Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Improving quantum channel discrimination with resourceful states

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In any resource theory of quantum states, the generalized robustness of a state is exactly the maximum factor by which it improves one-shot quantum channel discrimination over the best free state.

desk verdict The main equality G=1+R is correct and significant, but the bound-resource characterization in Section III is wrong for non-closed free sets and the abstract overclaims as a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09205 v4 pith:EGIXBM5P submitted 2025-01-15 quant-ph

Kenji Nakahira This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P5081P45
keywords quantumchanneldiscriminationresourcetheoriesofstatesgeneralizedrobustnessoperationalquantificationone-shotboundauxiliarysystemsinconvex
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to prove that, in any resource theory of quantum states, the generalized robustness of a state is exactly the operational advantage that state provides in one-shot quantum channel discrimination. Concretely, the maximum ratio between the success probability achievable with a given state and the success probability achievable with the best free state equals $1+R_F(\rho)$, where $R_F(\rho)$ is the robustness relative to the free set $F$. The equality holds for every convex free set, extends to nonconvex free sets through their convex hull, and also holds when the discriminator is allowed an auxiliary system, provided the robustness is evaluated against $\operatorname{co}F_C$, the convex hull of all states reachable from free states by local channels on that system. A reader should care because robustness is a computable convex-programming quantity, so this gives a universal operational meaning to it and closes an open question left by earlier work limited to entanglement, coherence, steering, and asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized robustness $R_F(\rho)=\min\{\lambda\ge 0:(\rho+\lambda\tau)/(1+\lambda)\in F,\ \tau\in\mathrm{Den}_A\}$, together with its Lagrange dual $R_F(\rho)=\max\{\operatorname{Tr}(x\rho)-1: x\ge 0,\ \operatorname{Tr}(x\omega)\le 1\ \forall\omega\in F\}$. The lower-bound direction uses the dual optimizer $x^\star$ to define an effect $e=x^\star/\|x^\star\|_\infty$ and a family of group-covariant channels built from generalized Pauli-$X$ shifts; a symmetrization step ensures the success-probability ratio for this family collapses to $\operatorname{Tr}(e\rho)/\sup_{\omega\in F}\operatorname{Tr}(e\omega)$, which is at least $1+R_F(\rho)$ by duality. The auxiliary-system extension replaces the simple measurement by a maximally entangled state and a decomposition into subchannels, with the free-set condition guaranteeing that local operations on the auxiliary system keep free states free.

What would settle it

Compute $R_F(\rho)$ for a small finite-dimensional convex free set and state by solving the dual program, construct the paper's channel ensemble from the optimizer, and check the measured success-probability ratio; a ratio strictly larger than $1+R_F(\rho)$ would refute Theorem 1, while the theorem predicts the constructed ensemble reaches the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an identity: the discrimination power $G(\rho,F)=\sup_{\{p_n,\Lambda_n\}}P_S(\rho;\{p_n,\Lambda_n\})/\sup_{\omega\in F}P_S(\omega;\{p_n,\Lambda_n\})$ satisfies $G(\rho,F)=1+R_F(\rho)$ for every convex free-state set $F$, and $G(\rho,F)=1+R_{\operatorname{co}F}(\rho)$ for every set $F$. When an auxiliary system $C$ is used, the statement becomes $G_C(\rho,F)=1+R_{\operatorname{co}F_C}(\rho)$, where $F_C$ is the set obtained from $F$ by applying arbitrary local channels on $C$. The proof constructs explicit channel ensembles from the optimizer of a dual convex program, showing the bound is attainable, and it identifies the states that give no discrimination advantage, the bound resource states, as precisely the states in the convex hull of the free set.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the standard strong-duality fact that the convex program defining generalized robustness attains its optimum for every closed convex free set containing a full-rank state, because the explicit channel ensemble is built from that optimizer; the auxiliary-system version also assumes the free set is preserved by local operations on the ancilla, or else the statement is read with the enlarged set $F_C$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In every convex resource theory, the generalized robustness is not merely a mathematical quantifier: it is the exact factor by which a resourceful state can outperform all free states in a one-shot channel-discrimination test.
  • A non-free state is useless for one-shot channel discrimination exactly when it lies in the convex hull of the free set; if the free set is convex and closed, every resource state is useful in some discrimination task.
  • Allowing an auxiliary system does not escape the robustness bound: the ancilla-assisted discrimination power is still $1+$ robustness, now computed against $\operatorname{co}F_C$, so ancillas enlarge the relevant free hull rather than bypass the formula.
  • Because robustness is the optimal value of a convex program, the discrimination power can be obtained by standard convex-optimization methods in any finite-dimensional resource theory, not only in the special theories previously solved.
  • The equality $G_C(\rho,F)=G(\rho,F_C)$ gives a criterion for when ancillas help: the ancilla-assisted and bare discrimination powers coincide for every state exactly when $\operatorname{co}F=\operatorname{co}F_C$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is the multi-shot or adaptive setting: the proof here is one-shot, and a natural conjecture, which is my inference rather than the paper's, is that the corresponding long-run advantage would be governed by a regularized robustness.
  • The explicit dual-optimizer construction suggests an experimental recipe for saturating the bound with a finite channel ensemble whose size is set by the spectral norm of the optimizer; the paper does not spell this out.
  • For nonconvex resource theories, the theorem says that only the convex hull of the free set matters for this task, which implies that 'bound' resources in any such theory are exactly the states inside that hull; testing this against particular nonconvex resources such as magic or imaginarity would be a further application beyond the paper's own case studies.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies single-shot quantum channel discrimination and asks how much the maximum average success probability can be improved by using a resource state ρ instead of the best free state. The main quantity is the discrimination power G(ρ,F), defined as the supremum over channel discrimination ensembles of the ratio between the success probability with ρ and that with the best free state. Theorem 1 states that for any convex free set F, G(ρ,F)=1+R_F(ρ), where R_F is the generalized robustness. Corollary 2 extends this to arbitrary (possibly nonconvex) F via G(ρ,F)=G(ρ,coF)=1+R_coF(ρ). Theorem 3 extends the equality to protocols with an auxiliary system C when the free set preserves operations on C, and Corollary 4 gives the general auxiliary-system formula GC(ρ,F)=1+R_coFC(ρ). The paper also characterizes 'bound resource states' (resource states with G=1) and discusses the difference between G and the previously studied quantity H defined in Eq. (8). The proofs are detailed and mostly self-contained, with appendices covering group-covariant measurements, the auxiliary-system construction, and degeneracies when no positive-definite free state exists.

