Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 64 references

This paper proves that for pairs of states with positive discrete Wigner functions, neither finite-dimensional quantum memories nor quantum catalysts can improve the optimal discrimination success probability of classically simulable measur

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Consumable magic states can simulate non-classically-simulable measurements and improve state discrimination, while finite-dimensional quantum catalysts and memories cannot improve discrimination of positive-Wigner state pairs.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid channel-simulation results with a tight Strange-state example, but the memory/catalyst no-go theorem has a genuine proof gap around CPWP instruments and the abstract overstates the claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19070 v1 pith:RJHRPY4G submitted 2026-07-21 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

How to improve the discrimination power of classically simulable measurements?

Yiran Wang , Yongming Li This is my paper
classification quant-ph math-phmath.MP MSC 81P4581P68
keywords quantum state discriminationdiscrete Wigner functionsclassically simulable measurementsmagic resource theorychannel simulation costquantum catalystsquantum memoryno-go theorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum state discrimination is usually analyzed under unrestricted measurements, but the classically simulable measurements studied here—POVMs with positive discrete Wigner functions (CSMs)—are strictly weaker. The paper asks how much that weakness can be repaired, and tests three routes: burning magic states, reusing a catalyst, or keeping an adaptive quantum memory. It shows that consumed magic genuinely helps, quantifies how much magic is needed to simulate a target non-CSM measurement channel, and exhibits a qutrit example where one Strange state raises the success probability from 2/3 to 7/9. Its principal negative result is a no-go theorem: for any pair of positive-Wigner states, the asymptotic per-round success rate of finite-dimensional memory-assisted or catalyst-assisted CPWP protocols equals the single-shot CSM value. The upshot is a clean split—consumable resources can help, reusable ones cannot, at least for this class of discrimination tasks.

Core claim

The central claim is that for discriminating a pair of states with positive Wigner functions, an adaptive protocol with a finite-dimensional quantum memory cannot beat the best single-shot classically simulable measurement; the same holds for catalysts, which are memories that stay fixed. The authors establish this by proving that PWF POVMs are exactly the measurement channels whose associated channel is completely positive Wigner-preserving (CPWP), which turns the question into one of channel simulation. They bound the number of magic copies needed to simulate a target channel using CPWP free operations, and give a qutrit channel (built from the Strange state) where the bounds coincide and

What carries the argument

The discrete Wigner function and the set of completely positive Wigner-preserving (CPWP) channels carry the argument. Theorem 1 identifies PWF POVMs with CPWP measurement channels, so 'improve a CSM' becomes 'simulate a non-CPWP channel with CPWP operations and magic states'; Theorem 2 bounds that simulation cost between the mana ratio M(M)/M(ω) and a Wigner-effect existence condition. For the no-go theorem, the mechanism is the equality ||Δ⊗γ||_{PWF}=||Δ||_{PWF} for PWF γ (Lemma 1), which forces each conditional round's success probability to be at most p*, making the excess-correct-guess process a supermartingale; Azuma's inequality then converts any supposedly improved rate into a violati

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the no-go theorem assumes that every adaptive CPWP instrument preserves positive Wigner functions component-wise, so the memory state after conditioning on any history γC(F_j) is always PWF; the paper asserts this without a formal definition, and without it the per-round bound Pr(X_{j+1}=1|F_j) ≤ p* does not follow.

