Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 72 references

Flood of multipartite Rains entanglement

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multipartite Rains entanglement sets a single-letter cap on pure-state distillation

desk verdict A solid, well-written theory paper that delivers new multipartite entanglement measures and credible single-letter distillation bounds; the one soft spot flagged by the reader's report is real but not load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11406 v1 pith:NMX34BKN submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Hailey S. Murray , Sagnik Bhattacharya , M. Cerezo , Liuke Lyu , Mark M. Wilde This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P4090C22 PACS 03.67.Mn
keywords multipartiteentanglementRainsdistillationgenuinePPToperationssemidefiniteprogrammingquantumnetworksone-shotbounds
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

This paper generalizes the bipartite Rains relative entropy—the tightest known computable upper bound on distillable entanglement—to multipartite systems, producing four ordered measures (Rains, monsoon, hurricane, squall) that detect different grades of multipartite entanglement. Its central result is a one-shot bound: for any $k$-partite state $\rho$ and any pure target $\psi$, the probabilistic approximate distillable-$\psi$ satisfies $E_{\mathrm{PD}}^{(\varepsilon,\psi)}(\rho) \leq (R(\rho)+h_2(\varepsilon))/((1-\varepsilon) H_{\min}(\psi))$, where $R$ is the new multipartite Rains entanglement and $H_{\min}$ is the minimum min-entropy over bipartitions. This matters because multipartite entanglement manipulation is not asymptotically reversible, so bounding distillation to a fixed Bell state does not cover all targets; a bound for arbitrary pure targets is needed. The paper also proves an asymptotic strong-converse bound in terms of the hurricane and squall entanglement, evaluates the Rains entanglement exactly for GHZ and W states, and provides SDP formulations plus a Frank-Wolfe algorithm.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the feasible set $T(H)$ of Lemma 5: operators $\tau=\sum_m \tau_m$ with $\tau_m\geq0$ and $\sum_m \|T_m(\tau_m)\|_1\leq1$ over bipartitions $m$, which lets $R(\rho)$ be a single infimum of relative entropy instead of a mixed convex roof. The proof of the one-shot bound combines selective PPT monotonicity (Theorem 11) with a binary measurement channel $M_\psi(\cdot)=\mathrm{Tr}[\psi(\cdot)]|1\rangle\langle1|+\mathrm{Tr}[(1-\psi)(\cdot)]|0\rangle\langle0|$, reducing the problem to a classical relative-entropy comparison whose threshold is $\max_m \|T_m(\psi)\|_\infty=2^{-H_{\min}(\psi)}$. The hurricane entanglement $R_H$ is the minimum over bipartitions of the bipartite Rains relative entropy; its tensor-power subadditivity is what allows the asymptotic bound.

What would settle it

A direct test of the central claim is to search small dimensions for a $k$-partite state $\rho$, a pure target $\psi$, and an explicit LOCC protocol whose success-probability-weighted output rate $p\ell$ exceeds $(R(\rho)+h_2(\varepsilon))/((1-\varepsilon)H_{\min}(\psi))$; any such protocol would refute Theorem 22. A cheaper numerical test is to compute $R(\rho)$ by the SDP of Lemma 5 and compare it with $\lim_{\alpha\to1}\widetilde{R}_\alpha(\rho)$ for a random state, since Proposition 6 is the gateway to the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that among its four multipartite generalizations of the Rains relative entropy, the smallest one—the Rains entanglement $R(\rho)=\inf_{\tau\in T(H)} D(\rho\|\tau)$ with $T(H)$ the set of positive partial-transpose mixtures—gives the tightest one-shot obstruction to converting a state into any fixed pure state by LOCC. In Theorem 22 it proves that the one-shot probabilistic approximate distillable-$\psi$ is no larger than $(R(\rho)+h_2(\varepsilon))/((1-\varepsilon)H_{\min}(\psi))$. The proof runs through two mechanisms: selective monotonicity of $R$ under completely PPT-preserving operations, and a measurement channel that projects the fidelity against $\psi$ onto a binary classical relative entropy. In the asymptotic setting the same one-shot bound cannot be directly tensorized because biseparability is tensor unstable (activation of GME), so the paper proves instead that the strong-converse rate is no larger than $R_H(\rho)/H_{\min}(\psi)\leq R_S(\rho)/H_{\min}(\psi)$, where $R_H$ and $R_S$ are the hurricane and squall entanglements.