Significance. If the central equalities hold, the paper resolves a natural open question from Ref. [41] by giving the generalized robustness an exact operational meaning as the maximum attainable advantage in one-shot channel discrimination, both with and without auxiliary systems. This is a clean and broadly applicable result: it unifies earlier special-case results for entanglement, coherence, asymmetry, and steering, and it provides a concrete recipe for constructing discrimination ensembles that achieve the bound. The auxiliary-system result is particularly valuable because such exact quantifications were previously known only in special cases. The paper also usefully clarifies the distinction between the discrimination power G and the earlier measure H. The mathematical core of Theorems 1 and 3 appears sound and the proofs are carefully structured. However, the paper's advertised 'full characterization' of resource states is stated too broadly: the bound-resource-state characterization in Section III is false for non-closed free sets, and this needs correction before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, paragraph after Corollary 2] The statement 'ρ ∉ F being a bound resource state is equivalent to ρ ∈ co F' is false when co F is not closed. Counterexample: let F be the qubit state space minus the pure state |0⟩⟨0|. This F is convex, contains positive-definite states, and satisfies co F = F. For ρ = |0⟩⟨0| we have ρ ∉ F and ρ ∉ co F. However, for every λ > 0 the state (ρ + λ|1⟩⟨1|)/(1+λ) is a non-extreme mixed state lying in F, so R_coF(ρ) = 0. Corollary 2 then gives G(ρ,F) = 1, making ρ a bound resource state by the paper's own definition, even though ρ ∉ co F. The correct equivalence is ρ ∈ cl(co F) \ F. This error propagates to the abstract's claim that 'resources can be fully characterized' for arbitrary (possibly non-closed) free sets and to Figure 1, whose gray areas should be cl(co F) \ F and cl(co FC) \ F rather than co F \ F and co FC \ F. The main equalities of Theorem 1 and Corollary 2 are not affected, but the characterization claim needs to be revised.
  2. [Abstract and Section III, bound-state characterization] The paper claims that 'there are no bound resource states if and only if F is convex and closed.' This biconditional is in fact correct, but the reasoning given in Section III is incomplete: the proof uses the erroneous equivalence ρ ∈ co F instead of ρ ∈ cl(co F). Since the 'if' direction is immediate and the 'only if' direction follows from R_coF(ρ) = 0 iff ρ ∈ cl(co F), the statement should be derived from the closure-corrected characterization. The current text, as written, gives a false intermediate statement that could mislead readers about the role of topological closure in nonconvex resource theories.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 1 proof, Eq. (5)] The proof assumes the existence of an optimal solution x⋆ of the dual problem (5) and uses the equality Tr(x⋆ρ) = 1 + R_F(ρ). This is a standard strong-duality result for closed convex F containing a positive-definite state, but it is cited from Ref. [49] rather than proved. Since the proof has already reduced to closed F, a brief explicit statement that Slater's condition guarantees attainment would make the argument self-contained at this point.
  2. [Theorem 1 proof, first paragraph] The identities G(ρ,F) = G(ρ,cl F) and R_F(ρ) = R_clF(ρ) are asserted without proof. They are true because the success probability and the feasibility condition in Eq. (3) are continuous in the state, but a one-sentence justification would improve readability.
  3. [Theorem 3 and Appendix C, notation] The symbol C is used both for the auxiliary system in the discrimination problem and for the output system of the subchannels Λ̃_n in Lemma 6 and Lemma 7. This overloading makes the proof of Theorem 3 significantly harder to follow; renaming one of the two systems (e.g., calling the channel output system D) would clarify the construction.
  4. [Eq. (7) and Lemma 6] The channels in Eq. (7) and the subchannels in Lemma 6 involve denominators N−1. The proof chooses N large enough (N ≥ 2), but this is not stated explicitly at the point of definition; adding 'with N ≥ 2' would avoid a momentary division-by-zero concern.
  5. [Appendix B, Lemma 5] In the proof that Π^sym is a measurement, the line 'U_h(I_NB) = I_NB' appears after summing over g; the text is correct but could be compressed. More importantly, the equality PS(σ,Π;·) = PS(σ,Π^sym;·) is derived for equal priors, which is used later; this restriction should be mentioned in the lemma statement for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: G and robustness are independently defined, and the lower-bound proof explicitly constructs channels from the dual optimizer rather than assuming the equality.

