Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Optimizing LOCC Protocols on Product Stiefel Manifold

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that every fixed-round LOCC protocol is a point on a product Stiefel manifold, turning protocol design into unconstrained Riemannian optimization, and demonstrates that this yields implementable distillation and merging pr

desk verdict Useful Stiefel-manifold method for pre-scheduled-round LOCC protocols, but the paper overclaims generality to adaptive LOCC and the numerics need reproducibility work. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.06909 v2 pith:6KVRG53C submitted 2025-10-08 quant-ph

Ze-Tong Li , Cheng-Kai Zhu , Xin Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P6865K10
keywords LOCCStiefelmanifoldRiemannianoptimizationentanglementdistillationstatemergingpositivepartialtransposecoherentinformationquantuminstruments
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

Fixed-round LOCC protocol design is usually a non-convex, constraint-heavy problem, and the standard relaxations such as PPT provide upper bounds but no implementable protocols. This paper tries to establish that the physical constraint defining a quantum instrument—the trace-preserving condition—is exactly the orthonormality condition of a Stiefel manifold, so an entire fixed-round LOCC protocol becomes a point on a product Stiefel manifold. That converts the constrained protocol-search problem into unconstrained Riemannian optimization, for which efficient numerical methods exist. Applying this to entanglement distillation and state merging, the authors report achievable fidelities that match PPT upper bounds in some non-i.i.d. cases, numerical evidence of round advantage, improved two-way distillable entanglement bounds, and evidence for superadditivity of coherent information. If correct, the framework gives researchers a practical numerical tool to discover explicit, implementable LOCC protocols rather than only bounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product Stiefel manifold of quantum instruments. A quantum instrument with S CP maps and Kraus orders T_j is encoded as a block matrix X = [K†_{j,i}] whose rows form orthonormal vectors, so X†X = I; the trace-preserving constraint is exactly the orthonormality condition. Fixed-round LOCC is then a product of such Stiefel manifolds, with a tree structure reflecting classical communication rounds, and optimization proceeds by projecting the Euclidean gradient onto the tangent space and retracting via QR decomposition. The same geometry covers the subclasses IPS (independent local instruments) and CMPS (channel-measurement with post-selection).

What would settle it

Run the same distillation optimizations with higher Kraus/instrument orders and many random restarts: if the reported match to PPT disappears, the claims are artifacts of the restricted search space or local optima. Alternatively, analytically construct the PPT-optimal protocol for the two-copy non-i.i.d. amplitude-damping-plus-depolarizing case and check whether its average fidelity equals the reported value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the TP constraint of a quantum instrument, Σ K†K = I, is precisely the Stiefel condition X†X = I, so an instrument is an element of a Stiefel manifold; an r-round LOCC protocol is a product of such manifolds following the tree of classical outcomes, giving M_LOCCr recursively. Therefore maximizing a fidelity over fixed-round LOCC is equivalent to an unconstrained optimization over a product Stiefel manifold. Using Riemannian gradient descent with QR retraction on this manifold, the paper obtains explicit protocols whose average distillation fidelity for two-copy non-i.i.d. amplitude-damping-plus-depolarizing inputs matches the PPT upper bound; it also reports improv

