There exists a unitary U 2 Mn such that U ∗XU = X11 X22 and U ∗Y ¯U = Y11 0, (8) where X11, Y11 2 M2 satisfy the equality condition in Lemma 4. 3

  7. [7]

    (10) Lemma 6

    There exists a unitary U 2 Mn such that U ∗XU = X11 X22 and U ∗Y ¯U = Y11 0, (9) where X11, Y11 2 Mr(r 3), X11 = σ1(X)W where W is unitary, and X11Y11 + Y11X ⊤ 11 = 0. (10) Lemma 6. If there exists ( ˜A, ˜B) such that σ2 1( ˜X) + σ2 2( ˜X) > 1 2 , then there exists ( ˜A′, ˜B′) such that σ2 1( ˜X ′) + σ2 2( ˜X ′) = 1 2 + ϵ, where ϵ is arbitrarily small, an...

  8. [8]

    Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if rank A = 1

    Let X = A I4 in Conjecture 1. Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if rank A = 1

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if rank B = 1

    Let X = I4 B in Conjecture 1. Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if rank B = 1

  2. [10]

    Let X = A I4 + I4 B with A = diag (a1, a2, a3, a4) , B = diag (b1, b2, b3, b4) in Conjecture 1. Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if A and B satisfy one of the following two statements (the case where A or B is zero is excluded), (a) A = B = eiϕ diag 1 4 , 1 4 , 0, 0 , ϕ...

  3. [11]

    Let A and B be 2 2 block-diagonal matrices (the case where A or B are zero is excluded). Inequality (4) is saturated if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied, (a) A = 2 64 0 a12 0 0 a21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 , B = 2 64 0 b12 0 0 b21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...

  4. [12]

    The saturated case where either A or B is normal is reduced to Case 4

  5. [13]

    The saturated case where B is unitarily similar to A or A⊤ is reduced to Case 4

  6. [14]

    4 Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the theorem are respectively supported by Lemma 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15

    The saturated case where A = 0 A1 A2 0 , B = 0 B1 B2 0 , (11) and A1, A2, B1, B2 2 M2(C) is reduced to Case 4. 4 Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the theorem are respectively supported by Lemma 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15. Part 6 is supported by Lemma 13 and 14. Lemma 8. Let X = A I4...

  7. [16]

    A = eiϕ diag 3 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , B = eiϕ diag 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , ϕ 2 R. Proof. We show the proof in Appendix A. Lemma 11. Let A and B be 2 2 block-diagonal matrices in Conjecture 1 (the case where A or B is zero is excluded). Then σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 if and only i...

  8. [17]

    According to equation (53c) of [ 15], σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 only if A and B are both normal

    Consider the case where A and B are real, σ2 1(X) and σ2 2(X) are from the same 4 by 4 block of X. According to equation (53c) of [ 15], σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 only if A and B are both normal

  9. [18]

    According to Lemmas 18 and 19 of [ 15], σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 only if A is normal and B is 2 2 block-diagonal

    Consider the case where A and B are real, σ2 1(X) and σ2 2(X) are from different 4 by 4 blocks of X. According to Lemmas 18 and 19 of [ 15], σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 only if A is normal and B is 2 2 block-diagonal

  10. [19]

    Consider the case where A and B are complex. According to equation (93) of [ 15], let X = A I + I B, X1 2 M16(R) and X2 2 M16(R) be its real and imaginary parts, we have σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) σ2 1 (X1) + σ2 2 (X1) + σ2 1 (X2) + σ2 2 (X2) . (13) According to the three assertions ab...

  11. [20]

    X and Y are simultaneously unitarily similar to matrices in M2 0

  12. [21]

    From these conditions the conclusion follows

    Tr(X ∗Y ) = 0 . From these conditions the conclusion follows. Lemma 14. Let A and B be unitarily similar matrices in Conjecture 1. Then σ2 1(X) + σ2 2(X) = 1 2 implies that they satisfy the conditions in Lemma 11. Proof. Similar to the proof of previous lemma, we have σ1(X)2 +...

  13. [22]

    There exists a unitary W 2 M4 such that W ∗AW = E11 E22 and W ∗U ∗Vi ¯W = F11 0 i = 1, 2, (18) where E11, F11 2 M2 satisfy the equality condition in Lemma 4

  14. [23]

    We can see that in the first case, A is necessarily 2 2 block-diagonal, and so is B

    There exists a unitary W 2 M4 such that W ∗AW = E11 E22 and W ∗U ∗Vi ¯W = F11 0 i = 1, 2, (19) where E11, F11 2 Mr(r 3), E11 = σ1(A)Z where Z is unitary, E11F11 + F11E⊤ 11 = 0, (20) and rank A 2. We can see that in the first case, A is necessarily 2 2 block-diagonal, and so is...

