Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 69 references

No-Go Theorems for Quantum Resource Purification

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Any full-rank noisy quantum state cannot be purified into a pure resource state by free operations, even by a protocol allowed to fail.

desk verdict Solid no-go theorem for resource purification, but the magic-state overhead claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02540 v4 pith:2BM7WFGD submitted 2019-09-05 quant-ph

Kun Fang , Zi-Wen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumresourcetheorypurificationno-gotheoremhypothesistestingrelativeentropymagicstatedistillationgeneralizedrobustnessoverhead
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

Quantum resources such as entanglement, coherence, and magic states cannot be perfectly purified from noisy inputs. The paper proves a general theorem: from any full-rank noisy state that is itself a resource state, and toward any pure resource target, every protocol built from operations that cannot create the resource for free obeys a strict tradeoff between error and success probability, $\epsilon/p \ge \lambda_{\min}(\rho)(1-f_\psi)/(1+R(\rho))$. Since the right side is always positive, exact purification is impossible even if the protocol is allowed to fail sometimes. The same inequality translates into explicit lower bounds on how many copies of a noisy state are needed to distill a target, including the first such lower bounds for magic state distillation, a leading route to fault-tolerant quantum computing. If the theorem is right, these limits apply to any reasonable resource theory at once, not to any particular purification scheme.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the quantum hypothesis testing relative entropy $D^\epsilon_H(\rho\|\sigma)=-\log\min\{\operatorname{Tr} M\sigma : \operatorname{Tr}\rho M\ge 1-\epsilon,\ 0\le M\le 1\}$, used as a resource monotone. Its decisive property, proven in Lemma S1, is that for full-rank $\rho$ it vanishes and is continuous at $\epsilon=0$: for $0\le\epsilon<\lambda_{\min}(\rho)$, $D^\epsilon_H(\rho\|\sigma)\le \log\frac{\lambda_{\min}(\rho)}{\lambda_{\min}(\rho)-\epsilon}$. Monotonicity under free operations then forces any free protocol's output to keep a positive distance from the pure target, because the target's minimum distance to the free set, $-\log f_\psi$, cannot be crossed from a full-rank state. The generalized robustness $R(\rho)$ enters through Lemma S3, bounding how much a free sub-operation's success probability on a free state can exceed its success probability on $\rho$, which yields the $(1+R(\rho))^{-1}$ factor in the probabilistic bound.