Load-bearing premise

The numerical conclusions assume that random-initialized Riemannian optimization on the chosen low-order product Stiefel manifolds reaches the relevant global optimum of the restricted LOCC class; no global optimality certificates, convergence tolerances, seeds, or restart policies are reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, fixed-round LOCC protocol design becomes a numerical search problem with a well-developed toolbox of Riemannian optimization methods.
  • Achievable lower bounds for distillation fidelity can be computed for arbitrary finite-copy input states, including non-i.i.d. copies, not just for special families.
  • The method yields fully implementable protocols—explicit Kraus operators—rather than existence arguments, so the outputs can be run directly on quantum hardware or simulators.
  • The reported match to PPT bounds in specific non-i.i.d. cases suggests finite-round LOCC can be nearly optimal where PPT relaxations are known to be tight.
  • The superadditivity evidence for coherent information of GADC Choi states, if it survives scrutiny, improves achievable bounds on two-way distillable entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same manifold parameterization could be carried over to other LOCC tasks—state discrimination, channel simulation, entanglement-assisted teleportation—replacing task-specific SDP hierarchies with direct protocol search.
  • Because the parameterization is explicit, one could certify small-case results by exhaustive enumeration or by checking first-order optimality, and one could test whether the reported round advantages persist at higher Kraus and instrument orders.
  • The paper's simplification that all CPTP channels are identity in the two-way distillable entanglement study leaves open whether general LOCC2 protocols yield even higher rates; extending the search to non-identity channels is a natural next step.
  • If the match to PPT in the non-i.i.d. distillation case is robust, it hints at a more general principle: for some finite-copy tasks PPT upper bounds may be tight for fixed-round LOCC, which would narrow the gap between relaxation bounds and practical protocols.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a geometric parameterization of fixed-round LOCC protocols in terms of product Stiefel manifolds, and uses Riemannian optimization to search for implementable protocols for entanglement distillation and state merging. The central claim, stated in Sec. II, is that the set of fixed-round LOCC operations forms a product Stiefel manifold, so that protocol design becomes unconstrained optimization on that manifold. The paper reports achievable fidelities and average fidelities for IPS, LOCC1, LOCC2, and CMPS schemes, compares some values with PPT SDP upper bounds, claims a round advantage for LOCC2 over LOCC1 in certain distillation tasks, reports improved two-copy coherent information for the Choi state of the generalized amplitude damping channel, and studies one-shot state merging with IPS protocols.