full rationale

The central claims are self-contained in the relevant sense. The discrimination power G(rho,F) in Eq. (2) and the robustness R_F(rho) in Eq. (3) are defined independently, and Theorem 1 proves equality in both directions. The upper bound uses only the defining mixture property of R_F. The lower bound takes the dual optimizer x* of the standard robustness optimization problem in Eq. (5) and explicitly constructs a covariant collection of channels in Eq. (7) for which the success-probability ratio reaches Tr(x*rho), so the equality is not assumed by construction. No free parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity, and no prediction is renamed as a definition. The only imported mathematical ingredient is the Lagrange-dual characterization of R_F, cited as an external, standard convex-optimization fact from Ref. [49]; that reference is not authored by this paper's author and does not itself contain the target equality. The same dual characterization, together with explicit subchannel constructions, is used for the auxiliary-system extension in Theorem 3 and Corollary 4. The single self-citation, Ref. [14], concerns a different upper/lower bound result and is not load-bearing for the present theorems. There is a separate correctness concern that the Section III claim identifying bound resource states with membership in coF is false for non-closed free sets, since a state can have zero robustness without lying in coF; that is a mathematical caveat, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on finite-dimensional quantum mechanics, the standard dual characterization of robustness, and a technical condition on the free set. No fitted parameters or invented entities appear. The auxiliary-system proof adds a closure condition on the free set under local operations on C.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces for all systems A, B, and C.
    All definitions and proofs use matrices and compactness of the state space; infinite-dimensional extensions are not treated here.
  • standard math Strong duality holds between the robustness primal problem in Eq. (3) and its Lagrange dual in Eq. (5).
    The lower bound in Theorem 1 relies on the existence of an optimal x* achieving R_F(rho); the paper cites Ref. [49] rather than proving Slater conditions or dual attainment.
  • domain assumption F contains at least one positive definite matrix, or the general case is handled through convex hulls as in Appendix D.
    R_F(rho) is stated to be well-defined when F contains a positive definite matrix; the degenerate case is delegated to Appendix D and expressed through coF and coF_C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving quantum channel discrimination with resourceful states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGIXBM5P

@misc{pith2026250109205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving quantum channel discrimination with resourceful states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGIXBM5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09205}
}
read the original abstract

One of the key issues in quantum discrimination problems is understanding the extent of the advantages in discrimination performance when using resource states compared to resourceless states. We show that in any resource theory of states, which may not be convex, the extent to which the maximum average success probability can be improved in quantum channel discrimination problems without using auxiliary systems can be precisely quantified by the robustness measure. This result offers an intuitive operational meaning of the robustness measure in any convex resource theory. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the robustness measure can also quantify the improvement in channel discrimination problems that use auxiliary systems. Using these findings, resources can be fully characterized to achieve higher success probabilities than any state without the given resource in channel discrimination problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The robustness of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Takagi and B

    R. Takagi and B. Regula, General resource theories in quan- tum mechanics and beyond: operational characterization via discrimination tasks, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031053 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [51]