What would settle it

Find a pair of positive-Wigner states and an explicit finite-dimensional adaptive CPWP protocol for which the empirical per-round success rate exceeds p_PWF_succ. The most direct check is to search for a CPWP instrument that, conditioned on some outcome, maps a PWF memory state to a state with negative Wigner function; if such an instrument exists, the supermartingale step (and hence Theorem 3) fails, and a single two-round simulation would show a violation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any finite-dimensional reusable memory or catalyst can be ignored when discriminating positive-Wigner state pairs: the best achievable rate is exactly the single-shot CSM success probability.
  • Consumable magic resources can strictly raise CSM discrimination power, as shown by the Strange-state example, while reusable finite-dimensional resources cannot.
  • The channel-simulation bounds give a quantitative answer to how much magic is needed to implement a measurement beyond CSMs, and Proposition 1 provides a case where the answer is exactly one Strange state.
  • The SDP formulation and its dual provide a numerical method to compute magic-assisted success probabilities for a fixed number of resource copies, enabling estimates of the magic cost of matching unrestricted measurements.
  • The results draw a clear line in restricted-measurement state discrimination: improvements from quantum resources must come from consumption, not reuse, at least for Wigner-positive input states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the no-go theorem's component-wise PWF-preservation premise fails for some CPWP instrument, the result may be special to instruments that are Wigner-preserving in that strict sense; a testable extension is to characterize instruments that violate the premise and check whether adaptive protocols using them can beat p*.
  • The contrast with entanglement-assisted local discrimination suggests a possible general principle: in resource theories whose free operations are closed under conditioning, reusable catalysts and memories are inert for binary discrimination of free states; testing this in other resource theories would show how far the result generalizes.
  • The paper leaves open whether catalysts or memories help for non-PWF states; a numerical route is to run the SDP on a pair of states with small Wigner negativity and check whether the optimal success rate grows with memory dimension.
  • The tight simulation-cost example hints that the Strange-state measurement channel is a minimal non-CSM measurement; searching for other minimal non-PWF effects could yield a small catalog of elementary magic-consuming measurements.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies binary quantum state discrimination under positive-Wigner-function (PWF) measurements, i.e., classically simulable measurements (CSMs), in odd-prime-dimensional systems. It proposes three potential ways to improve the discrimination power of CSMs: adding consumable magic states, using quantum catalysts, and using quantum memories. The main technical contributions are: (i) a correspondence between PWF POVMs and completely positive Wigner-preserving (CPWP) measurement channels (Theorem 1); (ii) lower and upper bounds on the exact simulation cost of a non-CPWP measurement channel with a pure magic state (Theorem 2); (iii) a tight example using the qutrit Strange state for which the simulation cost is exactly one (Proposition 1); (iv) an example showing that one copy of the Strange state improves the optimal success probability over CSMs (Proposition 2); (v) an SDP formulation for magic-assisted discrimination; and (vi) a no-go theorem claiming that finite-dimensional quantum memories and catalysts do not improve the optimal success probability for discriminating a pair of PWF states (Theorem 3 and Corollary 1). The paper concludes that consumable magic can help while reusable magic in the form of memories or catalysts cannot, at least for PWF state pairs.