Significance. The proposed manifold parameterization is mathematically elegant and, for the restricted class it actually covers, provides a concrete and efficient way to design implementable protocols and obtain achievable lower bounds. A notable strength is that at least one reported value matches a PPT upper bound; because PPT bounds upper-bound LOCC, such a match is a genuine near-optimality certificate that does not depend on initialization. The paper also correctly identifies that the Stiefel representation of quantum instruments is a natural tool for numerical LOCC search. However, the general theoretical claim is overstated: the construction in Eq. (5) does not cover adaptive LOCC, which is the standard meaning of fixed-round LOCC. As a result, the numerical results are best interpreted as achievable bounds for a restricted, pre-scheduled-party-order class. With appropriate scope corrections, the framework remains useful, but the current presentation significantly overstates its generality.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B, Eq. (5)] The central theoretical claim that the set of fixed-round LOCC operations forms a product Stiefel manifold is not correct for standard LOCC. In Eq. (5), the superscript X_r is fixed for all branches j, so the party acting in round r is the same for every measurement history. Standard LOCC, as defined in the cited reference [20], allows the acting party in each round to depend on the entire previous measurement record. For example, a valid LOCC2 protocol in which Alice measures first, Bob acts in round 2 if the outcome is 0, and Alice acts in round 2 if the outcome is 1, is not representable in the form of Eq. (5) with a single X_2. The manifold therefore parameterizes only protocols with a pre-scheduled party order, not general fixed-round LOCC. This affects the abstract, the introduction, and the interpretation of the numerical results. The paper should either restrict all claims to 'fi
  2. [Abstract and Sec. III A] The abstract states that 'achievable protocols whose fidelities match PPT upper bounds to within numerical precision' were found, using a plural that implies multiple matches. The body reports only one such match: the LOCC2 average-fidelity value for the non-i.i.d. two-copy amplitude-damping/depolarizing input in Fig. 4(a). The other distillation experiments either do not match the PPT bound or are compared to PPT only in different settings; the state-merging results in Fig. 9 explicitly show a gap between IPS and PPT. The authors should correct the abstract and the summary in Sec. I to specify exactly which quantity, in which setting, matches the PPT bound.
  3. [Sec. III and IV, numerical methodology] Several numerical claims are presented as evidence of physical phenomena: the round advantage in Fig. 4, the superadditivity of coherent information in Fig. 7, and the 'numerical upper bound' envelopes in Fig. 9. The manuscript does not report the number of random initializations, the convergence tolerance, the choice of optimizer parameters, or any verification that the reported values are not local optima. A gap between the LOCC1 and LOCC2 curves in Fig. 4 could arise because the LOCC1 optimization got stuck in a worse local optimum, rather than because of a genuine round advantage. The PPT match in Fig. 4(a) is self-certifying, but the other claims are not. The authors should either provide the missing optimization details, or downgrade these statements to 'best values found by the algorithm' rather than 'round advantage' or 'superadditivity.'
  4. [Sec. III B, simplified LOCC2 scheme] The improved achievable bound for two-way distillable entanglement in Fig. 7 is obtained by a 'simplified LOCC2 scheme' in which all CPTP channels are fixed to identity and the instrument has a very small order (S=2 or 4) with Kraus order 1. This is a very restricted subclass of LOCC2, and the values are valid only as achievable bounds for that subclass. The text states that the results can be considered 'improved achievable bounds for two-way distillable entanglement,' which overstates the scope. The claim that the optimized two-copy coherent information exceeds the single-copy Hashing bound is still a valid numerical observation for the restricted protocol class, but it should be presented as such, not as evidence about general two-way distillable entanglement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The sentence 'To optimize the cost function defined in (4) in the main text' appears to refer to an objective function, but Eq. (4) is the definition of the product manifold, not a cost function. The reference should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III B] The phrase 'The instrument order and Kraus order are set as T=1 and S=2' inverts the notation introduced in Sec. II A, where S denotes instrument order and T_j denotes Kraus order. Please correct the notation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. IV B] The quantity f(x) = {max Fmer : S(A|B)=x} is called a 'numerical upper bound', but it is only the upper envelope of the optimized values over the 20,000 sampled states. It is not a rigorous upper bound for all states. Please use terminology such as 'empirical upper envelope' or explicitly state that it is an upper bound on the sampled set.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'logarithmic absolute running time' but the label in the text is 'absolute running time'. Please make the axis description consistent with the caption.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from reporting reproducibility details: code availability, random seeds, and optimizer settings. The numerical results are a central part of the contribution, and the current level of detail makes it difficult to reproduce the reported values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: numerical claims are checked against external PPT relaxations, objectives are not fitted, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's numerical results are not constructed from the benchmarks they are compared with. The average distillation fidelity in Eq. (13), the single-outcome fidelity in Eq. (14), and the block-length coherent information in Sec. III B are all evaluated directly on the output state after a Stiefel-parameterized LOCC/IPS/CMPS protocol and then maximized; no parameter is fitted to the PPT SDP upper bounds of Appendices B-C. The matching to PPT is therefore external confirmation, not an input. The central manifold statement is a re-parameterization of the TP constraint: an instrument J has J^†J=I, which is exactly the defining condition of a Stiefel manifold, and the recursive product in Eq. (5) assembles such manifolds; this is a mathematical translation rather than a circular prediction. Self-citations to LOCCNet [17] and geometric optimization [31] are used only for comparison or motivation and are not load-bearing for the derivations or the numerical protocol bounds. A separate scope/correctness caveat is that Eq. (5) labels the round-r acting party by a single X_r not subscripted by the history j, so the product-Stiefel family may parameterize only protocols with a pre-scheduled party order and not all adaptive fixed-round LOCC; this would overstate the universality claim, but it is a representational gap, not an equivalence-by-construction or fitted-parameter circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced. The central methodological inputs are the choice of fixed instrument/Kraus orders, the random-initialized local optimizer, and standard PPT SDP benchmarks. The unproven assumptions are about coverage of the protocol class and the interpretation of sampled optima as bounds.