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream of Proposition 6 assumes that the minimax interchange $\inf_{\tau\in T(H_k)}\lim_{\alpha\to1}$ is valid, which requires $T(H_k)$ to be compact and the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy to be lower semicontinuous in $\tau$; the paper asserts compactness without an explicit proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed pure target, the one-shot upper bound is computable by semidefinite programming, so the rate at which a given multipartite state can be converted to GHZ, W, or any other pure state can be certified without optimizing over protocols.
  • The exact values $R(\Phi_k^d)=\log_2 d$ and $R(W_k)=\log_2(k/(k-1))$ turn the general bounds into explicit single-letter caps on GHZ- and W-distillation: $\widetilde E_{\mathrm{PD}}(\rho)\leq R_H(\rho)$ for GHZ targets and $\leq R_H(\rho)/\log_2(k/(k-1))$ for W targets.
  • On quantum pairwise independent networks, $R=R_M=R_H$ equals the minimum cut of the underlying multigraph and $R_S$ equals the maximum cut; this makes the Rains bound polynomial-time computable and tight for some networks where tree packing is optimal.
  • The dual SDP for the max-Rains entanglement shows it never exceeds the genuine multipartite log-negativity, giving a cheaper upper bound for distillation when relative-entropy optimization is too costly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the minimax obstruction in Proposition 6 could be bypassed by proving tensor-power subadditivity of $R$, the asymptotic bound would likely tighten from hurricane to Rains; the paper's identification of activation of GME as the obstacle suggests testing $R(\rho^{\otimes2})$ against $2R(\rho)$ on states close to biseparable mixtures.
  • The sharp separation among measures in the transverse-field Ising model suggests a testable extension: use $R$ as a finite-size-scaling probe of quantum criticality and compare its behavior with log-negativity in two- and three-dimensional models.
  • The min-cut/max-cut dichotomy for qPINs implies an algorithmic-hardness warning: the squall entanglement can be NP-hard to compute on networks, while the Rains measure is easy, so computational tractability tracks how many bipartitions the measure checks simultaneously.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces four multipartite generalizations of the bipartite Rains relative entropy—the Rains, monsoon, hurricane, and squall entanglement—and studies their properties. It proves an ordering among the measures, monotonicity under PPT operations, selective PPT monotonicity of Rains entanglement, tensor-power and tensor-product subadditivity of hurricane and squall entanglement, and exact Rains values for GHZ and W states. The central results are Theorems 22 and 23, which give single-letter upper bounds on one-shot and asymptotic pure-state distillation rates in terms of Rains and hurricane/squall entanglement, with corollaries for GHZ- and W-distillable entanglement. The paper also formulates the max-Rains entanglement as an SDP with a dual program, evaluates all measures on quantum pairwise independent networks (min-cut and max-cut), and compares the measures in the one-dimensional transverse-field Ising model.