Significance. If the no-go theorem is correct, the paper establishes a clean conceptual separation between consumable and reusable magic resources in the context of quantum state discrimination, and it provides a useful channel-simulation perspective on CSMs. Theorems 1 and 2 and Propositions 1 and 2 appear arithmetically sound and are presented constructively, with explicit Wigner-function calculations; the tight Strange-state example is a valuable demonstration that the proposed bounds can coincide. The SDP formulation and its dual are also useful tools. The central weakness is the proof of Theorem 3, which depends on an unstated and unproved assumption about 'CPWP instruments.' Because the no-go result is the paper's headline claim, its soundness must be established before the result can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, proof of Theorem 3, Eqs. (102)-(103)] The proof hinges on the assertion that the conditional memory state γ^C(F_j) is PWF 'since ρ0, ρ1, γ_C are PWF states, and each instrument is CPWP instrument.' However, the paper defines CPWP channels (Eq. (9)) and CPWP-preserving superchannels (Eq. (10)), but never defines a 'CPWP instrument.' For a quantum instrument, knowing that the sum map is CPWP does not imply that each branch Λ_y preserves Wigner positivity: a sum of maps that individually create Wigner negativity can itself be PWF-preserving. After conditioning on F_j and on the current outcome, the unnormalized updated memory state is proportional to Tr_A[Λ_y(ρ_i⊗γ^C(F_j))]; if Λ_y does not preserve PWFs, γ^C(F_j) need not be PWF. Lemma 1 then cannot be applied in Eq. (102), and the per-round bound Pr(X_{j+1}=1|F_j) ≤ p^* in Eq. (103) does not follow. The proof needs either a formal definition of 'CPWP instrument' that includes
  2. [Abstract, Section IV, Section V] Because the proof of Theorem 3 relies on the unproved branch-wise CPWP-instrument assumption, the unconditional statements in the abstract and conclusions—'neither finite-dimensional quantum memories nor quantum catalysts can improve the optimal success probability'—are stronger than what is proved. At minimum, Theorem 3 should be stated as a theorem about protocols whose adaptive instruments preserve Wigner positivity branchwise, with the assumption explicit. If the authors instead intend 'CPWP instrument' to mean exactly that branch-wise property, the term must be defined and the framework in Fig. 2/Definition 6 must be built on that definition. As written, the no-go claim is not established for arbitrary finite-dimensional memory-assisted protocols.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] There is a formatting typo: 'Tu Bτ−klZkXl' should presumably be 'T_u = τ^{-kl} Z^k X^l'.
  2. [Theorem 1 statement] The phrase 'odd-prime-dimensional system A with odd-prime number d_B' is confusing; it should read that the output system B has odd-prime dimension d_B.
  3. [Definition 5 and Theorem 2] The notation C^ε_F in Definition 5 is used with an approximation parameter ε, but Theorem 2 uses C_A(M;ω) without ε. Please define the exact simulation cost as a separate object and keep the notation consistent.
  4. [Section IV, before Definition 6] The term 'adaptive CPWP instrument' is used operationally before being formally defined. Even aside from the branch-wise issue raised above, a precise definition of the instrument, its outcomes, and the update rule for the memory is needed.
  5. [Proposition 2, paragraph after Eq. (76)] The sentence 'this example shows that the assistance of a single copy of the Strange state is still insufficient to perfectly distinguish...' is not established by the displayed calculation: the proof gives a lower bound 7/9, not an upper bound below 1. Either cite an external result for the insufficiency or rephrase the sentence as a weaker observation/conjecture.
  6. [Lemma 1 proof] The statement that the preparation channel P^{A→AC}_{γ^C} is CPWP 'for any PWF input state ρ^A' is slightly imprecise: CPWP is defined with an arbitrary reference system, so the justification should explicitly say that W_{ρ⊗γ}(u,v)=W_ρ(u)W_γ(v) for any joint PWF input.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Theorem 3's main weakness is an undefined 'CPWP instrument' assertion, but this is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I find no load-bearing circular step in the derivation chain. Theorem 1 is a self-contained equivalence between PWF POVMs and CPWP measurement channels, proved via the Choi–Jamiołkowski matrix and the disjoint phase-space supports of stabilizer basis states. Theorem 2 proves both bounds: the lower bound uses external mana monotonicity/additivity from Refs. [13,43], and the upper bound is an explicit construction of a CPWP channel N, so the bounds are derived rather than assumed. Proposition 1 computes the channel mana directly and constructs the CPWP decomposition, so the exact simulation cost C=1 is computed, not fitted. Proposition 2 builds an explicit POVM and computes success probabilities; the 'equivalently' step is backed by the PWF-POVM/CPWP-channel equivalence from Theorem 1. Lemma 1 is proved by composing a CPWP measurement channel with a CPWP preparation channel, not by assuming the desired equality. The supermartingale argument in Theorem 3 would follow from the per-round bound Pr(X_{j+1}=1|F_j)≤p*, but the proof asserts without a formal definition that 'Since ρ0, ρ1, γC are PWF states, and each instrument is CPWP instrument, the conditional memory state γC(F_j) is a PWF state.' This is an omitted justification—'CPWP instrument' is never defined, and knowing the sum of an instrument's maps is CPWP does not automatically imply each branch preserves PWF states. That is a correctness gap that may invalidate the no-go theorem, but it is not circularity: Eq. (102) is not used as an input to derive itself, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the conclusion. The self-citations [22,32,49,59] are either contextual or accompanied by in-line proofs; the mana properties cited from [13,43] are external and independent. Hence the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are invented. The central claims rest on standard discrete-Wigner/stabilizer background, the CPWP equivalence, mana monotonicity/additivity, and one ad-hoc-to-paper assumption about component-wise CPWP instruments. The only hand-chosen numbers occur in the illustrative examples (λ=4/3, priors 1/3 and 2/3).

