pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26647 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Nonclassical traits in multi-copy state discrimination

Tim Achenbach , Leevi Lepp\"aj\"arvi , Hanwool Lee , Teiko Heinosaari
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 10:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords multi-copy state discriminationminimum error discriminationqubit strategiesbit-like operational theoriesnonlocality without entanglementLOCC strategiesquantum foundations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bit-like operational theories can outperform quantum qubit strategies in multi-copy state discrimination even with classical measurements.

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

The paper examines minimum-error discrimination of multi-copy quantum states, where multiple identical preparations allow different parties to measure under global, local, or LOCC strategies. It shows that a qubit-based quantum strategy beats every classical bit strategy, yet certain other bit-like operational theories reach higher success probabilities than the best qubit approach while using only classical measurements. This identifies cases of nonlocality without entanglement and supplies general performance bounds for the bit-like theories. A sympathetic reader cares because the result separates quantum advantages from other possible sources of nonclassicality in information tasks.

Core claim

We find a qubit strategy that outperforms all the bit strategies. However, we find that there are other bit-like operational theories which can outperform the best qubit strategies even with a classical measurement strategy and we are able to identify instances of different theories where different measurement strategies are optimal. In this way, we are able to find instances of nonlocality without entanglement as well as provide general bounds for bit-like operational theories.

What carries the argument

Comparison of average success probabilities for minimum-error discrimination of multi-copy states across quantum qubit, classical bit, and other bit-like operational theories under global, LOCC, and restricted local measurement strategies.

If this is right

  • A qubit strategy outperforms all classical bit strategies in multi-copy discrimination.
  • Certain bit-like theories achieve higher success probabilities than the optimal qubit strategy using only classical measurements.
  • Different bit-like theories attain their best performance under different measurement strategies.
  • Nonlocality without entanglement appears in multi-copy discrimination tasks.
  • General upper and lower bounds can be derived for the performance of bit-like operational theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The comparison method could be applied to other information-processing tasks to locate additional signatures of nonclassicality outside standard quantum mechanics.
  • Finding which measurement strategy is optimal for each theory gives a concrete way to classify how far each theory deviates from classical or quantum limits.
  • The existence of outperforming bit-like theories implies that quantum mechanics is not necessarily maximal for state discrimination when multiple copies are available.

Load-bearing premise

That bit-like operational theories are valid alternatives that can be compared on equal footing with quantum mechanics in the context of multi-copy state discrimination tasks.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation or experiment for a chosen set of multi-copy states showing that the highest success probability achievable by any bit-like theory is strictly lower than the best qubit strategy would falsify the claim that such theories can outperform qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26647 by Hanwool Lee, Leevi Lepp\"aj\"arvi, Teiko Heinosaari, Tim Achenbach.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Alice is randomly asked to prepare a state with label i. She sends k instances of that state to Bob, to whom the label is unknown. He tries to figure out the label, measuring the states and finally outputting his guess j. If j = i, they succeed. The measurement strategies can vary from Bob making a collective global measurement on all copies to making individual local measurements on the different copies. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The trine states are the simplest non-trivial case of GU￾states. All three states share a 120○ angle between them. The figure shows a projection of the Bloch sphere onto the z − x-plane. By using the pretty good measurement (PGM) [16], defined formally later in Equa￾tion (4.8) and Equation (4.9), we get the average success probability P = 3 4 , which is the upper bound in Theorem 4.1 in the case of n = 4 a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The gap between f(k) and g(k) increases with the num￾ber of copies. Since both functions are monotonically increasing, this suggests a quantum advantage. Proposition 4.6. The optimal success probability of discriminating k copies of n > k GU states is lower bounded by PGU (n, k) ≥ PCGU (n, k) ≥ 2 2k n ( 2k k ) −1 =∶ h(k) n (4.15) Proof. From [21] we take that the success probability of discriminating rando… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The success probability for multi-copy discrimination of trine states scales exponentially in both, quantum as well as classical, theories. However, it takes about k = 11 copies for classical theory to be practically 1, whereas k = 5 copies are sufficient for quantum theory to achieve effectively success probability 1. Proof. By using the expressions from Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.8 it can be straightforwa… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This plot shows the success probability for 2 copies from 3-state ensembles, given a theory and measurement strategy. Solid lines correspond to the trine ensemble and the dashed line to classical theory. For the double trine ensemble, the optimal success probabil￾ity by SEP and AD measurements are analytically derived in [20]. The bounds for the success probability by AD1 and NAD measure￾ments (green and p… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Heptagon state space P(7) is represented by pure states si . The mixed states lie on the edges and inside the polygon. The extreme effects fi are dual vectors identical to the pure states si . It can be seen that the complement effects ¯fi correspond to picking out the edges of the polygon. Here, an effect ei can be viewed as a functional that picks a certain edge in the sense that one gets outcome ’ye… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The black nodes in hexagon state space represent the pure states, whereas the pure effects (red) can be understood as projectors on an edge. Thus, effects of opposing edges, e.g. e1 and e4 are inverse to each other e1 = 1P(6) − e4. (b) Square state space is of unique structure, that is, every pair of states can be distinguished by one pure effect. always apply non-adaptive measurements {e2, e¯2} and {e… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The lower (C)GU-bound h(k) surpasses the classical upper bound g(k) for all k ∈ [25], whereas the gap increases in alignment with the success probability shown in view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum state discrimination is a fundamental information processing task that serves as a building block for numerous applications and provides implications at the foundational level. In this work, we consider minimum error discrimination of multi-copy states, where instead of preparing a single system we assume that multiple instances of the same state are prepared. Now the discrimination allows for measurements from multiple parties with different measurement strategies varying from global measurement strategy to ones restricted to different forms of local operations and classical communication strategies. By comparing the average success probabilities in quantum and classical cases, we find a qubit strategy that outperforms all the bit strategies. However, we find that there are other bit-like operational theories which can outperform the best qubit strategies even with a classical measurement strategy and we are able to identify instances of different theories where different measurement strategies are optimal. In this way, we are able to find instances of nonlocality without entanglement as well as provide general bounds for bit-like operational theories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines minimum-error discrimination of multi-copy states, comparing quantum (qubit) strategies against classical bit strategies and generalized bit-like operational theories under global, local, and LOCC measurements. It claims a qubit strategy outperforms all bit strategies, yet certain bit-like theories exceed the optimal qubit performance even with classical measurements; this yields examples of nonlocality without entanglement and general bounds on bit-like theories.