What would settle it

Provide a concrete free probabilistic operation, in any specific resource theory, that maps a full-rank $\rho\notin\mathcal{F}$ to a pure $\psi\notin\mathcal{F}$ with zero error and positive success probability, or with $\epsilon/p$ smaller than the theorem's bound; a single such example, or a numerical search finding states and channels that violate the inequality in small dimensions, would refute the claim. Absent that, checking the best known entanglement or magic-state distillation protocols against the bounds would confirm whether the limits are approachable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is stated as Theorem 1: for any full-rank primitive state $\rho\notin\mathcal{F}$ and any pure target resource state $\psi\notin\mathcal{F}$, every free probabilistic protocol satisfies $$\frac{\epsilon}{p}\;\ge\;\frac{\lambda_{\min}(\rho)\,(1-f_\psi)}{1+R(\rho)},$$ where $\lambda_{\min}(\rho)$ is the smallest eigenvalue of $\rho$, $f_\psi=\max_{\omega\in\mathcal{F}}\operatorname{Tr}(\psi\omega)$ is the largest overlap of the target with the free set, and $R(\rho)$ is the generalized robustness of $\rho$, a noise-tolerance measure of the input. Setting $\epsilon=0$ immediately gives Corollary 2: exact purification is impossible, even probabilistically. For deterministic protocols ($p=1$) the bound sharpens to $\epsilon\ge\lambda_{\min}(\rho)(1-f_\psi)$. Lifting the argument to multiple copies yields Theorem 3, a required-copy lower bound $n\ge \log_{\frac{1+R(\hat\rho)}{\lambda_{\min}(\hat\rho)}}\frac{(1-f_\psi)p}{\epsilon}$ for distillation, and Theorem 4 applies it to magic state distillation, bounding the average overhead $n/m$ of producing many approximate $T$-states. The final channel version (Theorem S1) shows that a noisy channel with a free component cannot be perfectly transformed into a unitary resource channel by free superchannels, which makes the zero-error quantum capacity of such channels zero.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the input noisy state is full-rank, meaning it has nonzero probability in every orthogonal direction; if any eigenvalue is zero, the continuity step at zero error fails and the no-go bound becomes trivial, leaving pure or rank-deficient inputs outside the theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact resource purification is impossible: Corollary 2 rules out zero-error conversion of a full-rank primitive state to any pure target resource state by any free protocol, including probabilistic ones.
  • Distillation overhead must grow at least logarithmically: for protocols with nonvanishing success probability, the total number of copies needed to reach error $\epsilon$ scales at least as $\Omega(\log(1/\epsilon))$ as $\epsilon\to0$.
  • Magic state distillation has explicit resource cost lower bounds: the average overhead obeys the bound in Eq. (6), and in particular no $[n,k,d]$ code with $k\le d$ can achieve sublogarithmic overhead, giving $\gamma\ge1$ for $k=1$ codes.
  • Any protocol that does achieve sublogarithmic overhead must use codes with $k>d$ and its output size must diverge under concatenation as $\epsilon$ shrinks.
  • The analogous channel no-go says that a noisy channel containing a free component cannot be perfectly simulated into a unitary resource channel, so its zero-error quantum capacity is zero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bound suggests an 'accuracy tax' for probabilistic purification: because the $(1+R(\rho))^{-1}$ factor only shrinks the allowed region, allowing a protocol to fail never removes the error floor; one could test whether the bound is tight by designing theories where $\epsilon = p\,\lambda_{\min}(\rho)(1-f_\psi)/(1+R(\rho))$ is approached.
  • If the same no-go extends to approximate simulation of channels, near-zero-error communication over depolarizing channels would face a similar logarithmic resource cost, connecting directly to strong-converse questions in quantum Shannon theory.
  • The full-rank assumption marks a genuine boundary: states with a zero eigenvalue, such as pure states, escape the theorem, so protocols that keep every input copy strictly inside the full-rank regime remain subject to the no-go; sharpening the bound for rank-deficient inputs is a natural next step.
  • Because the target state enters only through $f_\psi$, engineering target states with larger overlap with the free set eases purification; in fault tolerance this suggests that the choice of magic-state target may matter as much as the code distance.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a quantitative no-go theorem for probabilistic purification of noisy quantum resources in any resource theory satisfying the golden rule: for any full-rank primitive state rho not in F and any pure target resource state psi not in F, any free probabilistic protocol must obey epsilon/p >= lambda_min(rho)(1 - f_psi)/(1 + R(rho)). Corollary 2 rules out perfect probabilistic purification. The proof exploits the continuity of the hypothesis-testing relative entropy near epsilon = 0 and its monotonicity under free operations. The paper then derives a lower bound on the overhead of magic-state distillation (Theorem 4) and claims that this bound rules out sublogarithmic average overhead for codes with k <= d, and it proves an analogous no-go theorem for simulating a noisy channel by a unitary resource channel in the supplemental material.