Significance. The main theoretical contribution is a coherent family of multipartite Rains-type measures with an operational one-shot upper bound stated in terms of the smallest measure. If correct, Theorem 22 gives the tightest single-letter Rains-type upper bound for one-shot multipartite pure-state distillation, and Theorem 23 provides single-letter asymptotic bounds via hurricane and squall entanglement. The proofs are mostly self-contained and use standard tools such as data processing, minimax arguments, and SDP duality. The GHZ and W formulas are exact, and the qPIN min-cut/max-cut results are clean and checkable. The paper does not fit parameters to data, and the derivations show no circularity. The Ising comparison is illustrative rather than load-bearing for the main claims.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 22 (Section VI-A)] As stated, H_min(psi) in (120) vanishes when psi is product across at least one bipartition, so the right-hand sides of (216) and (217) are undefined. Please add the hypothesis H_min(psi) > 0 or explicitly define the right-hand side to be +infinity in the product case; the intended applications to GHZ and W states already have positive H_min.
  2. [Lemma 16 (Section V-A)] In the squall part of the proof, after Eq. (159) the text says 'assume F >= max_m ||T_m(psi)||_infinity', but the statement in (128) and the calculation that follows require F >= min_m ||T_m(psi)||_infinity. This is a typo, but it should be corrected because the displayed assumption contradicts the condition being used.
  3. [Proposition 6 (Section III)] The proof of the left limit in (45) invokes compactness of T(H_k) and the Mosonyi-Hiai minimax theorem, asserting lower semi-continuity and compactness rather than proving them. The same minimax step appears in Proposition 30 at (277). This is a gap in a secondary result: Theorem 23 does not rely on Proposition 6, and the compactness of T(H_k) is in fact immediate from (33), but a sentence with the argument or a precise citation would make the proof complete.
  4. [Corollaries 25 and 26 (Section VI-B)] These corollaries say 'Recall from (261)' even though Eq. (261) is defined only later in Section VI-C for GHZ distillation. Please renumber or move the displayed inequalities so that the cross-reference is forward-consistent.
  5. [Notation (Section V-A)] The symbols for H_min(psi) and Hmin(psi) in (120)-(122) differ only by an underline/overline, which is easy to lose in plain text or after typesetting compression. Please use more visually distinct notation, since Lemma 16 and its applications depend on which quantity is meant.
  6. [Section IX and Appendix E] Figure 4 is said to be produced using existing packages, but no data or code repository is provided, and Appendix E presents algorithms without numerical demonstrations. For reproducibility, please state whether the Ising data and the Frank-Wolfe implementation will be made available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central distillation bounds are derived from the definitions via data processing and monotonicity, with no fitted parameters or input-equivalent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are theorems proven from explicit definitions, not predictions that reduce to their inputs by construction. The Rains, monsoon, hurricane, and squall entanglements are defined as independent optimization problems over PPT-mixture feasible sets, and the one-shot distillation bound in Theorem 22 is obtained by applying selective PPT monotonicity, a fidelity-based measurement channel, and elementary relative-entropy inequalities. The target-state quantity H_min(psi) is defined from the reduced states of psi, independently of the Rains entanglement of rho, so the bound is not self-definitional. The asymptotic bound in Theorem 23 follows from tensor-power subadditivity of the hurricane entanglement and the standard limit (6), not from equating the conclusion with an assumption. The flagged Proposition 6 issue concerning compactness of T(H_k) and the Mosonyi-Hiai minimax theorem is at most a proof-gap or correctness-risk point: T(H_k) is closed and bounded in finite dimension, and more importantly Theorems 22 and 23 do not rely on Proposition 6; Theorem 23 only interchanges an infimum over alpha with infima over a finite set of bipartitions and the feasible sets, which is justified by monotonicity in alpha and the pointwise limit. Citations to the authors' prior work are present but not circularly load-bearing: [1] supplies the earlier GMRE definition and an elementary relative-entropy comparison lemma, neither of which assumes the distillation bounds being proven, and the remaining self-citations are background literature or numerical tools. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported to force a choice, and no known result is merely relabeled as a new measure without independent content. The honest finding is that the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claimed results.