free parameters (2)
  • Instrument order S and Kraus order T per protocol class = S=2,T=1 for two-copy average-fidelity distillation; S=2,T=4 for single-outcome fidelity; S=2/4,T=1 for coherent informat
    Chosen by hand. These hyperparameters define the search space; results are only lower bounds for the full LOCC class and may miss better protocols requiring larger orders.
  • Random initialization of Riemannian optimization
    The optimizer starts from random orthonormal matrices and reports suboptimal values; no seeds, restarts, or convergence tolerances are given, so reported numbers are initialization-dependent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every fixed-round LOCC protocol can be represented as a tree of one-way local instruments satisfying the TP constraint J^dagger J = I.
    Used in Sec. II B, Eqs. (4)-(5), to justify the product Stiefel manifold representation. Standard in LOCC theory, but the paper does not prove that the fixed finite-order parameterization covers all LOCC protocols.
  • domain assumption The PPT relaxation SDPs in Appendices B and C give valid upper bounds for the optimized LOCC quantities.
    Standard result used to benchmark the achievable values. The appendix derives the simplified SDPs, but the reduction contains a typo in Eq. (B16) (mixed T_A/T_B indices).
  • domain assumption Riemannian gradient descent with QR retraction finds sufficiently good stationary points on the nonconvex product Stiefel manifold.
    Appendix A describes the algorithm, but there is no global-optimality guarantee; the paper treats local optima as achievable protocols.
  • ad hoc to paper For the two-way distillable entanglement experiment, restricting all CPTP channels to identity still captures the relevant protocol power.
    Sec. III B: 'all CPTP channels are set as identity.' This restriction is a modeling choice that is not independently justified and weakens the claim of demonstrating superadditivity under two-way processing.
  • ad hoc to paper The 20,000 Haar-random pure states and their optimized fidelities determine an upper envelope f(x) of the achievable merging fidelity.
    Sec. IV B uses 20,000 sampled states to draw a 'numerical upper bound.' A sample maximum is a lower bound on the true maximum, so this is methodologically incorrect as stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing LOCC Protocols on Product Stiefel Manifold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KVRG53C

@misc{pith2026251006909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing LOCC Protocols on Product Stiefel Manifold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KVRG53C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.06909}
}
read the original abstract

Characterizing the operational limits of Local Operations and Classical Communication (LOCC) is a central problem in distributed quantum information, yet remains computationally intractable due to the non-convex geometry of the LOCC set. We introduce a geometric framework that embeds the physical constraints of fixed-round LOCC protocols onto the product Stiefel manifold, converting a constrained protocol-design problem into unconstrained Riemannian optimization. We demonstrate this framework through entanglement distillation: by directly optimizing finite-copy LOCC protocols, we discover achievable protocols whose fidelities match positive partial transpose (PPT) upper bounds to within numerical precision, and we provide numerical evidence for both the operational advantage of adaptive communication rounds and the super-additivity of coherent information under two-way processing. These results establish Riemannian manifold optimization as a practical tool for probing the physical limits of future quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Demonstration for the instrument represented LOCC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Demonstration of the 3-agent (a) IPS and (b) CMPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The noise channels are set as the depolarizing chan￾nel (marked by depo.), the amplitude-damping (marked by a.d.) channel, and the dephasing (marked by deph.) channel with parameters γd, γa, γp, respectively, and are given by Ndepo.(γd, Φ) = (1 − γd)Φ + γd1/d, (10) Na.d.(γa, Φ)=K0ΦK † 0+ X d−1 i=1 γa|i−1⟩⟨i|Φ|i⟩⟨i−1|, (11) Ndeph.(γp, Φ) = γpΦ + (1 ˆ − γp)Φ, (12) where d is the dimension of Φ, K0 = |0⟩⟨0| + Pd−1 i=1 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The optimization results of average distillation fidelity via IPS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The optimization results of distillation fidelity of a single outcome via CMPS. The vertical axes of real and dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The logarithmic absolute running time of CMPS and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Optimization results of coherent information. Real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The diagram of state merging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. State merging results of 20000 random states. The dot and line represent the optimization result of each random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The diagram of PPT-assisted state merging when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [31]

