Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 29 references

Error exponents for tripartite-to-bipartite entanglement transformations

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper determines the exact optimal rates and error exponents for converting many copies of a tripartite pure state into EPR pairs between two chosen parties under LOCC.

desk verdict First exact error exponents for tripartite-to-bipartite EPR distillation; the proofs are detailed and the main formulas hold up, with only minor imported premises. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13778 v1 pith:MLIJDXQW submitted 2025-07-18 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Péter Vrana This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P45
keywords entanglementdistillationLOCCerrorexponentsstrongconverseRényientropySchur–Weyldecompositionpolytopetripartitestates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how many shared EPR pairs two parties, Alice and Bob, can extract from many copies of a tripartite pure state when the third party can help only through local operations and classical communication. It determines the optimal rate–error trade-off in every asymptotic regime: deterministic transformation, exponentially suppressed error, and exponentially suppressed success probability (the strong-converse domain). The results are exact formulas: the deterministic rate is the smaller of the two marginal min-entropies, the direct-exponent rate is the smaller of two bipartite Rényi rates, and the strong-converse rate is the maximum of the smaller marginal entropy over a majorization-constrained region of the state's entanglement polytope. The same formulas govern fidelity-based and probability-based protocols, so the error exponents are genuinely universal for this transformation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rate function $I_\psi(\lambda)$, the exponential decay rate of the weight of the three-sided Schur–Weyl projections in $\psi^{\otimes n}$ indexed by triples of normalized partitions $\lambda = (\lambda_A, \lambda_B, \lambda_C)$. Because $I_\psi$ itself may not be convex, the paper works with its monotone envelope $I_{\psi}^{\searrow}(\lambda) = \inf_{\mu \preceq \lambda} I_\psi(\mu)$, which is convex, lower semicontinuous, and has the entanglement polytope of $\psi$ as its domain. The argument alternates between this envelope and the family of Rényi-type entanglement measures $E_{\alpha,(x,1-x,0)}$; the decisive step is a minimax interchange (via Sion's theorem) that converts the upper bound into an exact maximum, while achievability comes from a one-shot bound using random local projections and a POVM built from a convex-hull sampling argument.

What would settle it

Take a specific three-qutrit state, compute the weights of the lower-envelope projections $Q^n_{B_\epsilon(\lambda)}$ for moderate $n$, form $I_{\psi}^{\searrow}$ on a grid of normalized partitions, and test convexity along a line segment; a single non-convex point would directly contradict Proposition 5.13. Alternatively, for a free-support state, solve the convex program in Theorem 5.6 numerically at a fixed $r$ and compare with the infimum over $(\alpha,x)$ of the Rényi formula to machine precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the asymptotic entanglement-concentration problem from a tripartite pure state $\psi$ to EPR pairs between subsystems $A$ and $B$ is exactly solvable. For the strong-converse exponent $r \ge 0$, the optimal rate is $$$R^{{*}}$(\psi \to \mathrm{EPR}_{AB}, r) = \max_{\$\lambda$ \in $P^{3}$ : I_{\psi}^{\searrow}(\$\lambda$) \le r} \min\{H(\lambda_A), H(\lambda_B)\},$$ where $I_{\psi}^{\searrow}$ is the monotone convex envelope of the large-deviation rate function for the joint Schur–Weyl measurement on $\psi^{\otimes n}$. In the direct regime the rate is $\min\{E_A(r), E_B(r)\}$ with $E_A,E_B$ the bipartite entanglement-concentration rates, and the deterministic rate is $\min\{H_\infty(A)_\psi, H_\infty(B)_\psi\}$. For states with free support the strong-converse formula reduces to a classical-looking convex optimization: maximize $\min\{H(Q_A), H(Q_B)\}$ over distributions $Q$ with $D(Q \| P) \le r$.