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

The central claims are derived from definitions and standard theorems; no free parameters are fitted to data. The main external inputs are well-established results in quantum information theory.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Mosonyi-Hiai minimax theorem (Corollary A.2 of [42])
    Used in Proposition 6 and Proposition 30 to interchange infimum and supremum/limit; requires compactness and lower semi-continuity.
  • standard math Compactness of the feasible set T(H_k) defined in (33)
    Needed for the minimax theorem in Propositions 6 and 30; asserted in the text but standard in finite dimensions.
  • standard math Data processing inequality and direct-sum equality for quantum relative entropy
    Used in Theorem 11 and throughout for monotonicity of Rains measures.
  • domain assumption LOCC channels are contained in selective multipartite PPT operations
    Required to apply selective PPT monotonicity (Theorem 11) to LOCC distillation protocols in Theorem 22.
  • standard math Existing bipartite max-Rains SDP formulations (equations 24-25)
    Used as building blocks for the multipartite max-hurricane and max-Rains SDPs in Section VII.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flood of multipartite Rains entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMX34BKN

@misc{pith2026260811406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flood of multipartite Rains entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMX34BKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11406}
}
read the original abstract

Multipartite entanglement admits phenomena such as the activation of genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) and the existence of inequivalent classes of entanglement, and existing bipartite entanglement measures have no unique generalization to this regime. In this work, we define the Rains, monsoon, hurricane, and squall entanglement as generalizations of the bipartite Rains relative entropy, and we establish various properties of these entanglement measures. We also prove that the Rains entanglement is monotone under selective quantum operations that completely preserve the positivity of the partial transpose. We establish single-letter upper bounds on the one-shot and asymptotic rates at which a fixed pure state can be distilled from an arbitrary state in both the standard and probabilistic approximate distillation scenarios. Among the entanglement measures we define, the tightest upper bound on the one-shot pure-state distillation rate is in terms of the Rains entanglement. However, the activation of GME (or, equivalently, the tensor instability of biseparability) makes it unclear if the one-shot bound in terms of the Rains entanglement can be extended to a single-letter asymptotic bound. Instead, we establish upper bounds on the asymptotic pure-state distillation rate in terms of the hurricane and squall entanglement. Upper bounds on the GHZ- and W-distillable entanglement follow as a consequence. Additionally, we define the multipartite max-Rains entanglement, write it as a semidefinite program, and derive a dual program for it. Finally, we analyze these measures for quantum pairwise independent networks, and we establish a conditional gradient (Frank-Wolfe) algorithm for computing the Rains entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11406 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a quantum PIN with three terminals. One GHZ state can be distilled from this quantum PIN, and this is known to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For this triangle PIN, R = RH = RS = 2. The tree-packing scheme extracts GHZ states at rate 1.5 for this model; i.e., from two copies of this state three GHZ states can be extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The genuine multipartite log-negativity, squall entanglement, hurricane entanglement, and Rains entanglement of tripartite reduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Genuine multipartite Rains entanglement,

    H. S. Murray, S. Bhattacharya, M. Cerezo, L. Lyu, and M. M. Wilde, “Genuine multipartite Rains entanglement,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09590

    work page arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr ´epeau, 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, pp. 1895–1899, Mar. 1993. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1895 1993

  3. [3]

    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, pp. 2881–2884, Nov. 1992. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.69.2881 1992

  4. [4]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 76, pp. 722–725, Jan. 1996. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.722

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.76.722 1996

  5. [5]

    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. 3824–3851, Nov. 1996. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824

    doi:10.1103/physreva.54.3824 1996

  6. [6]

    Are problems in quantum information theory (un)decidable?

    M. M. Wolf, T. S. Cubitt, and D. Perez-Garcia, “Are problems in quantum information theory (un)decidable?” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5425

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    A semidefinite program for distillable entanglement,

    E. M. Rains, “A semidefinite program for distillable entanglement,” 2001. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0008047

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    Asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement for orthogonally invariant states,

    K. Audenaert, B. De Moor, K. G. H. V ollbrecht, and R. F. Werner, “Asymptotic relative entropy of entanglement for orthogonally invariant states,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 66, p. 032310, Sep. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032310

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.66.032310 2002

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    Entanglement cost and quantum channel simulation,