    Rozgonyi, G

    Á. Rozgonyi, G. Széchenyi, O. Kálmán, and T. Kiss, Practical scheme for efficient distillation of GHZ states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12268 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [20]

    Barral, F

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. Diaz-Camacho, D. Faílde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. Vázquez-Pérez, J. Vil- lasuso, C. Piñeiro, and N. Costas, Review of distributed quantum computing: from single QPU to high perfor- mance quantum computing, Computer Science Review 57, 100747 (2025), iSBN: 1574-0137 Publisher: Elsevier

    2025

  3. [1]

    Peres and W

    A. Peres and W. K. Wootters, Optimal detection of quantum information, Physical Review Letters66, 1119 (1991)

    1991

  4. [2]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy chan- nels, Physical review letters76, 722 (1996), publisher: APS

    1996

  5. [3]

    Murao, D

    M. Murao, D. Jonathan, M. B. Plenio, and V. Ve- dral, Quantum telecloning and multiparticle entangle- ment, Physical Review A59, 156 (1999), publisher: APS

    1999

  6. [4]

    Murao, M

    M. Murao, M. B. Plenio, and V. Vedral, Quantum- information distribution via entanglement, Physical Re- view A61, 032311 (2000), publisher: APS

    2000

  7. [5]

    Zomorodi-Moghadam, M

    M. Zomorodi-Moghadam, M. Houshmand, and M. Houshmand, Optimizing teleportation cost in distributed quantum circuits, International Journal of Theoretical Physics57, 848 (2018), iSBN: 0020-7748 Publisher: Springer

    2018

  8. [6]

    O. Daei, K. Navi, and M. Zomorodi, Improving the tele- portation cost in distributed quantum circuits based on commuting of gates, International Journal of Theoreti- cal Physics60, 3494 (2021), iSBN: 0020-7748 Publisher: Springer

    2021

Show all 79 references
  1. [7]

    Christandl, F

    M. Christandl, F. Leditzky, C. Majenz, G. Smith, F. Speelman, and M. Walter, Asymptotic performance of port-based teleportation, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics381, 379 (2021), iSBN: 0010-3616 Publisher: Springer

    2021

  2. [8]

    Qiu and L

    X. Qiu and L. Chen, Quantum cost of dense coding and teleportation, Physical Review A105, 062451 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    Strelchuk and M

    S. Strelchuk and M. Studziński, Minimal port-based tele- portation, New Journal of Physics25, 063012 (2023), iSBN: 1367-2630 Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2023

  4. [10]

    H. E. Kim and K. Jeong, Asymptotic teleportation scheme bridging between standard and port-based tele- 13 portation, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045014 (2024), iSBN: 2058-9565 Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2024

  5. [11]

    Wills, M.-H

    A. Wills, M.-H. Hsieh, and S. Strelchuk, Efficient algo- rithms for all port-based teleportation protocols, PRX Quantum5, 030354 (2024), iSBN: 2691-3399 Publisher: APS

    2024

  6. [12]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one-and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen states, Physical review letters69, 2881 (1992), publisher: APS

    1992

  7. [13]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Physical review letters67, 661 (1991), publisher: APS

    1991

  8. [14]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, and C. Ottaviani, Advances in quantum cryp- tography, Advances in optics and photonics12, 1012 (2020), iSBN: 1943-8206 Publisher: Optical Society of America

    2020

  9. [15]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 025008 (2022), iSBN: 0034-6861 Publisher: APS

    2022

  10. [16]

    Beals, S

    R. Beals, S. Brierley, O. Gray, A. W. Harrow, S. Kutin, N. Linden, D. Shepherd, and M. Stather, Efficient dis- tributed quantum computing, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences469, 20120686 (2013), iSBN: 1364-5021 Publisher: The ...