free parameters (2)
  • λ = 4/3
    Chosen by hand in Proposition 1 so that F_i=(M_i+(λ−1)E_i)/λ is a PWF POVM and the effect G=(1+|S⟩⟨S|)/2 satisfies W(G|u)≤1/λ. It is an example-specific parameter, not a general free parameter.
  • prior probabilities (p0, p1) = (1/3, 2/3)
    Chosen in Proposition 2 to exhibit magic-assisted improvement over unassisted CSMs; not part of the general theorems.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption A quantum channel is CPWP iff the discrete Wigner function of its Choi–Jamiołkowski matrix is nonnegative (Ref. [43]).
    Used in Theorem 1 to convert a PWF-POVM condition into a CPWP-channel condition; taken as a known result from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Mana is faithful, monotone under CPWP channels/superchannels, and additive for both states and channels (Refs. [13, 43]).
    Provides the lower bound in Theorem 2 and the channel-mana computation in Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption Pure stabilizer states in odd prime dimensions have Wigner functions uniformly supported on affine Lagrangian subspaces, and distinct stabilizer-basis states have disjoint supports (Refs. [18, 42]).
    Used in the converse of Theorem 1 to extract W(E_k|u) from positivity of the measurement-channel Wigner function.
  • domain assumption There exist λ≥1 and CPWP channels K, L such that the target channel M = λK − (λ−1)L.
    The upper bound in Theorem 2 only applies when such a decomposition exists; the paper gives one example (λ=4/3) but no general construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Each component of an adaptive CPWP instrument preserves positive Wigner functions under conditioning on past outcomes, so γ^C(F_j) remains PWF.
    Unstated and load-bearing for Theorem 3; without it the per-round bound Pr(X_{j+1}=1|F_j)≤p* does not follow when conditioned on history.
  • domain assumption The memory Hilbert space is finite-dimensional with dimension d fixed independent of n, so γ^C=1/d and μ^C are non-orthogonal.
    Explicitly stated in the Theorem 3 proof; essential for the Helstrom-contradiction step.
  • standard math Odd-prime-dimensional discrete Wigner formalism and Hudson's theorem (pure stabilizer iff nonnegative Wigner function).
    Background framework for CSMs and magic states; standard in the field.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to improve the discrimination power of classically simulable measurements?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJHRPY4G

@misc{pith2026260719070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to improve the discrimination power of classically simulable measurements?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJHRPY4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19070}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Classically simulable measurements (CSMs) constitute an important class of restricted measurements in the odd-prime-dimensional magic resource theory, referring to those measurements with positive discrete Wigner functions. Since their discrimination power is weaker than that of global measurements, it is necessary to study how to improve the discrimination power of CSMs. In this paper, we consider three methods to improve the discrimination power of CSMs, including adding magic resources, using quantum catalysts, and using quantum memories. Specifically, we relate measurements with positive discrete Wigner functions to completely positive Wigner-preserving measurement channels, thereby transforming the problem of improving the discrimination power of CSMs into the problem of determining how many magic resources are required to simulate quantum channels using free operations. Based on this, we derive the lower and upper bounds of the simulation cost. Moreover, we provide a concrete example for which these bounds coincide and prove that consumable magic resources can enhance the discrimination power of CSMs. Finally, we establish a no-go theorem, which shows that for discriminating a pair of states with positive Wigner functions, neither finite-dimensional quantum catalysts nor finite-dimensional quantum memories can improve the optimal success probability of discrimination using CSMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19070 by Yiran Wang, Yongming Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The discrete Wigner function of the Strange state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th anniversary ed. (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, New York, 2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, Quantum state discrimination, Adv. Opt. Photonics1, 238 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    It is easy to see thatEis a PWF POVM. Moreover, define another three-outcome POVMF={F 0,F 1,F 2}with Fi = Mi +(λ−1)E i λ ,i∈ {0,1,2}.(57) It is easy to see thatFis a POVM sinceF 0,F 1,F 2 are positive semidefinite andF 0 +F 1 +F 2 =1. We now verify thatFis a PWF POVM. By direct calculation, we have W(F 0|u−)=0,W(F 1|u−)=1,W(F 2|u−)=0,(58) W(F 0|u+)= 9 16,...