  15. [24]

    A = B = eiϕ diag 1 4 , 1 4 , 0, 0 , ϕ 2 R

  16. [25]

    Lemma 21

    A = eiϕ diag 3 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , B = eiϕ diag 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , 1 8 , ϕ 2 R. Lemma 21. The following two cases in Lemma 11 are critical points on X = f(A, B) 2 M4(C) M4(C)j TrA = TrB = 0, kAk2 F + kBk2 F = 1 4 g,

  17. [27]

    A = 2 64 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75 , B = 2 64 a b 12 0 0 b21 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75, and b12b21 = 4a2. Proof. We denote the subgroup I2 U (2) of unitary group U (4) by G, and M2(C) CI2 \ X by ΣG, every element in ΣG is invariant under similarity transformations ...

  18. [28]

    (29) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X: [0.5, 0.5, 0.3355, 0.3355, 0.2821, 0.2821, 0.1841, 0.1841, 0.1548, 0.1548, 0, , 0]

    The first pair • Matrices A and B: A = 2 64 0 0 .0002 0 0.1239 0.0001 0 0 .0003 0.0046 0 0 .0006 0 0.3117 0.0572 0.0021 0.1439 0 3 75 , (28) B = 2 64 0 0 0.1379 0.0948 0 0 0 .0632 0 .0435 0.2113 0 .0969 0 0 0.1453 0 .0667 0 0 3 75 . (29) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by t...

  19. [29]

    (31) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X: [0.5, 0.5, 0.4251, 0.4251, 0.2632, 0.2632, 0.0044, 0.0044, 0.0027, 0.0027, 0, , 0]

    The second pair 8 • Matrices A and B: A = 2 64 0 0 0.0932 0 0 0 0 .1866 0 0.0006 0.0012 0 0 .0024 0 0 0.3704 0 3 75 , (30) B = 2 64 0 0.002 0 0 0.1181 0 0 .1335 0.1937 0 0.0022 0 0 0 0 .0032 0 0 3 75 . (31) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X:...

    1937

  20. [30]

    (33) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X: [0.5, 0.5, 0.3996, 0.3996, 0.2003, 0.2003, 0.2003, 0.2003, 0.1004, 0.1004, 0, , 0]

    The third pair • Matrices A and B: A = 2 64 0 0 0 .3911 0.0554 0 0 0 .0599 0.0085 0.0982 0.0151 0 0 0.0139 0 .0021 0 0 3 75 , (32) B = 2 64 0 0.0729 0 .1262 0 .0861 0.0729 0 0.0004 0 .0533 0.1262 0 .0004 0 0.0928 0.0861 0.0533 0 .0928 0 3 75 . (33) • The 16-dimensional vector ...

    2003

  21. [31]

    (35) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X: [0.5, 0.5, 0.3586, 0.3586, 0.3001, 0.3001, 0.1358, 0.1358, 0.1137, 0.1137, 0, , 0]

    The fourth pair • Matrices A and B: A = 2 64 0 0 0.2686 0 0 0 0.1585 0 0.0851 0.0502 0 0.0561 0 0 0.177 0 3 75 , (34) B = 2 64 0 0.002 0 0.0215 0.0045 0 0 .0277 0 0 0 .0125 0 0 .1335 0.0474 0 0 .295 0 3 75 . (35) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of mat...

  22. [32]

    (37) • The 16-dimensional vector formed by the singular values of matrix X: [0.5, 0.5, 0.3172, 0.3172, 0.2408, 0.2408, 0.2408, 0.2408, 0.1828, 0.1828, 0, , 0]

    The fifth pair • Matrices A and B: A = 2 64 0 0 .1114 0 .186 0 .0059 0.1114 0 0.0241 0 .0517 0.186 0 .0241 0 0 .0877 0.0059 0.0517 0.0877 0 3 75 , (36) B = 2 64 0 0 0.2695 0 .1174 0 0 0 .1093 0.0476 0.1553 0.063 0 0 0.0676 0 .0274 0 0 3 75 . (37) • The 16-dimensional vector fo...