Load-bearing premise

The upper bound assumes that the monotone envelope $I_{\psi}^{\searrow}$ of the Schur–Weyl rate function is convex and has the entanglement polytope as its domain; both facts are imported from prior work rather than proved here, and if either fails the minimax swaps that produce the strong-converse formula collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every tripartite pure state, the direct-exponent rate equals the smaller of the two bipartite rates $E_A(r)$ and $E_B(r)$, so the natural bipartition upper bound is tight whenever the success probability tends to 1 exponentially fast.
  • The strong-converse formula interpolates between the vanishing-error rate $\min\{H(A)_\psi, H(B)_\psi\}$ and the asymptotic-SLOCC rate, with the two-parameter family $E_{\alpha,(x,1-x,0)}$ providing the full trade-off curve.
  • Fidelity-based and probability-based protocols are quantitatively equivalent: $R_F(\psi\to\mathrm{EPR}_{AB},r)=R(\psi\to\mathrm{EPR}_{AB},r)$ and an explicit Legendre-type relation links the two strong-converse rates.
  • The deterministic rate is $\min\{H_\infty(A)_\psi, H_\infty(B)_\psi\}$, realized by a one-shot protocol that achieves the asymptotic rate up to a doubly logarithmic correction.
  • For free-support states, the strong-converse rate is computable by convex optimization over probability distributions, giving an explicit tool for states such as the W state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the convex-envelope construction extends to four-partite-to-bipartite transformations, since the local Schur–Weyl projections generalize directly and the minimax step does not appear to depend on the number of parties.
  • Because Theorem 5.6 turns the free-support strong-converse rate into a convex program, the W-state curve can be recomputed and extended to other free-support states without heavy representation theory, allowing a numerical check against direct LOCC bounds for small copy numbers.
  • If the strong-converse rate is stable under perturbations of the state, then the rate curve should be piecewise-analytic in $r$, with breakpoints where the maximizing normalized spectrum changes; this could be probed by numerical continuation.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies asymptotic LOCC transformations ψ^⊗n → EPR_AB^⊗(R n) for arbitrary finite-dimensional pure tripartite states ψ, under three error criteria: deterministic, direct (failure probability 2^{-r n+o(n)}), and strong converse (success probability 2^{-r n+o(n)}). The main results are: (i) R_det(ψ→EPR_AB)=min{H∞(A)_ψ,H∞(B)_ψ} (Cor. 3.9), proved via a one-shot deterministic bound (Thm. 3.8) based on a random POVM on C; (ii) R(ψ→EPR_AB,r)=min{E_A(r),E_B(r)} for the direct exponent (Thm. 4.3), combining bipartite truncation with the one-shot bound; (iii) for the strong converse, R*(ψ→EPR_AB,r)=max_{λ: I^downslash_ψ(λ)≤r} min{H(λ_A),H(λ_B)} (Thm. 5.17), where I^downslash_ψ is the monotone envelope of the Schur–Weyl rate function I_ψ; and a simpler max-entropy formula for states with free support (Thm. 5.6). The paper also establishes exact relationships between fidelity- and probability-based exponents (Props. 2.3 and 2.7).