    M. M. Wilde, “Entanglement cost and quantum channel simulation,”Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 4, Oct. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.042338

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,

    W. D ¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, “Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,”Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 6, Nov

  4. [12]

    Sufficient conditions for three-particle entanglement and their tests in recent experiments,

    M. Seevinck and J. Uffink, “Sufficient conditions for three-particle entanglement and their tests in recent experiments,”Physical Review A, vol. 65, p. 012107, Dec. 2001. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.012107

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    Purification of genuine multipartite entanglement,

    M. Huber and M. Plesch, “Purification of genuine multipartite entanglement,”Physical Review A, vol. 83, no. 6, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.062321

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Activation of genuine multipartite entanglement: 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 entanglement: Beyond the single-copy paradigm of entanglement characterisation,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 695, Apr. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2233...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

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

    C. Palazuelos and J. I. d. Vicente, “Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy scenario,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 735, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-06-13-735

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. W. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” 1997. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605011

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quantum secret sharing,

    M. Hillery, V . Bu ˇzek, and A. Berthiaume, “Quantum secret sharing,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 3, p. 1829–1834, Mar. 1999. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping,

    S. Bose, V . Vedral, and P. L. Knight, “Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping,”Physical Review A, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 822–829, Feb. 1998. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.822

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    The computational power of the W and GHZ states,

    E. D’Hondt and P. Panangaden, “The computational power of the W and GHZ states,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412177

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations,

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, “Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations,”Physical Review A, vol. 53, no. 4, p. 2046–2052, Apr. 1996. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

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

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Man ˇcinska, 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, p. 303–326, Mar. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-014-1953-9

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Conditional expectation in an operator algebra. IV . Entropy and information,

    H. Umegaki, “Conditional expectation in an operator algebra. IV . Entropy and information,”Kodai Mathematical Seminar Reports, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 59 – 85, 1962. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2996/kmj/1138844604

    1962

  15. [23]

    On quantum R ´enyi entropies: A new generalization and some properties,

    M. M ¨uller-Lennert, F. Dupuis, O. Szehr, S. Fehr, and M. Tomamichel, “On quantum R ´enyi entropies: A new generalization and some properties,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 54, no. 12, Dec. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4838856

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched R ´enyi relative entropy,

    M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang, “Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched R ´enyi relative entropy,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 331, no. 2, p. 593–622, Jul. 2014. [Online]. Available: http:...

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Min- and max-relative entropies and a new entanglement monotone,

    N. Datta, “Min- and max-relative entropies and a new entanglement monotone,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 6, p. 2816–2826, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2009.2018325

    2009

  18. [26]

    Arimoto channel coding converse and R ´enyi divergence,

    Y . Polyanskiy and S. Verd ´u, “Arimoto channel coding converse and R ´enyi divergence,” in2010 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 2010, pp. 1327–1333

    2010

  19. [27]

    Fundamental bound on the reliability of quantum information transmission,

    N. Sharma and N. A. Warsi, “Fundamental bound on the reliability of quantum information transmission,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 110, no. 8, Feb. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.080501 30

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities,

    G. Lindblad, “Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 147–151, Jun. 1975. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01609396

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    Monotonicity of a relative R ´enyi entropy,

    R. L. Frank and E. H. Lieb, “Monotonicity of a relative R ´enyi entropy,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 54, no. 12, Dec. 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4838835

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Optimized quantumf-divergences and data processing,

    M. M. Wilde, “Optimized quantumf-divergences and data processing,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 51, no. 37, p. 374002, Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aad5a1

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Khatri, L

    S. Khatri, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde,Principles of Quantum Communication Theory: A Modern Approach, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21763148

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    A smallest computable entanglement monotone,

    J. Eisert and M. M. Wilde, “A smallest computable entanglement monotone,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, Jun. 2022, p. 2439–2444. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISIT50566.2022.9834375

    2022

  25. [33]

    The “transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, “The “transition probability” in the state space of a *-algebra,”Reports on Mathematical Physics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 273–279, 1976. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0034487776900604