  23. [33]

    σ2(X) = ja2 + b2j, σ1(X)2 + σ2(X)2 = ja1 + b1j2 + ja2 + b2j2

  24. [34]

    In case 1, we claim that a1 = b1 = a2 = b2, ja1j = jb1j = ja2j = jb2j = 1 4 and b3 = b4 = a3 = a4 = 0

    σ2(X) = ja1 + b2j, σ1(X)2 + σ2(X)2 = ja1 + b1j2 + ja1 + b2j2. In case 1, we claim that a1 = b1 = a2 = b2, ja1j = jb1j = ja2j = jb2j = 1 4 and b3 = b4 = a3 = a4 = 0. In fact, let us suppose that σ1(X)2 + σ2(X)2 = ja1 + b1j2 + ja2 + b2j2 reaches the maximum 1 2 . By calculations...

  25. [35]

    (A6) Then equation ( A4) becomes 1 2 jb1 b2j2 + j2a1 + b1 + b2j2 = 1 2 2c2 c2 1 + (2a1 + c1)2 (A7) = 2a2 1 + 2a1c1 + c2. (A8) To determine under what conditions the expression ( A8) reaches its maximum 1 2 , we can use techniques from opti- mization to find out the necessary c...

  26. [37]

    A = 2 64 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75 , B = 2 64 a b 12 0 0 b21 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75, and b12b21 = 4a2. Proof. We consider σ1(Y )2 + σ2(Y )2 = σ1(Y11)2 + σ2(Y11)2 kY11k2 F (B9) = 4 jb + aj2 + 2(ja12j2 + ja21j2 + jb12j2 + jb21j2) (B10) 8(jaj2 + jbj2) + 2(ja12j2 + ...

  27. [38]

    a = 0, a12a21 = b12b21

  28. [39]

    a12 = a21 = 0, b12b21 = 4a2

  29. [40]

    We can verify that all of the three cases above saturate the original conjecture

    b12 = b21 = 0, a12a21 = 4a2. We can verify that all of the three cases above saturate the original conjecture. In fact, the second and the third one are equivalent by exchanging A and B. Thus, up to unitary similarity, we obtain the following two cases while excluding the case...

  30. [41]

    A = 2 64 0 a12 0 0 a21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 , B = 2 64 0 b12 0 0 b21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75, and a12a21 = b12b21

  31. [42]

    Z11 (11) Z11 (12) Z11 (12)∗ Z11 (22) # , Z 22 = Y22Y22 ∗ =

    A = 2 64 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75 , B = 2 64 a b 12 0 0 b21 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 3 75, and b12b21 = 4a2. Secondly , we consider under what condition the inequality is saturated in case ii. Lemma 29. In case ii., the saturation condition is included in case i.. Pro...

  32. [43]

    σ2 1(X) = λ1(H) and σ2 2(X) = λ2(H)

  33. [44]

    σ2 1(X) = λ1(K) and σ2 2(X) = λ2(K)

  34. [45]

    W e first deal with case 1

    σ2 1(X) = λ1(H) and σ2 2(X) = λ1(K). W e first deal with case 1. λ1(H) + λ2(H) λ1(H1) + λ2(H1) + λ1(H2) + λ2(H2) (C13) = β2 12 + α2 11 + β2 11 + α2 12 + max β2 12 + α2 21, β2 22 + α2 11 + max β2 11 + α2 22, β2 21 + α2 12 (C14) β2 12 + α2 11 + β2 11 + α2 12 + β2 12 + α2 21 + β2...

  35. [46]

    (C33) The corresponding maximum eigenvector is a1 b2

    + (a1a∗ 1) I2, (C32) 23 Because Bi and Ai are rank-1 matrices, we have: λ1(H1) = ka1k2 F + kb2k2 F . (C33) The corresponding maximum eigenvector is a1 b2. Multiplying by V ∗ 1 yields the maximum eigenvector for H1. Ψ1 = V ∗ 1 (a1 b2) = kb2k2 F a1 e1 ka1k2 F e1 b2 . (C34) Apply...

  36. [47]

    Five open problems in quantum information theory

    Paweł Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and Karol Życzkowski. Five open problems in quantum information theory. PRX Quantum, 3:010101, Mar 2022

    2022

  37. [48]

    Inseparable two spin- 1 2 density matrices can be distilled to a singlet form

    Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. Inseparable two spin- 1 2 density matrices can be distilled to a singlet form. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 78:574–577, Jan 1997

    1997

  38. [49]

    Horodecki and P

    M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki. Reduction criterion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols. Phys. Rev. A , 59:4206, 1999

    1999

  39. [50]

    Kraus, M

    B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and J. I. Cirac. Characterization of distillable and activatable states using entanglement witnesses. Phys. Rev. A , 65:042327, Apr 2002

