Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

Gaussian time-translation covariant operations: structure, implementation, and thermodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper classifies Gaussian time-translation covariant operations, proves that Gaussian amplifiers are not freely dilatable, and shows that Gaussian thermal operations coincide with Gaussian enhanced thermal operations.

desk verdict A strong, self-contained classification of Gaussian covariant operations, with the main caveat that the 'amplifiers are free-dilation-impossible' claim is conditional on a stated-but-defensible definition choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.02471 v2 pith:T4E5AV6P submitted 2026-01-05 quant-ph

Xueyuan Hu , Lea Lautenbacher , Giovanni Spaventa , Martin B. Plenio , Nelly H.Y. Ng , Jeongrak Son This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P45 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords Gaussiancovariantoperationstime-translationcovariancecontinuousvariablesthermalenhancedasymmetrymonotonescatalysisamplifiers
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

Gaussian covariant operations — Gaussian quantum channels that commute with time-translation — are the continuous-variable analogue of phase-covariant operations, but they behave very differently from their discrete-variable counterparts. The paper gives a complete mathematical characterization via a pair of matrices (A,B), and then identifies exactly which of these operations admit a free Gaussian dilation: only those with a contractive A and matching noise support. As a consequence, Gaussian amplifiers (which stretch A beyond unitary) have no free implementation and require effectively infinite resources, contrary to a competing framework that allows negative-frequency auxiliary modes. In the thermodynamic setting, the paper proves that every Gaussian enhanced thermal operation can be realized as a Gaussian thermal operation — a beam-splitter coupling to a Gibbs-state ancilla — closing at the channel level a gap that persists for finite-dimensional systems. It also introduces two asymmetry monotones that are complete for single-mode second-moment transformations and completely non-extensive, implying that type-2 asymmetry cannot be distilled or catalytically amplified under Gaussian covariant operations.

What carries the argument

The (A,B) characterization of GCOs: every Gaussian time-translation covariant channel is fully described by an output-input matrix A and a noise matrix B acting as α→Aα, μ→AμA†+B, χ→A*χA†, with B ≥ ±(I−AA†)/2. Lemma S.2 (the free-dilation criterion) and the Sl± asymmetry monotones, given by Sl±(μ,χ)=σ1[(μ*±I/2)^{-1/2}χ(μ±I/2)^{-1/2}], carry the argument: the first pins down which operations are freely implementable, the second provides complete single-mode transformation conditions and, through its complete non-extensiveness, rules out distillation and catalysis.

What would settle it

Check whether a phase-insensitive Gaussian amplifier with gain G>1 (A=√G I, so I−AA†<0) can be realized exactly by a Gaussian covariant unitary on the system plus a Gaussian ancilla whose state commutes with its free Hamiltonian. If such a realization exists, Lemma 1's necessary condition (F1) and Theorem 1 fail. Equivalently, find a Gaussian enhanced thermal operation that cannot be decomposed as Tr_R[U_PC(·⊗γ_R)U_PC†] for a Gibbs state γ_R and an energy-preserving Gaussian unitary U_PC.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the structure of Gaussian covariant operations is fully captured by the pair (A,B) acting on first and second moments, with the constraint B ≥ ±(I−AA†)/2. From this characterization, it shows that free dilation — implementation by a Gaussian covariant unitary acting on the system and a symmetric Gaussian ancilla — is possible if and only if I−AA† ≥ 0 and the support of B matches the support of I−AA†. Amplifiers violate the first condition, so they are not freely dilatable and their exact implementation cost is infinite. The paper then proves that requiring Gibbs-state preservation selects precisely the freely dilatable subclass, so Gaussian enhanced thermal