Significance. The central no-go theorem is clean, broadly applicable, and appears correct: it does not assume convexity of the free set, it covers probabilistic protocols, and it gives explicit quantitative bounds in terms of lambda_min(rho), f_psi, and R(rho). The proof is self-contained and relies on standard monotonicity of the hypothesis-testing relative entropy. These are real strengths and make the result a potentially useful general limitation on resource purification. However, the advertised magic-state-distillation scaling claim for general [[n,k,d]] codes with k > 1 is not supported by the derived inequality and needs a substantive correction; the k = 1 case is valid. The channel no-go theorem appears sound under the standard convention for min-relative entropy, though that convention should be stated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Main text, after Theorem 4 (Eq. (6))] The claim (i) that Eq. (6) rules out sublogarithmic average overhead (gamma < 1) for every [[n,k,d]] code with k <= d does not follow from the bound. Substituting m = k^nu and L = log(1/epsilon) ~ d^nu gives C >= (1/m) log_B(1/(m epsilon)) approximately L/m = L^{1 - log_d k}, up to the slowly varying log(1/m) factor. For any k > 1 this exponent is strictly less than 1, and for k = d it is zero; hence Eq. (6) permits gamma < 1 in these cases. The argument supports only the k = 1 case, where the exponent is 1. Please either restrict claim (i) to k = 1 or supply a corrected derivation that accounts for the growth of the output size m; as written, the advertised resolution of the open question on sublogarithmic overhead for k > 1 codes is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (2) and (6)] The base of the logarithm is not clearly separated from its argument in Eqs. (2) and (6); please typeset it explicitly as log_B with B = (1 + R(rho))/lambda_min(rho), or with the corresponding base for the deterministic bound, to remove the ambiguity.
  2. [Theorem 3] The phrase 'for sufficiently small epsilon' in Theorem 3 is not quantified in the statement; the proof makes the threshold dependent on rho, psi, and p, so a precise condition such as epsilon < p(1 + R(rho))^{-1}(1 - f_psi) (or the triviality threshold from Eq. (2)) would make the theorem easier to use and verify.
  3. [Abstract and Corollary 2] The full-rank assumption is load-bearing: Lemma S1 requires epsilon < lambda_min(rho), and Corollary 2 is stated only for full-rank inputs. The abstract says 'generic noisy resources,' but states with a zero eigenvalue are excluded; please state this restriction in the abstract so that the scope of the impossibility claim is not overstated.
  4. [Paragraph after Theorem 4] The condition 'assuming nonvanishing success probability (the passing probability of deeper rounds of concatenation converges sufficiently fast to one)' is too vague to support the asymptotic claims; the proof of implications (i) and (ii) should state explicitly how p behaves as nu grows and how m and epsilon are related.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go theorem is derived from the data-processing inequality and a self-contained continuity lemma, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The central result, Theorem 1, is derived from the monotonicity of the quantum hypothesis testing relative entropy under free operations together with Lemma S1, a self-contained continuity bound valid for full-rank states near epsilon = 0. The full-rank assumption is explicitly stated rather than hidden, and the bound epsilon/p >= lambda_min(rho)(1 - f_psi)/(1 + R(rho)) is not obtained by fitting or by assuming the no-go conclusion. Theorem 3 follows by tensoring rho and using the definition of generalized robustness, and Theorem 4 is a direct substitution of the known value f_{T^otimes m} = (4 - 2 sqrt(2))^{-m}, which is cited to multiple independent sources and is not the target claim. The self-citations to one-shot resource theory results (Refs. [19, 20, 22], etc.) are not load-bearing for the proof of the no-go theorem; the monotonicity and continuity steps are the operative ingredients. The skeptical concern about the code-scaling claim (i) after Theorem 4 is a mathematical correctness issue about substituting m = k^nu and log(1/epsilon) ~ d^nu into Eq. (6), not a circularity: the bound may fail to imply gamma >= 1 for k > 1, but that does not mean the derivation reduces to its inputs. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The manuscript's statements about limitations (e.g., the full-rank assumption and follow-up improvements) are consistent with the actual proof. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems introduce no fitted constants or new entities. They rely on standard resource-theory axioms (golden rule, tensor closure, topological closure), the full-rank assumption on the noisy state, and standard data-processing inequalities. The quantities λ_min(ρ), R(ρ), f_ψ are determined by the state, target, and theory, not chosen to fit data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The set of free states F is topologically closed and there exists a pure resource state ψ not in F.
    Stated in the introduction on page 2: 'technically, F is topologically closed and ∃ψ /∈ F'.
  • domain assumption The set of free states F is closed under tensor products: ω ∈ F implies ω^⊗n ∈ F.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3: 'where ω^⊗n∈F axiomatically [42]'.
  • domain assumption Free probabilistic protocols are modeled by suboperations O_sub that map free states to subnormalized free states (golden rule).
    Defined before Theorem 1; the proof of the probabilistic case relies on Lemma S3 and the flag model.
  • domain assumption The primitive state ρ is full rank (λ_min(ρ) > 0).
    Needed for Lemma S1's continuity bound; the paper states this as a 'mild assumption' before Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption The hypothesis testing relative entropy D^ε_H satisfies the data-processing inequality under free operations.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 1 and Lemma S4; cited to Ref [47]. It is a standard theorem in quantum information theory.
  • domain assumption Every quantum superchannel can be implemented by pre- and post-processings (Chiribella et al.).
    Used in the proof of Lemma S4 to establish monotonicity of min-relative entropy for channels; cited to Ref [67].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No-Go Theorems for Quantum Resource Purification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BM7WFGD