    2002

  40. [51]

    E. M. Rains. Bound on distillable entanglement. Phys. Rev. A , 60:179, 1999

    1999

  41. [52]

    E. M. Rains. A semidefinite program for distillable entanglement. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 47:2921, 2001. 25

    2001

  42. [53]

    W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and D. Bruß. Distillability and partial transposition in bipartite systems. Phys. Rev. A, 61:062313, May 2000

    2000

  43. [54]

    Classes of n-copy undistillable quantum states with negative partial transposition

    Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay and Vwani Roychowdhury. Classes of n-copy undistillable quantum states with negative partial transposition. Phys. Rev. A , 68:022319, Aug 2003

    2003

  44. [55]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter. Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states. Proc. R. Soc. A , 461:207, 2005

    2005

  45. [56]

    Vianna and Andrew C

    Reinaldo O. Vianna and Andrew C. Doherty. Distillability of werner states using entanglement witnesses and robust semidefinite programs. Phys. Rev. A , 74:052306, Nov 2006

    2006

  46. [57]

    Distillability and ppt entanglement of low-rank quantum states

    Lin Chen and Dragomir Z Djokovicá. Distillability and ppt entanglement of low-rank quantum states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 44(28):285303, 2011

    2011

  47. [58]

    Rank-three bipartite entangled states are distillable

    Lin Chen and Yi-Xin Chen. Rank-three bipartite entangled states are distillable. Phys. Rev. A , 78:022318, Aug 2008

    2008

  48. [59]

    Distillability of non-positive-partial-transpose bipartite quantum states of rank four

    Lin Chen and Dragomir Z Djokovicá. Distillability of non-positive-partial-transpose bipartite quantum states of rank four. Phys. Rev. A , 94:052318, Nov 2016

    2016

  49. [60]

    A few steps more towards npt bound entangle- ment

    Łukasz Pankowski, Marco Piani, Michał Horodecki, and Paweł Horodecki. A few steps more towards npt bound entangle- ment. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 56(8):4085–4100, 2010

    2010

  50. [61]

    A matrix inequality for entanglement distillation problem

    Lilong Qian, Lin Chen, Delin Chu, and Yi Shen. A matrix inequality for entanglement distillation problem. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 616:139–177, 2021

    2021

  51. [62]

    On the distillability conjecture in matrix theory

    Saiqi Liu and Lin Chen. On the distillability conjecture in matrix theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 64, 07 2025

    2025

  52. [63]

    A note on a conjecture from distillability of quantum entanglement

    Weng Kun Sio and Che-Man Cheng. A note on a conjecture from distillability of quantum entanglement. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 707:152–161, 2025

    2025

  53. [64]

    Proving the distillability problem of two-copy 4 × 4 werner states for monomial matrices

    Lin Chen, Huixia He, Xian Shi, and Li-Jun Zhao. Proving the distillability problem of two-copy 4 × 4 werner states for monomial matrices. Quantum Information Processing , 20(4):157, Apr 2021

    2021

  54. [65]

    On some norm inequalities involving the commutator and xy-yxt

    Che-Man Cheng, Kin-Sio Fong, and Weng-Fai Lei. On some norm inequalities involving the commutator and xy-yxt. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 438(6):2793–2807, 2013

    2013

  55. [66]

    Commutators with maximal frobenius norm

    Che-Man Cheng, Seak-Weng Vong, and David Wenzel. Commutators with maximal frobenius norm. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 432(1):292–306, 2010

    2010

  56. [67]

    Michel and B.I

    L. Michel and B.I. Zhilinskiı́. Symmetry, invariants, topology. basic tools. Physics Reports, 341(1):11–84, 2001. Symmetry, invariants, topology

    2001

  57. [68]

    Richard S. Palais. The principle of symmetric criticality. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 69(1):19–30, Oct 1979

    1979

  58. [69]

    On the periodicity of singular vectors and the holomorphic block-circulant svd on the unit circum- ference

    Giovanni Barbarino. On the periodicity of singular vectors and the holomorphic block-circulant svd on the unit circum- ference. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 721:465–483, 2025. The 25th Conference of the International Linear Algebra Society

    2025

  59. [70]

    Differentiability of a function and of its compositions with functions of one variable

    Jan Boman. Differentiability of a function and of its compositions with functions of one variable. MATHEMATICA SCANDINA VICA, 20, 1967

    1967

  60. [71]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson. Topics in Matrix Analysis . Cambridge University Press, 1991

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.