    2013

  11. [17]

    when the PQCs are universal unitaries, which means thatLOCCNet⊆CMPS. III. ACHIEV ABLE PERFORMANCE OF ENT ANGLEMENT DISTILLA TION Crucial protocols and applications in quantum infor- mation, such as quantum teleportation [1–11], super- dense coding [12], and quantum cryptograph...

  12. [18]

    X. Zhao, B. Zhao, Z. Wang, Z. Song, and X. Wang, Prac- tical distributed quantum information processing with LOCCNet, npj Quantum Information7, 159 (2021), iSBN: 2056-6387 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK London

    2021

  13. [19]

    Caleffi, M

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Man- zalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Distributed quantum com- puting: a survey, Computer Networks254, 110672 (2024), iSBN: 1389-1286 Publisher: Elsevier

    2024

  14. [21]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About LOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask), Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics328, 303 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Deutsch, A

    D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy ampli- fication and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Physical review letters77, 2818 (1996), publisher: APS

    1996

  16. [23]

    Murao, M

    M. Murao, M. B. Plenio, S. Popescu, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Multiparticle entanglement purification proto- cols, Physical Review A57, R4075 (1998), publisher: APS

    1998

  17. [24]

    Dür and H

    W. Dür and H. J. Briegel, Entanglement purifica- tion and quantum error correction, arXiv preprint arXiv:0705.4165 (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  18. [25]

    J.-W. Pan, S. Gasparoni, R. Ursin, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement purification of arbitrary unknown states, Nature423, 417 (2003), iSBN: 0028-0836 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK Lon- don

    2003

  19. [26]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineer- ing sciences461, 207 (2005), iSBN: 1364-5021 Publisher: The Royal Society

    2005

  20. [27]

    Wang and R

    X. Wang and R. Duan, Improved semidefinite program- ming upper bound on distillable entanglement, Physical Review A94, 050301 (2016), iSBN: 2469-9926 Publisher: APS

    2016

  21. [28]

    S. e. de Bone and D. Elkouss, GHZ distillation protocols in the presence of decoherence, ACM SIGMETRICS Per- formance Evaluation Review51, 81 (2023), iSBN: 0163- 5999 Publisher: ACM New York, NY, USA

    2023

  22. [29]

    Miguel-Ramiro, F

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, Quan- tum repeater for W states, PRX Quantum4, 040323 (2023), iSBN: 2691-3399 Publisher: APS

    2023

  23. [30]

    Z. Du, G. Liu, X. Zhang, and X. Ma, Advantage distilla- tion for quantum key distribution, Quantum Science and Technology10, 015050 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    C. Zhu, H. Mao, K. Fang, and X. Wang, Geometric op- timization for quantum communication, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15106 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Woot- ters, Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys- ical Review A59, 1070 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    Walgate, A

    J. Walgate, A. J. Short, L. Hardy, and V. Vedral, Lo- cal distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states, Physical Review Letters85, 4972 (2000), pub- lisher: APS

    2000

  27. [35]

    Calsamiglia, J

    J. Calsamiglia, J. I. De Vicente, R. Muñoz-Tapia, and E. Bagan, Local discrimination of mixed states, Physi- cal review letters105, 080504 (2010), iSBN: 1079-7114 Publisher: APS

    2010

  28. [36]

    Bandyopadhyay, More nonlocality with less purity, Physical Review Letters106, 210402 (2011), iSBN: 1079- 7114 Publisher: APS

    S. Bandyopadhyay, More nonlocality with less purity, Physical Review Letters106, 210402 (2011), iSBN: 1079- 7114 Publisher: APS

    2011

  29. [37]

    Chitambar, R

    E. Chitambar, R. Duan, and M.-H. Hsieh, When do local operations and classical communication suffice for two- qubit state discrimination?, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory60, 1549 (2013), iSBN: 0018-9448 Pub- lisher: IEEE

    2013

  30. [38]

    Chitambar and M.-H

    E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh, Revisiting the opti- mal detection of quantum information, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88, 020302 (2013), iSBN: 1094-1622 Publisher: APS

    2013

  31. [39]