@misc{pith2026190902540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No-Go Theorems for Quantum Resource Purification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BM7WFGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02540}
}
read the original abstract

The manipulation of quantum "resources" such as entanglement, coherence and magic states lies at the heart of quantum science and technology, empowering potential advantages over classical methods. In practice, a particularly important kind of manipulation is to "purify" the quantum resources, since they are inevitably contaminated by noise and thus often lose their power or become unreliable for direct usage. Here we prove fundamental limitations on how effectively generic noisy resources can be purified enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which universally apply to any reasonable kind of quantum resource. More explicitly, we derive nontrivial lower bounds on the error of converting any full-rank noisy state to any target pure resource state by any free protocol (including probabilistic ones)---it is impossible to achieve perfect resource purification, even probabilistically. Our theorems indicate strong limits on the efficiency of distillation, a widely used type of resource purification routine that underpins many key applications of quantum information science. In particular, this general result induces the first explicit lower bounds on the resource cost of magic state distillation, a leading scheme for realizing scalable fault-tolerant quantum computation. Implications for the standard error-correction-based methods are specifically discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02540 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A qubit coherence theory example illustrated using FIG. 2. A qubit coherence theory example illustrated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum technology: thesecond quantumrevolution,

    Jonathan P. Dowling and Gerard J. Milburn, “Quantum technology: thesecond quantumrevolution,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A361, 1655–1674 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang,Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    A single quantum can- not be cloned,

    W K Wootters and W H Zurek, “A single quantum can- not be cloned,” Nature299, 802–803 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Communication by EPR devices,

    D Dieks, “Communication by EPR devices,” Physics Let- ters A 92, 271–272 (1982)

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    Peter W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,” Phys. Rev. A52, R2493– R2496 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Error correcting codes in quantum the- ory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum the- ory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793–797 (1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Quantum cryp- tography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard, “Quantum cryp- tography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” in International Conference on Computers, Systems & Sig- nal Processing, Bangalore, India, Dec 9-12, 1984 (1984) pp. 175–179

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    Quantum cloning,

    ValerioScarani, SofyanIblisdir, NicolasGisin, andAnto- nio Acín, “Quantum cloning,” Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 1225– 1256 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    The no-cloning the- orem,

    Bill Wootters and Wojciech Zurek, “The no-cloning the- orem,” Physics Today62, 76 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Quantum entanglement,

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,

    Alexander Streltsov, Gerardo Adesso, and Martin B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,” Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, “Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    The resource theory of sta- bilizer quantum computation,

    Victor Veitch, S A Hamed Mousavian, Daniel Gottes- man, and Joseph Emerson, “The resource theory of sta- bilizer quantum computation,” New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    QuantumComputingintheNISQeraand beyond,

    JohnPreskill,“QuantumComputingintheNISQeraand beyond,” Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations,

    Charles H. Bennett, Herbert J. Bernstein, Sandu Popescu, and Benjamin Schumacher, “Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations,” Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046–2052 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faith- ful teleportation via noisy channels,

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faith- ful teleportation via noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722–725 (1996)

    1996

  9. [17]

    Mixed-state entan- glement and quantum error correction,

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entan- glement and quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. A54, 3824–3851 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Operational resource theory of coherence,

    Andreas Winter and Dong Yang, “Operational resource theory of coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Probabilistic Distillation of Quan- tum Coherence,