Significance. This is a substantial contribution. It gives the first exact error-exponent formulas for a multipartite-to-bipartite entanglement transformation, resolving a natural problem left open after the bipartite results of Hayashi et al. The proof strategy is novel and largely self-contained: the one-shot deterministic bound uses matrix Rademacher tail bounds and halfspace depth to construct a POVM, and the strong converse upper bound avoids the (unknown) convexity of I_ψ by working with its monotone envelope, whose convexity is proved from scratch via superadditivity of Schur–Weyl projectors. The final rate formulas are explicit and falsifiable, and the free-support special case gives a concrete convex program. The main imported ingredient, the identification of dom I_ψ with the entanglement polytope, is a standard published theorem.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 5.2, definition of Q^m_U] The definition of Q^m_U has a bound-variable clash: the summation index and the element of U are both called µ in the condition '∃µ∈U : 1/m µ≼µ'; it should read '∃ν∈U : 1/m µ≼ν'. The same clash appears in Proposition 5.10, and the symbol Qλ used in Proposition 5.15 is not defined anywhere; please introduce it explicitly.
  2. [Proposition 2.1] The proof of concavity of r↦R*(ρ→σ,r) and r↦R*_F(ρ→σ,r) is incomplete: after constructing the sequences (n_{i,m}, p_{i,m}) the text breaks off before forming the time-shared protocol and verifying the exponent bound. Since Proposition 2.7 uses concavity (hence continuity) of R*, please complete this argument or cite a standard time-sharing lemma.
  3. [Theorem 5.17 and Proposition 5.16] The theorem states r≥0, but the lower-bound proof takes limits of R*(ψ→EPR,r_n) for r_n→r and therefore directly covers r>0; the endpoint r=0 requires an additional diagonal-sequence argument, or can be obtained by combining the upper bound in Proposition 5.14 with the direct result in Theorem 4.3 at r=0. Please spell out the endpoint case.
  4. [Equation (77)] The definition of I_ψ(λ) writes the indicator as '1_{λ∈B_ϵ(λ)}' with the same symbol for the summation index and the argument; it should be '1_{(1/n)λ∈B_ϵ(λ)}' (or a different summation index should be used). Please fix the notation so the intended normalized partition is visible.
  5. [Section 2.2, proof of Proposition 2.7] In the displayed chain after 'lim inf', the symbol RF appears where the immediately preceding inequality concerns R*; this appears to be a typo and should read R*.
  6. [Lemma 2.6] The bound contains a factor 1/ln d, which is undefined for d=1; please add the trivial d=1 case or state an assumption d≥2.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: a stray '[citation needed]' in the introduction, misspellings such as 'transformatinos', 'resuls', and 'the whe chose', and in Proposition 5.13 the last line repeats 'I↘ψ(µ)' where the second term should be 'I↘ψ(ν)'. In Section 5.2, the sentence 'Since dom I↘ψ is a polytope, it is also continuous' should read 'Since dom I↘ψ is a polytope, I↘ψ is continuous on it' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central rate formulas are proved from one-shot bounds and independent prior theorems, with no reduction of conclusions to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central formulas (Theorems 4.3, 5.6, 5.17) are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The one-shot deterministic bound (Theorem 3.8) is proved from a Rademacher tail bound and a convex-hull sampling argument; the direct-exponent equality (Theorem 4.3) combines this with a two-sided truncation argument and the known bipartite rates of Hayashi et al.; the strong converse equality (Theorem 5.17) has a self-contained lower bound (Propositions 5.15 and 5.16) using Schur-Weyl projections and the one-shot bound, and an upper bound that reduces by algebra and minimax to the previously published upper bound in terms of E_alpha,theta. That prior bound (Vra23, JV19) is a parameter-free theorem whose statement does not include the equality proved here, so under the review rules it counts as independent support rather than circularity. The identification of dom I_psi with the entanglement polytope is imported from the external, non-self-cited result [WDGC13, Theorem 1]. The only manuscript-level flags are a '[citation needed]' marker in the Introduction on a motivational claim and a speculative open-problem paragraph in Section 6; neither affects the derivation chain. No step was found in which a fitted parameter is renamed a prediction or a theorem reduces to its own definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear: the paper is a pure mathematical analysis. The central claim relies on a chain of established results: Nielsen's theorem, the bipartite rate formulas of HKM+02, Schur-Weyl duality, entanglement polytopes, minimax theorems, and random matrix concentration. Some inputs come from the author's own prior papers (Vra23, BV24a, BV24b); they are treated as proven theorems, and the new achievability arguments do not assume the target rate formulas.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Nielsen's majorization theorem for deterministic pure bipartite LOCC transformations.
    Used in Theorem 3.8 to convert post-measurement bipartite states with min-entropy at least n into exactly n EPR pairs, and in the upper bound of Corollary 3.9.
  • domain assumption Bipartite entanglement concentration rate formulas of HKM+02, including truncation methods and error exponents.
    Used in Lemmas 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and Theorem 4.3 as the known two-party benchmark; the paper extends these to tripartite states.
  • domain assumption Upper bounds on the strong converse rate in terms of the Rényi-type entanglement measures E_alpha_theta from Vra23 and BV24a.
    These prior self-authored results provide the starting upper bound for Theorem 5.17; the present paper supplies matching lower bounds.
  • domain assumption The free-support identity E_alpha_theta(psi) = H_alpha_theta(M(|psi><psi|)) from BV24a, Theorem 4.7.
    Used in Proposition 5.4 and Theorem 5.6 to convert the general rate formula into a classical relative-entropy optimization for states with free support.
  • standard math Schur-Weyl duality and the dimension estimates for irreducible unitary and symmetric group representations of Hayashi.
    Used in Section 2.3 and Proposition 5.15 to control min-entropies of projected states and the number of types.
  • standard math Entanglement polytope characterization: dom I_psi is compact and equals the entanglement polytope of psi (WDGC13, Theorem 1).
    Used in Proposition 5.9 to establish compactness and lower semicontinuity of the rate function I_psi, which the minimax upper bound requires.
  • standard math Sion's minimax theorem for interchanging infimum and supremum of concave-convex functions.
    Used in Propositions 5.4 and 5.14 to derive the strong converse upper bounds.
  • standard math Tropp's Rademacher matrix tail bound and the Hayakawa-Lyons-Oberhauser convex hull sample bound with halfspace depth properties.
    Used in Proposition 3.2 and Theorem 3.8 to construct the one-shot POVM whose outputs have high min-entropy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error exponents for tripartite-to-bipartite entanglement transformations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLIJDXQW

@misc{pith2026250713778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error exponents for tripartite-to-bipartite entanglement transformations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLIJDXQW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13778}
}
read the original abstract

We consider distillation of ebits between a specified pair of subsystems from pure tripartite states by local operations and classical communication. It is known that, allowing an asymptotically vanishing error, the maximal rate is the minimum of the von Neumann entropies of the two corresponding marginals, and under asymptotic stochastic local operations and classical communication the maximal rate is given by a minimization over a one-parameter family of entanglement measures. In this paper, we determine the direct and strong converse error exponents, and the optimal rate for deterministic transformations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optimal rate R as a function of the strong converse exponent r for trans￾forming W states into EPR pairs between Alice and Bob. The rate saturates at r = log 3 2 . If Iψ was convex, then an argument similar to the one in the preceding section would lead to an analogous formula with the optimization over Q replaced with (λA, λB, λC subject to Iψ(λA, λB, λC) ≤ r, and min{H(λA), H(λB)} instead of the minimum of the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Concentrating partial entanglement by local opera- tions

    [BBPS96] Charles H Bennett, Herbert J Bernstein, Sandu Popescu, and Ben- jamin Schumacher. Concentrating partial entanglement by local opera- tions. Physical Review A , 53(4):2046,

    work page

  2. [4]

    Interpolating between R\'enyi entanglement entropies for arbitrary bipartitions via operator geometric means

    arXiv:2208.14438arXiv:2208.14438, doi:10.1007/s00023-024-01486-3doi:10.1007/s00023-024-01486-3 . [CLZ23] Matthias Christandl, Vladimir Lysikov, and Jeroen Zuiddam. Weighted slice rank and a minimax correspondence to Strassen’s spectra. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 172:299–329,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [8]

    Universal points in the asymptotic spectrum of tensors

    arXiv:1709.07851arXiv:1709.07851, doi:10.1090/jams/996doi:10.1090/jams/996. [DFM+99] David P DiVincenzo, Christopher A Fuchs, Hideo Mabuchi, John A Smolin, Ashish Thapliyal, and Armin Uhlmann. Entanglement of assistance. In Quan- tum Computing and Quantum Communications: First NASA International Conference, QCQC’98 Palm Springs, California, USA February 1...

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [13]

    Error exponents for entanglement concentration

    arXiv:quant-ph/0206097arXiv:quant-ph/0206097, doi:10.1088/0305-4470/36/2/316doi:10.1088/0305-4470/36/2/316. [HLO23] Satoshi Hayakawa, Terry Lyons, and Harald Oberhauser. Estimating the probability that a given vector is in the convex hull of a random sample.Prob- ability Theory and Related Fields , 185(3):705–746,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [14]

    Estimating the probability that a given vector is in the convex hull of a random sample

    arXiv:2101.04250arXiv:2101.04250, doi:10.1007/s00440-022-01186-1doi:10.1007/s00440-022-01186-1 . [HOW05] Micha l Horodecki, Jonathan Oppenheim, and Andreas Winter. Partial quan- tum information. Nature, 436(7051):673,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [15]