    Regula, Convex geometry of quantum resource quantifica- tion, J

    B. Regula, Convex geometry of quantum resource quantifica- tion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 045303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [41]

    Takagi, K

    R. Takagi, K. Wang, and M. Hayashi, Application of the re- source theory of channels to communication scenarios, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120502 (2020)

    2020

  4. [1]

    Assume that F is not empty so that G(ρ, F) and RF(ρ) are well-defined for at least one state ρ∈ DenA

    Without considering auxiliary systems Let us consider the set of free statesF of an arbitrary system A. Assume that F is not empty so that G(ρ, F) and RF(ρ) are well-defined for at least one state ρ∈ DenA. For any subset T of DenA, let S T be the set of all ρ∈ DenA such that there existsω∈ T and a positive real number c satisfying cρ≤ ω. S T = DenA is equ...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Assume that F is not empty; then, the following corollary holds

    Considering auxiliary systems For any two systems A and C, let us consider the set of free states F of the composite system A⊗ C. Assume that F is not empty; then, the following corollary holds. Corollary 9 For any ρ ∈ DenA⊗C, (1) ρ ∈ S co FC, (2) Rco FC(ρ)<∞, and (3) GC(ρ, FC)<∞ are all equivalent. Proof Substituting FC for F in Lemma 8 gives (1)⇔ (2). I...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nat. Photon- ics 1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  7. [4]

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

    2017

  8. [5]

    Gisin, G

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

    2002

Show all 64 references
  1. [6]

    Acin, Statistical distinguishability between unitary opera- tions, Phys

    A. Acin, Statistical distinguishability between unitary opera- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 177901 (2001)

    2001

  2. [7]

    M. F. Sacchi, Optimal discrimination of quantum operations, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062340 (2005)

    2005

  3. [8]

    M. F. Sacchi, Entanglement can enhance the distinguishability of entanglement-breaking channels, Phys. Rev. A 72, 014305 (2005)

    2005

  4. [9]

    Li and D

    L. Li and D. Qiu, Optimal discrimination between quantum op- erations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 335302 (2008)

    2008

  5. [10]

    Matthews, M

    W. Matthews, M. Piani, and J. Watrous, Entanglement in chan- nel discrimination with restricted measurements, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032302 (2010)

    2010

  6. [11]

    Chiribella, Optimal networks for quantum metrology: semidefinite programs and product rules, New J

    G. Chiribella, Optimal networks for quantum metrology: semidefinite programs and product rules, New J. Phys. 14, 125008 (2012)

    2012

  7. [12]

    Sedl ´ak and M

    M. Sedl ´ak and M. Ziman, Optimal single-shot strategies for discrimination of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 90, 052312 (2014)

    2014

  8. [13]

    Pirandola and C

    S. Pirandola and C. Lupo, Ultimate precision of adaptive noise estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100502 (2017)

    2017

  9. [14]

    Puchała, Ł

    Z. Puchała, Ł. Pawela, A. Krawiec, and R. Kukulski, Strate- gies for optimal single-shot discrimination of quantum mea- surements, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042103 (2018)

    2018

  10. [15]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Lupo, and J. L. Pereira, Funda- mental limits to quantum channel discrimination, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 50 (2019)

    2019

  11. [16]

    Nakahira and K

    K. Nakahira and K. Kato, Simple upper and lower bounds on the ultimate success probability for discriminating arbitrary finite-dimensional quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 200502 (2021)

    2021

  12. [17]

    Piani and J

    M. Piani and J. Watrous, All entangled states are useful for channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 250501 (2009)

    2009

  13. [18]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co- herence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  14. [19]

    Winter and D

    A. Winter and D. Yang, Operational resource theory of coher- ence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

  15. [20]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2017

  16. [21]

    Theurer, N

    T. Theurer, N. Killoran, D. Eglo ff, and M. B. Plenio, Resource theory of superposition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 230401 (2017)

    2017

  17. [22]

    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). 12

    2008

  18. [23]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, How to quantify coherence: Distinguishing speakable and unspeakable notions, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052324 (2016)

    2016

  19. [24]

    Veitch, S

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

    2014

  20. [25]

    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

  21. [26]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Quantifying the non-gaussian character of a quantum state by quantum relative entropy, Phys. Rev. A78, 060303 (2008)

    2008

  22. [27]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Convex resource theory of non- gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A97, 062337 (2018)

    2018

  23. [28]

    Albarelli, M

    F. Albarelli, M. G. Genoni, M. G. Paris, and A. Ferraro, Re- source theory of quantum non-gaussianity and wigner negativ- ity, Phys. Rev. A98, 052350 (2018)