    A. M. Childs, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, and M. Ozols, A framework for bounding nonlocality of state discrim- ination, Communications in Mathematical Physics323, 1121 (2013), iSBN: 0010-3616 Publisher: Springer

    2013

  32. [40]

    Bandyopadhyay, S

    S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Halder, and M. Nathanson, En- tanglement as a resource for local state discrimination in multipartite systems, Physical Review A94, 022311 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Halder, M

    S. Halder, M. Banik, S. Agrawal, and S. Bandyopad- hyay, Strong quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Physical review letters122, 040403 (2019), iSBN: 0031- 9007 Publisher: APS

    2019

  34. [42]

    Leung, A

    D. Leung, A. Winter, and N. Yu, LOCC protocols with bounded width per round optimize convex functions, Re- viewsinMathematicalPhysics33,2150013(2021),iSBN: 14 0129-055X Publisher: World Scientific

    2021

  35. [43]

    C. Zhu, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, and X. Wang, Entanglement cost of discriminating quantum states under locality constraints, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (2025), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2025

  36. [44]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Partial quantum information, Nature436, 673 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Horodecki, J

    M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, Quantum State Merging and Negative Information, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics269, 107 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Devetak and J

    I. Devetak and J. Yard, Exact Cost of Redistributing Multipartite Quantum States, Physical Review Letters 100, 230501 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Berta, Single-shot Quantum State Merging (2009), arXiv:0912.4495 [quant-ph]

    M. Berta, Single-shot Quantum State Merging (2009), arXiv:0912.4495 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bjelaković, H

    I. Bjelaković, H. Boche, and G. Janßen, Universal quan- tum state merging, Journal of Mathematical Physics54, 032204 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, and D. Touchette, Smooth entropy bounds on one-shot quantum state redistribu- tion, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62, 1425 (2016), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2016

  42. [50]

    Streltsov, E

    A. Streltsov, E. Chitambar, S. Rana, M. Bera, A. Win- ter, and M. Lewenstein, Entanglement and Coherence in Quantum State Merging, Physical Review Letters116, 240405 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Yamasaki and M

    H. Yamasaki and M. Murao, Quantum State Merging for Arbitrarily Small-Dimensional Systems, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory65, 3950 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Streltsov, Quantum state merging with bound entan- glement, New Journal of Physics22, 023032 (2020)

    A. Streltsov, Quantum state merging with bound entan- glement, New Journal of Physics22, 023032 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    C. H. Bennett, I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, P. W. Shor, and A. Winter, The quantum reverse Shannon theo- rem and resource tradeoffs for simulating quantum chan- nels, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 2926 (2014), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2014

  46. [54]

    M. M. Wilde, Entanglement cost and quantum channel simulation, Physical Review A98, 042338 (2018), iSBN: 2469-9926 Publisher: APS

    2018

  47. [55]

    K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and M. Berta, Quan- tum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max- information, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 66, 2129 (2019), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2019

  48. [56]

    Wang and M

    X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Exact entanglement cost of quantum states and channels under positive-partial- transpose-preserving operations, Physical Review A107, 012429 (2023), iSBN: 2469-9926 Publisher: APS

    2023

  49. [57]

    M. X. Cao, R. Jain, and M. Tomamichel, Quantum chan- nel simulation in fidelity is no more difficult than state splitting, in2024 IEEE International Symposium on In- formation Theory (ISIT)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 1421–1425

    2024

  50. [58]

    M. X. Cao, N. Ramakrishnan, M. Berta, and M. Tomamichel, Channel simulation: Finite blocklengths and broadcast channels, IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory (2024), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2024

  51. [59]

    Chitambar and M.-H

    E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh, Round complexity in the local transformations of quantum and classical states, Nature Communications8, 2086 (2017)

  52. [60]

    Wang and M

    X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Cost of quantum entangle- ment simplified, Physical Review Letters125, 040502 (2020), iSBN: 0031-9007 Publisher: APS

    2020

  53. [61]