    Kun Fang, Xin Wang, Ludovico Lami, Bartosz Regula, and Gerardo Adesso, “Probabilistic Distillation of Quan- tum Coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 070404 (2018), 1804.09500

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    One-shot coherence distillation,

    Bartosz Regula, Kun Fang, Xin Wang, and Gerardo Adesso, “One-shot coherence distillation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 010401 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Quantum resource the- ories,

    Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour, “Quantum resource the- ories,” Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019). 6

    2019

  14. [22]

    One-shot operational quantum resource theory,

    Zi-Wen Liu, Kaifeng Bu, and Ryuji Takagi, “One-shot operational quantum resource theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 020401 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

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

    F. G. S. L. Brandao and N. Datta, “One-shot rates for entanglement manipulation under non-entangling maps,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory57, 1754–1760 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Non- asymptotic entanglement distillation,

    K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and R. Duan, “Non- asymptotic entanglement distillation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 1–1 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    One-shot coherence distillation: Towards complet- ing the picture,

    Q. Zhao, Y. Liu, X. Yuan, E. Chitambar, and A. Win- ter, “One-shot coherence distillation: Towards complet- ing the picture,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 1–1 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Beyond heat baths: Generalized resource theories for small-scale thermodynamics,

    Nicole Yunger Halpern and Joseph M. Renes, “Beyond heat baths: Generalized resource theories for small-scale thermodynamics,” Phys. Rev. E93, 022126 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation,

    Xin Wang, Mark M. Wilde, and Yuan Su, “Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 090505 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. W. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” in Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Com- puter Science (1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  21. [29]

    Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,

    Earl T. Campbell, Barbara M. Terhal, and Christophe Vuillot, “Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,” Nature549, 172 EP – (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Magic-state distilla- tion with low overhead,

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah, “Magic-state distilla- tion with low overhead,” Phys. Rev. A86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Distillation with sublogarithmic overhead,

    Matthew B. Hastings and Jeongwan Haah, “Distillation with sublogarithmic overhead,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 050504 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Magic state distillation with low space over- head and optimal asymptotic input count,

    Jeongwan Haah, Matthew B. Hastings, D. Poulin, and D. Wecker, “Magic state distillation with low space over- head and optimal asymptotic input count,” Quantum1, 31 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Codes and Protocols for Distilling T, controlled-S, and Toffoli Gates,

    Jeongwan Haah and Matthew B. Hastings, “Codes and Protocols for Distilling T, controlled-S, and Toffoli Gates,” Quantum2, 71 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Comparison of quantum channels by su- perchannels,

    G. Gour, “Comparison of quantum channels by su- perchannels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory65, 5880–5904 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Entanglement cost and quantum chan- nel simulation,

    Mark M. Wilde, “Entanglement cost and quantum chan- nel simulation,” Phys. Rev. A98, 042338 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Quantifying the resource content of quantum channels: An operational approach,

    Lu Li, Kaifeng Bu, and Zi-Wen Liu, “Quantifying the resource content of quantum channels: An operational approach,” Phys. Rev. A101, 022335 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Quantifying operations with an applica- tion to coherence,

    Thomas Theurer, Dario Egloff, Lijian Zhang, and Mar- tin B. Plenio, “Quantifying operations with an applica- tion to coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 190405 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    General resource the- ories in quantum mechanics and beyond: Operational characterization via discrimination tasks,

    Ryuji Takagi and Bartosz Regula, “General resource the- ories in quantum mechanics and beyond: Operational characterization via discrimination tasks,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031053 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Operational resource the- ory of quantum channels,

    Yunchao Liu and Xiao Yuan, “Operational resource the- ory of quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012035 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Resource theories of quantum channels and the universal role of re- source erasure,

    Zi-Wen Liu and Andreas Winter, “Resource theories of quantum channels and the universal role of re- source erasure,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.04201 (2019), arXiv:1904.04201 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    How to quantify a dynamical quantum resource,

    Gilad Gour and Andreas Winter, “How to quantify a dynamical quantum resource,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 150401 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Reversible framework for quantum resource theories,