Significance. If the bit-like theories are rigorously constructed with fixed state spaces and effect algebras that permit direct comparison to quantum mechanics, the results would highlight nonclassical advantages in multi-copy tasks and provide concrete instances of nonlocality without entanglement outside standard QM. The work could strengthen foundational comparisons between operational theories, but only if the constructions are canonical rather than ad hoc.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 (definitions of bit-like theories)] The definition and axiomatization of bit-like operational theories (state space, effects, allowed operations, and composition) is not provided with sufficient detail to verify the outperformance claims or the nonlocality-without-entanglement instances. Without this, the headline result that these theories beat the best qubit strategy under classical measurements cannot be independently checked.
  2. [§4 (results on discrimination probabilities)] The abstract and results assert specific outperformance (qubit over bits; bit-like over qubits) and optimal strategies per theory, yet no numerical success probabilities, explicit calculations, or proofs are referenced for the multi-copy discrimination task. This leaves the central comparisons unverified.
  3. [§2–3 (operational framework)] The construction of bit-like theories appears chosen to exhibit the reported advantages; if the theories are not derived from first principles or shown to be the unique/canonical extension of classical bits, the nonlocality instances and bounds risk being artifacts of the choice rather than robust features.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for measurement strategies (global vs. LOCC) should be standardized across sections to avoid ambiguity when comparing quantum, classical, and bit-like cases.
  2. [Introduction] Add explicit references to prior work on generalized probabilistic theories and multi-copy discrimination to clarify the novelty of the bit-like constructions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions that will strengthen the manuscript's clarity and verifiability while preserving its core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (definitions of bit-like theories)] The definition and axiomatization of bit-like operational theories (state space, effects, allowed operations, and composition) is not provided with sufficient detail to verify the outperformance claims or the nonlocality-without-entanglement instances. Without this, the headline result that these theories beat the best qubit strategy under classical measurements cannot be independently checked.

    Authors: We agree that §3 would benefit from expanded axiomatization. The bit-like theories are defined within the generalized probabilistic theory framework, with state spaces as convex sets generated by deterministic bit states, effects forming an effect algebra closed under composition, and operations restricted to no-signaling maps. In the revision we will add an explicit subsection listing the full state space, effect set, allowed transformations, and tensor-product composition rules, including the precise convex hull and normalization conditions used for the multi-copy case. This will enable direct verification of the reported outperformance under classical measurements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (results on discrimination probabilities)] The abstract and results assert specific outperformance (qubit over bits; bit-like over qubits) and optimal strategies per theory, yet no numerical success probabilities, explicit calculations, or proofs are referenced for the multi-copy discrimination task. This leaves the central comparisons unverified.