    Pankowski, F

    L. Pankowski, F. G. Brandao, M. Horodecki, and G. Smith, Entanglement distillation by extendible maps, arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.1779 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  54. [62]

    E. Kaur, S. Das, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, Ex- tendibility Limits the Performance of Quantum Proces- sors, Physical Review Letters123, 070502 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Singh and M

    V. Singh and M. M. Wilde, Unextendible Entanglement of Quantum Channels, IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory71, 6002 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Chitambar, W

    E. Chitambar, W. Cui, and H.-K. Lo, Increasing entan- glement monotones by separable operations, Physical re- view letters108, 240504 (2012), iSBN: 1079-7114 Pub- lisher: APS

    2012

  57. [65]

    Gheorghiu and R

    V. Gheorghiu and R. B. Griffiths, Entanglement trans- formations using separable operations, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics76, 032310 (2007), iSBN: 1094-1622 Publisher: APS

    2007

  58. [66]

    Chitambar and R

    E. Chitambar and R. Duan, Nonlocal entanglement transformations achievable by separable operations, Physical review letters103, 110502 (2009), iSBN: 1079- 7114 Publisher: APS

    2009

  59. [67]

    S. M. Cohen, Necessary condition for local quantum op- erations and classical communication with extensive vi- olation by separable operations, Physical Review A90, 012336 (2014), iSBN: 1050-2947 Publisher: APS

    2014

  60. [68]

    Chen and H

    Y. Chen and H. Kan, Separable operations and local op- erations with classical communication on triqubit pure states, Physical Review A90, 062340 (2014), iSBN: 1050- 2947 Publisher: APS

    2014

  61. [69]

    Mancinska,Separable State Discrimination Using Lo- cal Quantum Operations and Classical Communication, Ph.D

    L. Mancinska,Separable State Discrimination Using Lo- cal Quantum Operations and Classical Communication, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Hebenstreit, C

    M. Hebenstreit, C. Spee, and B. Kraus, Maximally en- tangled set of tripartite qutrit states and pure state sep- arable transformations which are not possible via local operations and classical communication, Physical Review A93, 012339 (2016), iSBN: 2469-9926 Publisher: APS

    2016

  63. [71]

    R. Duan, Y. Feng, Y. Xin, and M. Ying, Distinguisha- bility of quantum states by separable operations, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory55, 1320 (2009), iSBN: 0018-9448 Publisher: IEEE

    2009

  64. [72]

    Berta, F

    M. Berta, F. Borderi, O. Fawzi, and V. B. Scholz, Semidefinite programming hierarchies for constrained bi- linear optimization, Mathematical Programming194, 781 (2022), iSBN: 0025-5610 Publisher: Springer

    2022

  65. [73]

    H. Su, G. Yang, M. Nie, and G. He, Design of Quan- tum Teleportation Protocol Based on LOCCNet, in2023 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition (AIPR)(ACM, Xiamen China,

  66. [74]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature communications9, 1 (2018), type: Journal Article

    2018

  67. [75]

    Boumal,An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds(Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    N. Boumal,An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds(Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Rapcsák, On minimization on Stiefel manifolds, Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research143, 365 (2002), iSBN: 0377-2217 Publisher: Elsevier

    T. Rapcsák, On minimization on Stiefel manifolds, Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research143, 365 (2002), iSBN: 0377-2217 Publisher: Elsevier

    2002

  69. [77]

    H. D. Tagare, Notes on optimization on stiefel manifolds, Yale University, New Haven (2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    J. Li, L. Fuxin, and S. Todorovic, Efficient riemannian optimization on the stiefel manifold via the cayley trans- form, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01113 (2020)

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Li, X.-L

    Z.-T. Li, X.-L. He, C.-C. Zheng, Y.-Q. Dong, T. Luan, X.-T. Yu, and Z.-C. Zhang, Quantum Network Tomogra- phy via Learning Isometries on Stiefel Manifold (2024), 15 arXiv:2404.06988

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.