Load-bearing premise

The operational results depend on the definition of free dilation that allows only positive-frequency Gaussian ancillas and energy-preserving Gaussian unitaries; allowing negative-frequency auxiliary modes would change which operations count as freely implementable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every Gaussian enhanced thermal operation on any number of modes can be implemented exactly by a beam-splitter network plus phase shifters acting on the system and a Gibbs-state ancilla; the thermal-vs-enhanced gap vanishes at channel level.
  • Gaussian amplifiers with gain greater than one cannot be implemented with only positive-frequency Gaussian ancillas and energy-preserving unitaries; any exact implementation requires non-Gaussian or non-covariant resources, making the exact cost infinite.
  • No GCO process — even with arbitrarily many copies or with correlated catalysts — can produce a state with higher Sl± value than the input, so type-2 (second-moment) asymmetry cannot be distilled or amplified.
  • For single-mode systems, the Sl± inequalities are necessary and sufficient for second-moment transformations under GCOs, and correlated catalysts confer no advantage for such transformations.
  • Multi-mode GCOs with a fixed-point need not be freely dilatable, so thermodynamic implementability is not guaranteed by the mere existence of a stationary state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's amplifier no-go is definition-dependent: if negative-frequency 'modulation picture' ancillas were admitted as free, every GCO would be freely dilatable and amplifiers would carry finite cost. The infinite-cost claim therefore stands only in the positive-frequency, energy-conserving frame the authors adopt.
  • The complete non-extensiveness of Sl± suggests that type-2 asymmetry is an intensively non-amplifiable resource, while the known distillability of type-1 (displacement) asymmetry implies a sharp resource-theoretic split between first- and second-moment coherence.
  • One testable extension: compute the approximate implementation cost of a Gaussian amplifier in terms of how closely a sequence of freely dilatable GCOs can approximate it; the paper's Lemma 1 inequality gives a quantitative distance measure.
  • The single-mode completeness of Sl± suggests a direct application to phase-estimation bounds: Gaussian probes' phase sensitivity may be expressed through Sl±, connecting these monotones to quantum metrology.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a resource-theoretic characterization of Gaussian time-translation covariant operations (GCOs), which are Gaussian channels commuting with free time evolution. For a GCO specified by the pair (A,B), the main structural result (Lemma 1 / Lemma S.2) gives a necessary and sufficient condition for free dilation by a Gaussian symmetric ancilla and a Gaussian covariant unitary: I−AA†≥0 and supp(B)=supp(I−AA†). Theorem 1 then shows that GCOs without a physical fixed point are not freely dilatable, with a two-mode example showing the converse is false. The paper further proves that Gaussian enhanced thermal operations coincide with Gaussian thermal operations at the channel level (Theorem 2), and introduces a pair of monotones Sl± with properties (P1)–(P4): finiteness/faithfulness, monotonicity, complete non-extensiveness, and monotonicity under correlated catalysis. For single-mode systems, Sl± are complete (Lemma 2), yielding a no-catalysis theorem (Theorem 3). The appendix provides a self-contained derivation of the standard GCO characterization, constructive dilations, a fixed-point decomposition lemma, and the proofs of the monotone properties.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a substantial contribution to continuous-variable quantum information and thermodynamics. The equivalence GEnTO=GTO at the channel level resolves, for the Gaussian class, a question that remains open in finite-dimensional settings. The monotones Sl± are simple, parameter-free functions that completely characterize single-mode second-moment transformations and imply strong no-distillation and no-catalysis statements. The paper is commendably transparent: the key characterization Lemma S.1 is re-derived rather than cited, and the free dilations in Lemma S.2 and Theorem S.2 are explicit and constructive. The main limitation, acknowledged by the authors, is that the no-free-dilation results are relative to Definition 1, which excludes negative-frequency ancillas; the divergence from Ref. [41] is definitional rather than an internal inconsistency.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix IV, Lemma S.10, Case 3-2 (Eqs. (S98)–(S101))] The transition from the repeated substitutions to Eqs. (S100)–(S101) is not justified. Vanishing of all j>0 terms in (S98) leaves the j=0 term ψ[a_CS(μS±I/2)a†_CS+Δ±]ψ†. The first summand vanishes by the Case 3-2 assumption, but ψΔ±ψ† has not been shown to vanish. Thus (S100) does not follow as written. A short argument using the optimality of ψ — if Sl±(μC,χC)>0, equality in the defining Rayleigh quotient forces ψΔ±ψ†=0 — can repair the step, but it needs to be stated. Because P4 is used in the proof of Theorem 3, this gap should be fixed before publication.
  2. [Main text, paragraph after Theorem 1 ('any auxiliary state...')] The assertion that any auxiliary state, 'non-Gaussian and/or asymmetric', cannot implement a non-freely-dilatable GCO using Gaussian covariant unitaries — and hence that the cost of such operations is infinite — is not proved. Lemma S.2's converse assumes a Gaussian symmetric ancilla. If this is intended as a theorem, an argument is needed: e.g., that a non-Gaussian ancilla makes the reduced channel non-Gaussian for Gaussian inputs, and that an asymmetric ancilla is incompatible with covariance under Definition 1. As written, the 'infinite cost' statement is an interpretive claim rather than a demonstrated consequence.
  3. [Main text, discussion of Ref. [41]] The rebuttal to the negative-frequency ancillas of Ref. [41] is informal: 'if we account for the strong pump beam needed for the modulation picture, U_PC is no longer energy-preserving.' No pump Hamiltonian is written down, and no proof is given that a physically consistent finite-energy pump cannot restore a covariant dilation. Since this point is load-bearing for the advertised 'fundamental limitation' of amplifiers, the manuscript should either formalize the argument or explicitly state Theorem 1 as a statement within the resource theory defined by Definition 1, rather than as an unconditional physical impossibility.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix II, Eq. (S24)] The matrix A in the two-mode counterexample appears to be mis-typeset. To match the subsequent fixed-point formulas and the claim that η2>1 violates (F1), the second row should be sqrt(η2), i.e. A = [[0, sqrt(η1)], [sqrt(η2), 0]], not the matrix shown. Please correct the typesetting.
  2. [Discussion, paragraph citing Ref. [66]] The sentence 'Ref. [66] gives a negative answer by investigating the Markovian versions of thermal operations and enhanced thermal operations' appears to cite the wrong reference. Reference [66] (Haagerup–Musat) is about factorization and dilation of completely positive maps and does not concern Markovian thermal operations. Please check and replace the citation.
  3. [Appendix IV, Lemma S.9, step 4] Step 4 says 'Apply the unitary GCO(0⊕V,0)', which seems to be a typo: the unitary should act as identity on the system, i.e. (I_S⊕V,0). Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: central claims are proven from explicit lemmas, with a definition-scope caveat on the amplifier limitation.