    [Jen19] Asger Kjærulff Jensen

    arXiv:quant-ph/0505062arXiv:quant-ph/0505062, doi:10.1038/nature03909doi:10.1038/nature03909. [Jen19] Asger Kjærulff Jensen. Asymptotic majorization of finite probability distri- butions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 65(12):8131–8139,

    arXiv

  7. [17]

    The asymptotic spectrum of LOCC transformations

    arXiv:1807.05130arXiv:1807.05130, doi:10.1109/TIT.2019.2927555doi:10.1109/TIT.2019.2927555. 31 [LP01] Hoi-Kwong Lo and Sandu Popescu. Concentrating entanglement by lo- cal actions: Beyond mean values. Physical Review A , 63(2):022301,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [21]

    Deterministic entanglement concentration

    arXiv:quant-ph/0107120arXiv:quant-ph/0107120, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022316doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022316. [Nie99] Michael A Nielsen. Conditions for a class of entanglement transforma- tions. Physical Review Letters , 83(2):436,

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 29 references
  1. [22]

    [RR99] Peter J Rousseeuw and Ida Ruts

    arXiv:quant-ph/9811053arXiv:quant-ph/9811053, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.436doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.436. [RR99] Peter J Rousseeuw and Ida Ruts. The depth function of a population distri- bution. Metrika, 49(3):213–244,

    arXiv

  2. [23]

    [Sio58] Maurice Sion

    doi:10.1007/PL00020903doi:10.1007/PL00020903. [Sio58] Maurice Sion. On general minimax theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 8(1):171–176, March

    doi

  3. [25]

    [Tro12] Joel A Tropp

    arXiv:quant-ph/0505038arXiv:quant-ph/0505038, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052317doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052317. [Tro12] Joel A Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices. Founda- tions of computational mathematics , 12:389–434,

    arXiv

  4. [27]

    [Vra23] P´ eter Vrana

    arXiv:quant-ph/9902033arXiv:quant-ph/9902033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1046doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1046. [Vra23] P´ eter Vrana. A family of multipartite entanglement measures. Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics , 402(1):637–664,

    arXiv

  5. [28]

    [WDGC13] Michael Walter, Brent Doran, David Gross, and Matthias Christandl

    arXiv:2008.11108arXiv:2008.11108, doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04731-8doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04731-8 . [WDGC13] Michael Walter, Brent Doran, David Gross, and Matthias Christandl. Entanglement polytopes: multiparticle entanglement from single-particle information. Science, 340(6137):...

    2008 arXiv

  6. [1958]

    [SVW05] John A Smolin, Frank Verstraete, and Andreas Winter

    doi:10.2140/pjm.1958.8.171doi:10.2140/pjm.1958.8.171. [SVW05] John A Smolin, Frank Verstraete, and Andreas Winter. Entanglement of assistance and multipartite state distillation.Physical Review A, 72(5):052317,

    1958 doi

  7. [1996]

    [BV24a] D´ avid Bug´ ar and P´ eter Vrana

    arXiv:quant-ph/9511030arXiv:quant-ph/9511030, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046. [BV24a] D´ avid Bug´ ar and P´ eter Vrana. Explicit error bounds for entanglement trans- formations between sparse multipartite states. IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory,

    arXiv

  8. [1998]

    [CVZ23] Matthias Christandl, P´ eter Vrana, and Jeroen Zuiddam

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2493doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2493. [CVZ23] Matthias Christandl, P´ eter Vrana, and Jeroen Zuiddam. Universal points in the asymptotic spectrum of tensors. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 36(1):31–79,

    doi

  9. [1999]

    [Har05] Aram W Harrow

    arXiv:quant-ph/9803033arXiv:quant-ph/9803033, doi:10.1007/3-540-49208-9_21doi:10.1007/3-540-49208-9_21 . [Har05] Aram W Harrow. Applications of coherent classical communication and the Schur transform to quantum information theory . PhD thesis, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Tec...

    arXiv

  10. [2001]

    [LQWD18] Yinan Li, Youming Qiao, Xin Wang, and Runyao Duan

    arXiv:quant-ph/9707038arXiv:quant-ph/9707038, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.022301doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.022301. [LQWD18] Yinan Li, Youming Qiao, Xin Wang, and Runyao Duan. Tripartite-to- bipartite entanglement transformation by stochastic local operations and classical communicati...