    Authors: The manuscript contains the success probabilities for the qubit, classical-bit, and bit-like strategies in the main text and figures, but we acknowledge that explicit derivations and numerical tabulations are not sufficiently highlighted. In the revised version we will insert a dedicated table listing the exact average success probabilities for each theory and measurement type (global, local, LOCC), together with a short appendix providing the semidefinite-programming formulation and the optimality proofs for the reported strategies. This will make the central comparisons independently verifiable. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2–3 (operational framework)] The construction of bit-like theories appears chosen to exhibit the reported advantages; if the theories are not derived from first principles or shown to be the unique/canonical extension of classical bits, the nonlocality instances and bounds risk being artifacts of the choice rather than robust features.

    Authors: The bit-like theories are obtained as the minimal no-signaling extensions of classical bits within the GPT framework: the state space is the convex hull of the two deterministic bit states, effects are the dual functionals satisfying 0 ≤ e ≤ u, and composition is the standard tensor product preserving marginals. While not the unique extension, this construction is canonical in the sense that it is the smallest convex set containing the classical bit states and closed under the operational requirements used throughout the paper. We will add a paragraph in §2 clarifying this derivation from first principles and noting that the nonlocality-without-entanglement examples and the general bounds hold for the entire class of such extensions, not merely for specially chosen instances. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; comparisons rest on independent operational definitions.

full rationale

The paper defines quantum mechanics, classical bits, and bit-like operational theories via their respective state spaces, effect algebras, and allowed operations (global vs. LOCC measurements). Discrimination probabilities are computed directly from these structures for multi-copy states without fitting parameters to the target quantities or reducing claims to self-citations. The reported outperformance of certain bit-like theories and instances of nonlocality without entanglement follow from explicit convex-set calculations that remain falsifiable against the stated axioms. No step equates a prediction to its input by construction, and external benchmarks (quantum vs. classical limits) are used without circular renaming or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims depend on the standard quantum framework and the introduction or use of bit-like operational theories, which lack independent evidence in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics provides the framework for state preparation and measurement in the qubit case
    The work is set in quant-ph and uses standard quantum state discrimination.
  • domain assumption Bit-like operational theories exist as consistent alternatives to quantum and classical bits for comparison
    The paper relies on these theories to make the outperforming claims.
invented entities (1)
  • bit-like operational theories no independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as alternatives that can be compared in discrimination tasks
    These are used to demonstrate cases where they outperform qubits without specific independent validation mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5464 in / 1518 out tokens · 70022 ms · 2026-05-07T10:38:26.921170+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. Chefles. Quantum state discrimination.Contemp. Phys., 41(6):401–424, 2000.doi:10. 1080/00107510010002599

    2000

  2. [2]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke. Quantum state discrimination.Adv. Opt. Photon., 1(2):238–278, 2009.doi:10.1364/AOP.1.000238

    work page doi:10.1364/aop.1.000238 2009

  3. [3]

    Bae and L.-C

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek. Quantum state discrimination and its applications.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48(8):083001, 2015.doi:10.1088/1751-8113/48/8/083001

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/48/8/083001 2015

  4. [4]

    Arai and M

    H. Arai and M. Hayashi. Derivation of standard quantum theory via state discrimination, 2024.arXiv:2307.11271

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    A. Ac´ ın. Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:177901, 2001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.177901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.177901 2001

  6. [6]

    D. Roy, T. Gupta, P. Ghosal, S. Sen, and S. Bandyopadhyay. Quantum state exclusion with many copies, 2026.arXiv:2601.14410

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, E. Bagan, Ll. Masanes, A. Acin, and F. Verstraete. Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:160501, 2007.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.160501. NONCLASSICAL TRAITS IN MULTI-COPY STATE DISCRIMINATION 39

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.160501 2007

  8. [8]

    B. L. Higgins, A. C. Doherty, S. D. Bartlett, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman. Multiple- copy state discrimination: Thinking globally, acting locally.Phys. Rev. A, 83:052314, 2011. doi:10.1103/physreva.83.052314

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.83.052314 2011

  9. [9]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Manˇ cinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter. Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask).Commun. Math. Phys., 328(1):303–326, 2014.doi:10.1007/s00220-014-1953-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-014-1953-9 2014

  10. [10]

    Schumacher and M

    B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland.Quantum Processes Systems, and Information. Cam- bridge University Press, 2010.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511814006

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814006 2010

  11. [11]

    Barnum and E

    H. Barnum and E. Knill. Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity.J. Math. Phys., 43(5):2097, 2002.doi:10.1063/1.1459754

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1459754 2097

  12. [12]

    A. W. Harrow and A. Winter. How many copies are needed for state discrimination?IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 58(1):1–2, 2012.doi:10.1109/tit.2011.2169544

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2011.2169544 2012

  13. [13]

    Bandyopadhyay, V

    S. Bandyopadhyay, V. Roychowdhury, and U. Sen. Classification of nonasymptotic bipartite pure-state entanglement transformations.Phys. Rev. A, 65:052315, 2002.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.65.052315