  4. [4]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quantum cryp- tography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    Given a Hermitian operatorH,H= P u WH(u)Au

  6. [6]

    Givend-dimensional operatorsPandQ, Tr(PQ)= d P u WP(u)WQ(u). After defining the phase space point operator, the discrete Wigner function of quantum stateρat the pointuis given by Wρ(u)B 1 d Tr(Auρ).(7) More generally, we can replace quantum stateρwith Hermi- tian operator∆in the definition of the discrete Wigner func- tion. We say a quantum stateρhas PWFs...

  7. [7]

    Bae and L.-C

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Quantum state discrimination and its applications, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  9. [9]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photon- ics1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    A. S. Holevo, Statistical decision theory for quantum systems, J. Multivar. Anal.3, 337 (1973)

    1973

  14. [14]

    Chefles, Unambiguous discrimination between linearly de- pendent states with multiple copies, Phys

    A. Chefles, Unambiguous discrimination between linearly de- pendent states with multiple copies, Phys. Rev. A64, 062305 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    Y . Feng, R. Duan, and M. Ying, Unambiguous discrimina- tion between mixed quantum states, Phys. Rev. A70, 012308 (2004)

    2004

  16. [16]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource the- ory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Veitch, S

    V . Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Veitch, C

    V . Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, and J. Emerson, Negative quasi- probability as a resource for quantum computation, New J. Phys.14, 113011 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert, Positive Wigner functions render classical simulation of quantum computation efficient, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230503 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    W. K. Wootters, A Wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys.176, 1 (1987)

    1987

  23. [23]

    Gross, Non-negative Wigner functions in prime dimensions, Appl

    D. Gross, Non-negative Wigner functions in prime dimensions, Appl. Phys. B86, 367 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Halder, and M. Nathanson, Entangle- ment as a resource for local state discrimination in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A94, 022311 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    C. Zhu, Z. Liu, C. Zhu, and X. Wang, Limitations of classi- cally simulable measurements for quantum state discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010202 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Wang and Y

    Y . Wang and Y . Li, Indistinguishability of quantum channels by using classically simulable measurements, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.59, 285303 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    S. M. Cohen, Understanding entanglement as resource: locally distinguishing unextendible product bases, Phys. Rev. A77, 012304 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    Turgut, Catalytic transformations for bipartite pure states, J

    S. Turgut, Catalytic transformations for bipartite pure states, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 12185 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    C. Zhu, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, and X. Wang, Entanglement cost of 14 discriminating quantum states under locality constraints, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory71, 2826 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Datta, T

    C. Datta, T. V . Kondra, M. Miller, and A. Streltsov, Catalysis of entanglement and other quantum resources, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 116002 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Wang and Y

    Y . Wang and Y . Li, Irreversibility of bound magic states assisted by catalysis, Phys. Rev. A114, 012427 (2026)

    2026

  33. [33]

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

    2021

  34. [34]

    Lipka-Bartosik and P

    P. Lipka-Bartosik and P. Skrzypczyk, Catalytic quantum tele- portation, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 080502 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Takagi and N