full rationale

I inspected the derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction reduces to its own input. The GCO characterization (A,B) is not merely cited; Lemma S.1 re-derives it from the covariance condition. Lemma S.2 gives an explicit dilation for freely dilatable GCOs and proves F1/F2, rather than assuming them. Theorem 2 follows by imposing Gibbs preservation, which yields B=(nbar+1/2)(I-AA^dagger), and then explicitly constructing the beam-splitter dilation with a Gibbs ancilla; no parameter is fitted to a later "prediction." The Sl_+-monotones are defined independently and their monotonicity, non-extensiveness, and single-mode completeness are proved from the channel transformation laws. The self-citations (e.g., [31], [56], [65]) appear as context or terminology and are not load-bearing. The one caveat worth flagging is the paper's own acknowledgment that Theorem 1's amplifier non-dilatability is conditional on Definition 1 excluding negative-frequency ancillas: 'In Ref. [41], auxiliary systems can have negative frequencies...' and the rebuttal 'if we account for the strong pump beam needed for the modulation picture, U_PC is no longer energy-preserving' is informal rather than formalized. This is a scope/adequacy limitation, not a circularity: the theorem is proved from the stated definition and is transparently contrasted with the broader dilation picture.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted; all constants are either physical inputs (β, ω) or derived from the covariance structure. The main explanatory burden is the choice of positive-frequency physical modes and Gaussian symmetric ancillas as the free-resource set, which is stated explicitly and contrasted with Ref. [41].