    2018

  24. [29]

    Wakakuwa, Operational resource theory of non- markovianity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07248 (2017)

    E. Wakakuwa, Operational resource theory of non- markovianity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07248 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Bhattacharya, and A. S. Majumdar, Convex resource theory of non-markovianity, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 035302 (2020)

    2020

  26. [31]

    F. G. Brandao, M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, J. M. Renes, and R. W. Spekkens, Resource theory of quantum states out of ther- mal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 250404 (2013)

    2013

  27. [32]

    G. Gour, M. P. M ¨uller, V . Narasimhachar, R. W. Spekkens, and N. Y . Halpern, The resource theory of informational nonequi- librium in thermodynamics, Phys. Rep. 583, 1 (2015)

    2015

  28. [33]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Operational resource the- ory of imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 090401 (2021)

    2021

  29. [34]

    S. Xue, J. Guo, P. Li, M. Ye, and Y . Li, Quantification of re- source theory of imaginarity, Quant. Inf. Proc. 20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  30. [35]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, State discrimina- tion with postmeasurement information and incompatibility of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012126 (2018)

    2018

  31. [36]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Quantum incompati- bility witnesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130402 (2019)

    2019

  32. [37]

    Skrzypczyk, I

    P. Skrzypczyk, I. ˇSupi´c, and D. Cavalcanti, All sets of incom- patible measurements give an advantage in quantum state dis- crimination, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130403 (2019)

    2019

  33. [38]

    R. Uola, T. Kraft, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and O. G ¨uhne, Quanti- fying quantum resources with conic programming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130404 (2019)

    2019

  34. [39]

    Skrzypczyk and N

    P. Skrzypczyk and N. Linden, Robustness of measurement, dis- crimination games, and accessible information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140403 (2019)

    2019

  35. [40]

    L. Li, K. Bu, and Z.-W. Liu, Quantifying the resource content of quantum channels: An operational approach, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022335 (2020)

    2020

  36. [42]

    Hsieh, B

    C.-Y . Hsieh, B. Stratton, C.-H. Wu, and H.-Y . Ku, Dynamical resource theory of incompatibility preservability, Phys. Rev. A 111, 022422 (2025)

    2025

  37. [43]

    Takagi, B

    R. Takagi, B. Regula, K. Bu, Z.-W. Liu, and G. Adesso, Opera- tional advantage of quantum resources in subchannel discrimi- nation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140402 (2019)

    2019

  38. [44]

    J. Bae, D. Chru ´sci´nski, and M. Piani, More entanglement im- plies higher performance in channel discrimination tasks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140404 (2019)

    2019

  39. [45]

    Piani and J

    M. Piani and J. Watrous, Necessary and su fficient quantum in- formation characterization of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060404 (2015)

    2015

  40. [46]

    Napoli, T

    C. Napoli, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. John- ston, and G. Adesso, Robustness of coherence: an operational and observable measure of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150502 (2016)

    2016

  41. [47]

    K. Bu, U. Singh, S.-M. Fei, A. K. Pati, and J. Wu, Maximum relative entropy of coherence: an operational coherence mea- sure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150405 (2017)

    2017

  42. [48]

    Piani, M

    M. Piani, M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, C. Napoli, N. John- ston, and G. Adesso, Robustness of asymmetry and coherence of quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042107 (2016)

    2016

  43. [50]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Regula, L

    B. Regula, L. Lami, G. Ferrari, and R. Takagi, Operational quantification of continuous-variable quantum resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 110403 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Kuroiwa, R

    K. Kuroiwa, R. Takagi, G. Adesso, and H. Yamasaki, Every quantum helps: Operational advantage of quantum resources beyond convexity, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 150201 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Turner, M

    L. Turner, M. Guta, and G. Adesso, All non-gaussian states are advantageous for channel discrimination: Robustness of non- convex continuous variable quantum resources, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13011 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    L. Lami, B. Regula, R. Takagi, and G. Ferrari, Framework for resource quantification in infinite-dimensional general proba- bilistic theories, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032424 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki, Schmidt number for density matrices, Phys. Rev. A 61, 040301 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quan- tum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997)

    1997

  53. [61]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entan- glement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics (Long Island City, NY) 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  55. [63]

    Gallego and L

    R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Resource theory of steering, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041008 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Pramanik, Y .-W

    T. Pramanik, Y .-W. Cho, S.-W. Han, S.-Y . Lee, Y .-S. Kim, and S. Moon, Revealing hidden quantum steerability using local fil- tering operations, Phys. Rev. A 99, 030101 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.