    1976

  26. [34]

    Thermodynamik quantenmechanischer Gesamtheiten,

    J. v. Neumann, “Thermodynamik quantenmechanischer Gesamtheiten,”Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, vol. 1927, pp. 273–291, 1927. [Online]. Available: http://eudml.org/doc/59231

    1927

  27. [35]

    Strong converse rates for quantum communication,

    M. Tomamichel, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, “Strong converse rates for quantum communication,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 63, no. 1, p. 715–727, Jan. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2016.2615847

    2017

  28. [36]

    Security of quantum key distribution,

    R. Renner, “Security of quantum key distribution,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512258

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Improved semidefinite programming upper bound on distillable entanglement,

    X. Wang and R. Duan, “Improved semidefinite programming upper bound on distillable entanglement,”Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 5, Nov. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.050301

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Semidefinite programming converse bounds for quantum communication,

    X. Wang, K. Fang, and R. Duan, “Semidefinite programming converse bounds for quantum communication,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 4, p. 2583–2592, Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2018.2874031

    2019

  31. [39]

    Contraction of generalized relative entropy under stochastic mappings on matrices,

    D. Petz and M. B. Ruskai, “Contraction of generalized relative entropy under stochastic mappings on matrices,”Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics, vol. 01, no. 01, pp. 83–89, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219025798000077

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    A new quantum version of f-divergence,

    K. Matsumoto, “A new quantum version of f-divergence,” inNagoya Winter Workshop: Reality and Measurement in Algebraic Quantum Theory. Springer, 2015, pp. 229–273

    2015

  33. [41]

    A new quantum version of f-divergence,

    ——, “A new quantum version of f-divergence,”arXiv preprint, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4722v4

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    On the quantum R ´enyi relative entropies and related capacity formulas,

    M. Mosonyi and F. Hiai, “On the quantum R ´enyi relative entropies and related capacity formulas,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no. 4, p. 2474–2487, Apr. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2011.2110050

    2011

  35. [43]

    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, p. 6454–6465, Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2019.2914688

    2019

  36. [44]

    Optimising the relative entropy under semidefinite constraints,

    G. Koßmann and R. Schwonnek, “Optimising the relative entropy under semidefinite constraints,”npj Quantum Information, Jan

  37. [45]

    QICS: Quantum information conic solver,

    K. He, J. Saunderson, and H. Fawzi, “QICS: Quantum information conic solver,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.17803

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Semidefinite approximations of the matrix logarithm,

    H. Fawzi, J. Saunderson, and P. A. Parrilo, “Semidefinite approximations of the matrix logarithm,”Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 2018, package cvxquad at https://github.com/hfawzi/cvxquad

    2018

  39. [47]

    Multiparticle entanglement manipulation under positive partial transpose preserving operations,

    S. Ishizaka and M. B. Plenio, “Multiparticle entanglement manipulation under positive partial transpose preserving operations,” Physical Review A, vol. 71, no. 5, May 2005. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052303

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex,

    M. B. Plenio, “Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 95, no. 9, Aug. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.090503

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Entanglement in quantum information theory,

    J. Eisert, “Entanglement in quantum information theory,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610253

    2006 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quantum resource theories,

    B. Regula, K. Bu, R. Takagi, and Z.-W. Liu, “Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quantum resource theories,”Physical Review A, vol. 101, no. 6, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.062315

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Simple bounds for one-shot pure-state distillation in general resource theories,

    M. K. Vijayan, E. Chitambar, and M.-H. Hsieh, “Simple bounds for one-shot pure-state distillation in general resource theories,” Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 5, Nov. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.052403

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    No-go theorems for quantum resource purification,

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, “No-go theorems for quantum resource purification,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 125, p. 060405, Aug

  45. [53]

    Multi-user distillation of common randomness and entanglement from quantum states,