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Gaussian states and channels are fully characterized by (α, μ, χ) and (X, Y, d), with the uncertainty principle M+Z≥0.
    This continuous-variable formalism is used throughout and is standard background, not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Time-translation covariance under H=Σω_j a_j†a_j is equivalent to U(1) phase-shift covariance for equal-frequency modes; physical modes have positive frequencies.
    This is the physical setting defining GCOs. Proposition S1 reduces to the equal-frequency case, but the positivity of frequencies is a physical modeling choice.
  • domain assumption A free dilation may use only Gaussian symmetric ancillas and Gaussian covariant unitaries (Definition 1), excluding negative-frequency auxiliary modes.
    This definition is load-bearing for Theorem 1 and the claimed non-implementability of amplifiers. Ref. [41] makes the opposite choice and reaches different conclusions.
  • domain assumption A Gaussian enhanced thermal operation is a GCO that preserves the Gibbs state at inverse temperature β, whose second moment is (n̄β+1/2)I.
    This is the paper's definition of GEnTO and is used to derive B=(n̄β+1/2)(I−AA†) in Theorem S.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian time-translation covariant operations: structure, implementation, and thermodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4E5AV6P

@misc{pith2026260102471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian time-translation covariant operations: structure, implementation, and thermodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4E5AV6P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02471}
}
read the original abstract

Time-translation symmetry strongly constrains physical dynamics, yet systematic characterization for continuous-variable systems lags behind its discrete-variable counterpart. We close this gap by providing a rigorous classification of Gaussian quantum operations that are covariant under time translations, termed Gaussian covariant operations. We show that several key results known for discrete-variable covariant operations break down in the Gaussian optical setting: discrepancies arise in physical and thermodynamic implementation, in the extensivity of asymmetry, and in catalytic advantages. Our results provide comprehensive mathematical and operational toolkits for Gaussian covariant operations, including a peculiar pair of asymmetry measures that are completely non-extensive. Our findings also reveal surprising consequences of the interplay among symmetry, Gaussianity, and thermodynamic constraints, suggesting that real-world scenarios with multiple constraints have a rich structure not accessible from examining individual constraints separately.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Single-mode state transformations for the second moment [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

79 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [41]

    Koukoulekidis and I

    N. Koukoulekidis and I. Marvian, Symmetry and asymmetry in bosonic gaussian systems: A resource-theoretic framework (2025), arXiv:2510.25719 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  3. [2]

    Erker, M

    P. Erker, M. T. Mitchison, R. Silva, M. P. Woods, N. Brun- ner, and M. Huber, Autonomous quantum clocks: Does ther- modynamics limit our ability to measure time?, Phys. Rev. X7, 031022 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    M. P. Woods, R. Silva, and J. Oppenheim, Autonomous quan- tum machines and finite-sized clocks, Ann. Henri Poincar ´e20, 125 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    Gour,Quantum Resource Theories(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2025)

    G. Gour,Quantum Resource Theories(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    Gour and R

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and monotones, New J. Phys. 10, 033023 (2008)

    2008

  7. [6]

    I. M. Mashhad,Symmetry, Asymmetry and Quantum Informa- tion, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (2012)

    2012

  8. [7]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, Extending noether’s theorem by quantifying the asymmetry of quantum states, Nat. Com- mun.5, 3821 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Tajima, R

    H. Tajima, R. Takagi, and Y . Kuramochi, Universal trade- off structure between symmetry, irreversibility, and quantum coherence in quantum processes (2025), arXiv:2206.11086 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    H. A. Haus and J. A. Mullen, Quantum noise in linear ampli- fiers, Phys. Rev.128, 2407 (1962)

    1962

  4. [11]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers, Phys. Rev. D26, 1817 (1982)

    1982

  5. [12]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Guha, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, and J. H. Shapiro, Minimum output entropy of bosonic channels: A con- jecture, Phys. Rev. A70, 032315 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Giovannetti and A

    V . Giovannetti and A. S. Holevo, Ultimate classical communi- cation rates of quantum optical channels, Nat. Photonics8, 796 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

    De Palma, D

    G. De Palma, D. Trevisan, and V . Giovannetti, Gaussian states minimize the output entropy of the one-mode quantum attenu- ator, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory63, 728 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    De Palma, D

    G. De Palma, D. Trevisan, and V . Giovannetti, Passive states op- timize the output of bosonic gaussian quantum channels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62, 2895 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    A. S. Holevo and R. F. Werner, Evaluating capacities of bosonic gaussian channels, Phys. Rev. A63, 032312 (2001)