    Fernando G. S. L. Brandão and Gilad Gour, “Reversible framework for quantum resource theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 070503 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Resource destroying maps,

    Zi-Wen Liu, Xueyuan Hu, and Seth Lloyd, “Resource destroying maps,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 060502 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Operational advantage of quantum resources in subchannel discrimination,

    Ryuji Takagi, Bartosz Regula, Kaifeng Bu, Zi-Wen Liu, and Gerardo Adesso, “Operational advantage of quantum resources in subchannel discrimination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140402 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quan- tum resource theories,

    Bartosz Regula, Kaifeng Bu, Ryuji Takagi, and Zi-Wen Liu, “Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quan- tum resource theories,” Phys. Rev. A101, 062315 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    The Quantum Capacity of Channels With Arbitrarily Correlated Noise,

    F. Buscemi and N. Datta, “The Quantum Capacity of Channels With Arbitrarily Correlated Noise,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory56, 1447–1460 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    One-shot classical- quantum capacity and hypothesis testing,

    Ligong Wang and Renato Renner, “One-shot classical- quantum capacity and hypothesis testing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 200501 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Coherence distillation machines are im- possible in quantum thermodynamics,

    Iman Marvian, “Coherence distillation machines are im- possible in quantum thermodynamics,” Nat. Comm.11, 1–9 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Quanti- fying coherence,

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, “Quanti- fying coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound,

    Daniel Gottesman, “Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum hamming bound,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 1862–1868 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    thesis, California Institute of Technol- ogy (1997)

    Daniel Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technol- ogy (1997)

    1997

  44. [52]

    Quantum error correction and orthogonal geom- etry,

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum error correction and orthogonal geom- etry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 405–408 (1997)

    1997

  45. [53]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers,

    Daniel Gottesman, “The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers,” arXiv e-prints , quant- ph/9807006 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    1998

  46. [54]

    Improved sim- ulation of stabilizer circuits,

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman, “Improved sim- ulation of stabilizer circuits,” Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Demonstrat- ing the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations,

    Daniel Gottesman and Isaac L. Chuang, “Demonstrat- ing the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations,” Nature402, 390–393 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    Application of a re- source theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    Mark Howard and Earl Campbell, “Application of a re- source theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations,

    James R. Seddon and Earl T. Campbell, “Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 475, 20190251 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Quantifying themagicofquantumchannels,

    Xin Wang, Mark M Wilde, and Yuan Su, “Quantifying themagicofquantumchannels,” NewJ.Phys. 21,103002 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations,

    Michael Beverland, Earl Campbell, Mark Howard, and Vadym Kliuchnikov, “Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.01124 (2019), arXiv:1904.01124 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Catalysis and activation of magic states in fault-tolerant architectures,

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

    2011

  53. [61]

    Improvedclassicalsim- ulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,

    SergeyBravyiandDavidGosset,“Improvedclassicalsim- ulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,

    Sergey Bravyi, Dan Browne, Padraic Calpin, Earl Camp- bell, David Gosset, and Mark Howard, “Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,” Quantum 3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Towards low 7 overhead magic state distillation,

    Anirudh Krishna and Jean-Pierre Tillich, “Towards low 7 overhead magic state distillation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070507 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Optimized Entanglement Purification,

    Stefan Krastanov, Victor V. Albert, and Liang Jiang, “Optimized Entanglement Purification,” Quantum3, 123 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor,

    Frank Arute et al., “Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor,” Nature 574, 505–510 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Roger A Horn and Charles R Johnson,Matrix Analysis (Cambridge university press, 2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Trans- forming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, “Trans- forming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps,” Eu- rophys. Lett. 83, 30004 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Quantum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max-information,

    Kun Fang, Xin Wang, Marco Tomamichel, and Mario Berta, “Quantum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max-information,” in2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2018) pp. 2326–2330

    2018

  61. [69]

    Quantum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max-information,

    K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and M. Berta, “Quantum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max-information,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory66, 2129– 2140 (2020). 8 Supplemental Materials: No-Go Theorems for Quantum Resource Purification In the Supplemental Materials, we provi...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.