    F. Salek and A. Winter, “Multi-user distillation of common randomness and entanglement from quantum states,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 976–988, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    New protocols for conference key and multipartite entanglement distillation,

    ——, “New protocols for conference key and multipartite entanglement distillation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 4374–4384, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Taming multiparticle entanglement,

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. G ¨uhne, “Taming multiparticle entanglement,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 106, no. 19, May 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.190502

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Analytical characterization of the genuine multiparticle negativity,

    M. Hofmann, T. Moroder, and O. G ¨uhne, “Analytical characterization of the genuine multiparticle negativity,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 47, no. 15, p. 155301, Mar. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/15/ 155301

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    Extracting secrecy from jointly Gaussian random variables,

    C. Ye, A. Reznik, and Y . Shah, “Extracting secrecy from jointly Gaussian random variables,” in2006 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2006, pp. 2593–2597. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2006.262101

    2006

  50. [58]

    Group secret key generation algorithms,

    C. Ye and A. Reznik, “Group secret key generation algorithms,” in2007 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2007, pp. 2596–2600. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2007.4557610

    2007

  51. [59]

    Secret key generation for a pairwise independent network model,

    S. Nitinawarat, C. Ye, A. Barg, P. Narayan, and A. Reznik, “Secret key generation for a pairwise independent network model,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 12, p. 6482–6489, Dec. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2010.2081210

    2010

  52. [60]

    Perfect omniscience, perfect secrecy, and Steiner tree packing,

    S. Nitinawarat and P. Narayan, “Perfect omniscience, perfect secrecy, and Steiner tree packing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 6490–6500, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2010.2081450 31

    2010

  53. [61]

    Tools for quantum network design,

    K. Azuma, S. B ¨auml, T. Coopmans, D. Elkouss, and B. Li, “Tools for quantum network design,”AVS Quantum Science, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 014101, 02 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0024062

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Improved upper bound on multiterminal entanglement distillation,

    S. Bhattacharya, “Improved upper bound on multiterminal entanglement distillation,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2025, pp. 1–6. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT63088.2025.11195492

    2025

  55. [63]

    Reduced density matrix after a quantum quench,

    M. Fagotti and F. H. L. Essler, “Reduced density matrix after a quantum quench,”Physical Review B, vol. 87, p. 245107, Jun. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.245107

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,

    C. R. Inc., “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,” https://cvxr.com/cvx, Aug. 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    QETLAB: A MATLAB toolbox for quantum entanglement, version 1.0,

    N. Johnston, “QETLAB: A MATLAB toolbox for quantum entanglement, version 1.0,” https://qetlab.com, Jan. 2016

    2016

  58. [66]

    Entanglement microscopy and tomography in many-body systems,

    T.-T. Wang, M. Song, L. Lyu, W. Witczak-Krempa, and Z. Y . Meng, “Entanglement microscopy and tomography in many-body systems,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55354-z

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    Multiparty entanglement microscopy of quantum Ising models in one, two, and three dimensions,

    L. Lyu, M. Song, T.-T. Wang, Z. Y . Meng, and W. Witczak-Krempa, “Multiparty entanglement microscopy of quantum Ising models in one, two, and three dimensions,”Physical Review B, vol. 111, p. 245108, Jun. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.245108

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    CRediT – contributor roles taxonomy,

    NISO, “CRediT – contributor roles taxonomy,” https://credit.niso.org/, Accessed 2026-06-01

    2026

  61. [69]

    Accelerated optimization of measured relative entropies,

    Z. Huang and M. M. Wilde, “Accelerated optimization of measured relative entropies,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.17976 APPENDIXA ALTERNATE FORMULA FOR THERAINS ENTANGLEMENT(PROOF OFLEMMA5) Proof.Our goal is to prove thatR(ρ) = inf τ∈T(H k) D(ρ∥τ), and...

    2026 arXiv

  62. [2000]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314

    doi

  63. [2020]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.060405

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.060405

    doi

  64. [2026]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-026-01184-4

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-026-01184-4

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.