    2001

  11. [18]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. Guha, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, J. H. Shapiro, and H. P. Yuen, Classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel: The exact solution, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 027902 (2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, inProceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’11 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2011) pp. 333–342

    2011

  13. [20]

    C. S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Barkhofen, C. Silber- horn, and I. Jex, Gaussian boson sampling, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 170501 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Lostaglio, D

    M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires con- straints beyond free energy, Nat. Commun.6, 6383 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    Korzekwa, M

    K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, J. Oppenheim, and D. Jennings, The extraction of work from quantum coherence, New J. Phys. 18, 023045 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    Smirne, J

    A. Smirne, J. Kołody ´nski, S. F. Huelga, and R. Demkowicz- Dobrza´nski, Ultimate precision limits for noisy frequency esti- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120801 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    H. Kwon, H. Jeong, D. Jennings, B. Yadin, and M. S. Kim, Clock–work trade-off relation for coherence in quantum ther- modynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 150602 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Shiraishi, Quantum thermodynamics with coherence: Co- variant gibbs-preserving operation is characterized by the free energy, Phys

    N. Shiraishi, Quantum thermodynamics with coherence: Co- variant gibbs-preserving operation is characterized by the free energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 160402 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    ´Cwikli´nski, M

    P. ´Cwikli´nski, M. Studzi´nski, M. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Limitations on the evolution of quantum coherences: Towards fully quantum second laws of thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 210403 (2015)

    2015

  20. [27]

    Y . Ding, F. Ding, and X. Hu, Exploring the gap between thermal operations and enhanced thermal operations, Phys. Rev. A103, 052214 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Janzing, P

    D. Janzing, P. Wocjan, R. Zeier, R. Geiss, and T. Beth, Thermo- dynamic cost of reliability and low temperatures: Tightening Landauer’s principle and the second law, Int. J. Th. Phys.39, 2717 (2000)

    2000

  22. [29]

    Lostaglio, K

    M. Lostaglio, K. Korzekwa, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Quantum coherence, time-translation symmetry, and thermody- namics, Phys. Rev. X5, 021001 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    G. Gour, D. Jennings, F. Buscemi, R. Duan, and I. Marvian, Quantum majorization and a complete set of entropic condi- tions for quantum thermodynamics, Nat. Commun.9, 5352 7 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    S. H. Lie, J. Son, P. Boes, N. H. Y . Ng, and H. Wilm- ing, Thermal operations from informational equilibrium (2025), arXiv:2507.16637 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of The- oretical Methods(CRC Press, 2017)

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of The- oretical Methods(CRC Press, 2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garcia-Patron, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum informa- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    Serafini, M

    A. Serafini, M. Lostaglio, S. Longden, U. Shackerley-Bennett, C.-Y . Hsieh, and G. Adesso, Gaussian thermal operations and the limits of algorithmic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 010602 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Narasimhachar, S

    V . Narasimhachar, S. Assad, F. C. Binder, J. Thompson, B. Yadin, and M. Gu, Thermodynamic resources in continuous- variable quantum systems, npj Quantum Inf.7, 9 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Yadin, H

    B. Yadin, H. H. Jee, C. Sparaciari, G. Adesso, and A. Serafini, Catalytic gaussian thermal operations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 325301 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Heinosaari, A

    T. Heinosaari, A. S. Holevo, and M. M. Wolf, The semigroup structure of gaussian channels, Quantum Info. Comput.10, 619 (2010)

    2010

  31. [38]

    A. S. Holevo, Gaussian optimizers and the additivity problem in quantum information theory, Russ. Math. Surv.70, 331 (2015)

    2015

  32. [39]

    R. L. Frank and E. H. Lieb, Norms of quantum Gaussian multi- mode channels, J. Math. Phys.58, 062204 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Keyl and R

    M. Keyl and R. F. Werner, Optimal cloning of pure states, test- ing single clones, J. Math. Phys.40, 3283 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    C. H. Bennett, The thermodynamics of computation—a review, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 905 (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Faist, F

    P. Faist, F. Dupuis, J. Oppenheim, and R. Renner, The minimal work cost of information processing, Nat. Commun.6, 7669 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Faist and R

    P. Faist and R. Renner, Fundamental work cost of quantum pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. X8, 021011 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Tajima, N