    R. Takagi and N. Shiraishi, Correlation in catalysts enables ar- bitrary manipulation of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 240501 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, Four locally indistinguishable ququad-ququad orthogonal maximally entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 020506 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Konig, U

    R. Konig, U. Maurer, and R. Renner, On the power of quantum memory, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory51, 2391 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Memory ef- fects in quantum channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 180501 (2008)

    2008

  39. [39]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, D. W. Leung, and J. Watrous, Adaptive versus nonadaptive strategies for quantum channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. A81, 032339 (2010)

    2010

  40. [40]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1997)

    1997

  41. [41]

    S. Sen, E. P. Lobo, S. G. Naik, R. K. Patra, T. Gupta, S. B. Ghosh, S. Saha, M. Alimuddin, T. Guha, S. S. Bhattacharya, and M. Banik, Local quantum state marking, Phys. Rev. A105, 032407 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Philip and A

    A. Philip and A. Streltsov, Robustness of quantum data hiding against entangled catalysts and memory, arXiv:2511.04408

    arXiv

  43. [43]

    Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc

    J. Schwinger, Unitary operator bases, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA46, 570 (1960)

    1960

  44. [44]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Transforming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps, Europhys. Lett.83, 30004 (2008)

    2008

  45. [45]

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y . Su, Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090505 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Gross, Hudson’s Theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems, J

    D. Gross, Hudson’s Theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems, J. Math. Phys.47, 122107 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y . Su, Quantifying the magic of quantum channels, New J. Phys.21, 103002 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    G. L. Monaco, S. Lorenzo, A. Ferraro, M. Paternostro, G. M. Palma, and L. Innocenti, The non-stabilizerness cost of quan- tum state estimation, arXiv:2510.00157

    arXiv

  49. [49]

    Pashayan, J

    H. Pashayan, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, Estimating out- come probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 070501 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V . Veitch, and J. Emerson, Contextual- ity supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation, Nature510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Matthews, S

    W. Matthews, S. Wehner, and A. Winter, Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements with an application to quantum data hiding, Commun. Math. Phys. 291, 813 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    M. D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex ma- trices, Linear Algebra Appl.10, 285 (1975)

    1975

  53. [53]

    Wang and Y

    Y . Wang and Y . Li, Using magic resource to realize probabilistic channel simulation, Phys. Rev. A113, 042438 (2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    A. S. Holevo, Quantum coding theorems, Russ. Math. Surv.53, 1295 (1998)

    1998

  55. [55]

    Piani, Relative entropy of entanglement and restricted mea- surements, Phys

    M. Piani, Relative entropy of entanglement and restricted mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 160504 (2009)

    2009

  56. [56]

    S. M. Ross, Stochastic processes, John Wiley & Sons, 1995

    1995

  57. [57]

    Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep

    A. Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Math. Phys.3, 275 (1972)

    1972

  58. [58]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis, An operational approach to quan- tum probability, Commun. Math. Phys.17, 239 (1970)

    1970

  59. [59]

    Khatri and M

    S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, Principles of quantum communica- tion theory: A modern approach, arXiv:2011.04672

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    can improve the discrimination power of CSMs is also a worthwhile direction for future research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was supported by National Nat- ural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.12471437,12201484,12071271), and Shaanxi Fun- damental Science Research Project for Mathematics and Physics (Grant No.23JSZ011). 13 APPENDIX A According to th...

  61. [61]

    Azuma, Weighted sums of certain dependent random vari- ables, Tohoku Math

    K. Azuma, Weighted sums of certain dependent random vari- ables, Tohoku Math. J., second series19, 357 (1967)

    1967

  62. [62]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer R ´enyi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Wang and Y

    Y . Wang and Y . Li, Stabilizer R´enyi entropy on qudits, Quantum Inf. Process.22, 444 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    E. T. Campbell, Catalysis and activation of magic states in fault- tolerant architectures, Phys. Rev. A83, 032317 (2011)

    2011

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.