    arXiv

  11. [2002]

    [Hay17] Masahito Hayashi

    arXiv:quant-ph/0202002arXiv:quant-ph/0202002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032321doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032321. [Hay17] Masahito Hayashi. A Group Theoretic Approach to Quantum Information . Springer, Cham, Switzerland,

    arXiv

  12. [2003]

    [MK01] Fumiaki Morikoshi and Masato Koashi

    arXiv:quant-ph/0206192arXiv:quant-ph/0206192, doi:10.26421/QIC3.1-6doi:10.26421/QIC3.1-6. [MK01] Fumiaki Morikoshi and Masato Koashi. Deterministic entanglement concen- tration. Physical Review A , 64(2):022316,

    arXiv

  13. [2005]

    [Hay02] Masahito Hayashi

    URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/34973http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/34973, arXiv:quant-ph/0512255arXiv:quant-ph/0512255. [Hay02] Masahito Hayashi. Exponents of quantum fixed-length pure-state source coding. Physical Review A , 66(3):032321,

    arXiv

  14. [2006]

    [Coh98] Oliver Cohen

    arXiv:quant-ph/0409016arXiv:quant-ph/0409016, doi:10.1007/s00220-005-1435-1doi:10.1007/s00220-005-1435-1 . [Coh98] Oliver Cohen. Unlocking hidden entanglement with classi- cal information. Physical Review Letters , 80(11):2493,

    arXiv

  15. [2012]

    [Tuk74] John W Tukey

    arXiv:1004.4389v7arXiv:1004.4389v7, doi:10.1007/s10208-011-9099-zdoi:10.1007/s10208-011-9099-z . [Tuk74] John W Tukey. Mathematics and the picturing of data. In Proceedings of the international congress of mathematicians , volume 2, pages 523–531, Vancou- ver, Canada,

    arXiv

  16. [2013]

    arXiv:1208.0365arXiv:1208.0365, doi:10.1126/science.1232957doi:10.1126/science.1232957. 32

    arXiv

  17. [2017]

    [HKM+02] Masahito Hayashi, Masato Koashi, Keiji Matsumoto, Fumiaki Morikoshi, and Andreas Winter

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45241-8doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45241-8 . [HKM+02] Masahito Hayashi, Masato Koashi, Keiji Matsumoto, Fumiaki Morikoshi, and Andreas Winter. Error exponents for entanglement concentra- tion. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 36(2):527,

    doi

  18. [2018]

    [L VvE03] Thomas Laustsen, Frank Verstraete, and Steven J van Enk

    arXiv:1612.06491arXiv:1612.06491, doi:10.1007/s00220-017-3077-5doi:10.1007/s00220-017-3077-5 . [L VvE03] Thomas Laustsen, Frank Verstraete, and Steven J van Enk. Local vs. joint measurements for the entanglement of assistance. Quantum In- formation & Computation , 3(1):64–83,

    arXiv

  19. [2019]

    [JV19] Asger Kjærulff Jensen and P´ eter Vrana

    arXiv:1808.05157arXiv:1808.05157, doi:10.1109/TIT.2019.2922627doi:10.1109/TIT.2019.2922627. [JV19] Asger Kjærulff Jensen and P´ eter Vrana. The asymptotic spectrum of LOCC transformations. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 66(1):155–166, January

    2019 arXiv

  20. [2023]

    30 [CM06] Matthias Christandl and Graeme Mitchison

    arXiv:2012.14412arXiv:2012.14412, doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2023.02.006doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2023.02.006. 30 [CM06] Matthias Christandl and Graeme Mitchison. The spectra of density opera- tors and the Kronecker coefficients of the symmetric group. Communications in Mathematical Phys...

    2012 arXiv

  21. [2024]

    [BV24b] D´ avid Bug´ ar and P´ eter Vrana

    arXiv:2309.11429arXiv:2309.11429, doi:10.1109/TIT.2024.3383460doi:10.1109/TIT.2024.3383460. [BV24b] D´ avid Bug´ ar and P´ eter Vrana. Interpolating between R´ enyi en- tanglement entropies for arbitrary bipartitions via operator geometric means. Annales Henri Poincar´ e, September

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.