    H. Tajima, N. Shiraishi, and K. Saito, Coherence cost for vio- lating conservation laws, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043374 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Tajima and R

    H. Tajima and R. Takagi, Gibbs-preserving operations requiring infinite amount of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 170201 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Eisert, S

    J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Distilling gaussian states with gaussian operations is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 137903 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    L. Lami, B. Regula, X. Wang, R. Nichols, A. Winter, and G. Adesso, Gaussian quantum resource theories, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022335 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Niset, J

    J. Niset, J. Fiur ´aˇsek, and N. J. Cerf, No-go theorem for gaussian quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 120501 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Wang and S

    Y . Wang and S. Zhou, Limitations of gaussian measurements in quantum imaging, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 120201 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Shiraishi and R

    N. Shiraishi and R. Takagi, Arbitrary amplification of quantum coherence in asymptotic and catalytic transformation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 180202 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    S. A. Yadavalli and I. Marvian, Optimal distillation of coherent states with phase-insensitive operations (2025), arXiv:2409.05974 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Jonathan and M

    D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement-assisted local ma- nipulation of pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3566 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Lipka-Bartosik, H

    P. Lipka-Bartosik, H. Wilming, and N. H. Y . Ng, Catalysis in quantum information theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025005 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Sagawa, Quantum thermodynamics of correlated-catalytic state conversion at small scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 150502 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Son and N

    J. Son and N. H. Y . Ng, A hierarchy of thermal processes collapses under catalysis, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 015011 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Shiraishi and R

    N. Shiraishi and R. Takagi, Recovery of the second law in fully quantum thermodynamics (2025), arXiv:2510.05642 [quant- ph]

    2025

  50. [58]

    Wilming, Correlations in typicality and an affirmative solu- tion to the exact catalytic entropy conjecture, Quantum6, 858 (2022)

    H. Wilming, Correlations in typicality and an affirmative solu- tion to the exact catalytic entropy conjecture, Quantum6, 858 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    T. V . Kondra, C. Datta, and A. Streltsov, Catalytic transforma- tions of pure entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 150503 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    F. Ding, X. Hu, and H. Fan, Amplifying asymmetry with corre- lating catalysts, Phys. Rev. A103, 022403 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    T. V . Kondra, R. Ganardi, and A. Streltsov, Coherence manipu- lation in asymmetry and thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 200201 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Spaventa, S

    G. Spaventa, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Capacity of non- markovianity to boost the efficiency of molecular switches, Phys. Rev. A105, 012420 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Korzekwa and M

    K. Korzekwa and M. Lostaglio, Optimizing thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 040602 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Marvian, Restrictions on realizable unitary operations im- posed by symmetry and locality, Nat

    I. Marvian, Restrictions on realizable unitary operations im- posed by symmetry and locality, Nat. Phys.18, 283 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    J. Son, R. Ganardi, S. Minagawa, F. Buscemi, S. H. Lie, and N. H. Y . Ng, Robust catalysis and resource broadcasting: The possible and the impossible (2024), arXiv:2412.06900 [quant- ph]

    2024

  58. [66]

    Haagerup and M

    U. Haagerup and M. Musat, Factorization and dilation prob- lems for completely positive maps on von neumann algebras, Commun. Math. Phys.303, 555 (2011). 1 I. FULL CHARACTERIZATION OF GAUSSIAN COV ARIANT CHANNELS In this section we scrutinize the full characterization of Gauss...

    2011

  59. [67]

    2.A n∆(A†)n ≥0for anyn≥0since∆≥0

    A direct calculation showsµ ⋆ =Aµ ⋆A† +B. 2.A n∆(A†)n ≥0for anyn≥0since∆≥0. Thus,µ ⋆ ≥ I 2

  60. [68]

    Hence, the series P∞ n=0 An∆(A†)n converges andµ ⋆ is finite

    From Lemma II, we haveAA † ≤Iandsupp(∆)⊆supp(I−AA †)meaning that∆has support only on the strict- contraction subspace ofA. Hence, the series P∞ n=0 An∆(A†)n converges andµ ⋆ is finite. Therefore the centered symmetric Gaussian state with moments(⃗ α⋆ = 0, µ⋆, χ⋆ = 0)is a valid...

  61. [69]

    In other words, ˜a11 is a unitary matrix and ˜b11 = 0, ˜a12 = 0. Eqs. (S38) and (S39) simplifies to ˜b12 = 0and ˜b21 = 0. Combining everything, we arrive at the block diagonal structure ˜A= ˜a11 ⊕ ˜a22, ˜B= 0⊕ ˜b22,D=d 11 ⊕0.(S41) Finally, we define ˜A :=W AW †, ˜B :=W BW †,˜χ...

  62. [70]

    Sinceˆχ11 is a full rank matrix, we have |det( ˆχ11)|=|det(˘v ∗

  63. [71]

    If˘v 11˘v† 11 ̸=I, we have|det(˘v 11)|<1, which contradicts Eq

    det( ˆχ11) det(˘v† 11)|.(S50) On the other hand, the unitarity of ˘Vmeans that0≤˘v 11˘v† 11 =I−˘v 12˘v† 12 ≤I. If˘v 11˘v† 11 ̸=I, we have|det(˘v 11)|<1, which contradicts Eq. (S50). Hence,˘v 11 is a unitary matrix and˘v12 = 0, annulling the top right block in Eq. (S48). As a r...

  64. [72]

    Defineψ † = (µ± I 2 )− 1 2 ϕand we obtain|ϕ ⊺K±ϕ|=|ψ ∗χψ†| for the numerator, andϕ †ϕ=ψ(µ± I 2 )ψ† for the denominator usingϕ∈supp(µ± I 2 ). Now we can write Sl±(µ, χ) = sup ψ†∈supp(µ± I 2 ) |ψ∗χψ†| ψ(µ± I 2 )ψ† = sup ψ†∈supp(µ± I 2 ) ψ∗χψ†̸=0 |ψ∗χψ†| ψ(µ± I 2 )ψ† ,(S62) where...

  65. [73]

    Next, note that wheneverµ S = I 2 and/orµ C = I 2, thenSl ±(µS, χS) = 0and/orSl ±(µC, χC) = 0, giving the same conclusion

    Let us additionally consider the row vectors ψS ∈C mS ,ψ C ∈C mC that produce Sl±(µS, χS) = |ψ∗ SχSψ† S| ψS(µS ± I 2 )ψ† S ,Sl ±(µC, χC) = |ψ∗ CχCψ† C| ψC(µC ± I 2 )ψ† C .(S74) If we chooseψ= (ψ S,0)∈C mS +mC , Sl±(µS, χS) = |ψ∗χψ†| ψ(µ± I 2 )ψ† ≤Sl ±(µ, χ).(S75) Similarly,Sl ...

  66. [74]

    We can construct the following catalytic process starting from(µ S ⊕˜µC′, χS ⊕˜χC′):

    Denote the original GCO applied to(µ S ⊕µ C, χS ⊕χ C)as(A, B). We can construct the following catalytic process starting from(µ S ⊕˜µC′, χS ⊕˜χC′):

  67. [75]

    Append some vacuum modes to obtain(µ S ⊕ I 2 ⊕˜µC′, χS ⊕0⊕˜χ C′)

  68. [76]

    Apply the unitary GCO(I⊕V †,0)to obtain(µ S ⊕µ C, χS ⊕χ C)

  69. [77]

    Apply the GCO(A, B)to obtain the desired system marginal moments(µ ′ S, χ′ S)while keeping the catalyst marginal moments(µ C, χC). 10

  70. [78]

    Apply the unitary GCO(0⊕V,0)to transform catalyst moments to be( I 2 ⊕˜µC′,0⊕˜χ C′)

  71. [79]

    Since all five steps are valid GCOs, the lemma statement holds true

    Remove vacuum modes and retrieve the catalyst(˜µC′,˜χC′). Since all five steps are valid GCOs, the lemma statement holds true. Lemma S.10.Sl ±(µ, χ)≥Sl ±(µ′, χ′)whenever(µ, χ)can be transformed into(µ ′, χ′)with the help of some catalyst state (µC, χC)that can be correlated at...

Pith tools

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