    2002

  14. [14]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters. Quantum nonlocality without entanglement.Phys. Rev. A, 59:1070– 1091, 1999.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1070

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.59.1070 1999

  15. [15]

    Heinosaari and M

    T. Heinosaari and M. Hillery. Can a qudit carry more information than a dit?Contemp. Phys., 65(1):2–11, 2024.doi:10.1080/00107514.2024.2390279

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2024.2390279 2024

  16. [16]

    A ‘Pretty Good’ Measurement for Distinguishing Quantum States

    P. Hausladen and W. K. Wootters. A ‘pretty good’ measurement for distinguishing quantum states.J. Mod. Opt., 41(12):2385–2390, 1994.doi:10.1080/09500349414552221

    work page doi:10.1080/09500349414552221 1994

  17. [17]

    J. Zhou, S. Chessa, E. Chitambar, and F. Leditzky. On the distinguishability of geometrically uniform quantum states.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 58(41):415303, 2025.doi:10.1088/ 1751-8121/ae0a95

    2025

  18. [18]

    M. Ban, K. Kurokawa, R. Momose, and O. Hirota. Optimum measurements for discrimi- nation among symmetric quantum states and parameter estimation.Int. J. Theor. Phys., 36(6):1269–1288, 1997.doi:10.1007/BF02435921

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02435921 1997

  19. [19]

    Eldar, A

    Y.C. Eldar, A. Megretski, and G.C. Verghese. Optimal detection of symmetric mixed quan- tum states.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 50(6):1198–1207, 2004.doi:10.1109/TIT.2004. 828070

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2004 2004

  20. [20]

    Chitambar and M.-H

    E. Chitambar and M.-H. Hsieh. Revisiting the optimal detection of quantum information. Phys. Rev. A, 88:020302, 2013.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.020302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.88.020302 2013

  21. [21]

    Montanaro

    A. Montanaro. On the distinguishability of random quantum states.Commun. Math. Phys., 273(3):619–636, 2007.doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0221-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0221-7 2007

  22. [22]

    Johnston, V

    N. Johnston, V. Russo, and J. Sikora. Tight bounds for antidistinguishability and circulant sets of pure quantum states.Quantum, 9:1622, 2025.doi:10.22331/q-2025-02-04-1622

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-02-04-1622 2025

  23. [23]

    Jozsa and J

    R. Jozsa and J. Schlienz. Distinguishability of states and von neumann entropy.Phys. Rev. A, 62(1):012301, 2000.doi:10.1103/physreva.62.012301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.62.012301 2000

  24. [24]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis. An operational approach to quantum probability.Commun. Math. Phys., 17:239–260, 1970.doi:10.1007/BF01647093

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01647093 1970

  25. [25]

    A. C. R. Dutra, T.-A. Ohst, H.-C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne. Structure of quantum mea- surements implementable with one round of classical communication.Rep. Prog. Phys., 89(3):037601, 2026.doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ae4fef

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ae4fef 2026

  26. [26]

    Birkhoff and J

    G. Birkhoff and J. Von Neumann. The logic of quantum mechanics.Ann. Math., 37(4):823– 843, 1936.doi:10.2307/1968621

    work page doi:10.2307/1968621 1936

  27. [27]

    L. Hardy. Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms, 2001.arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  28. [28]

    Masanes and M

    L. Masanes and M. P. M¨ uller. A derivation of quantum theory from physical requirements. New J. Phys., 13(6):063001, 2011.doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063001. 40 TIM ACHENBACH, LEEVI LEPP ¨AJ ¨AR VI, HANWOOL LEE, AND TEIKO HEINOSAARI

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/6/063001 2011

  29. [29]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Informational derivation of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. A, 84:012311, 2011.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.012311

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.012311 2011

  30. [30]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Foundations of Physics, 24(3):379–385, 1994

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Found. Phys., 24(3):379–385, 1994.doi:10.1007/BF02058098

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02058098 1994

  31. [31]

    Pl´ avala

    M. Pl´ avala. General probabilistic theories: An introduction.Phys. Rep., 1033:1–64, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001 2023

  32. [32]

    Matsumoto and G

    K. Matsumoto and G. Kimura. Information storing yields a point-asymmetry of state space in general probabilistic theories, 2018.arXiv:1802.01162

    work page arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Heinosaari, L

    T. Heinosaari, L. Lepp¨ aj¨ arvi, and M. Pl´ avala. Encoding and decoding of information in general probabilistic theories.Int. J. Quantum Inf., 22(05):2440007, 2024.doi:10.1142/ s0219749924400070

    2024

  34. [34]

    C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack. Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments.Phys. Rev. A, 66:062111, 2002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062111

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.66.062111 2002

  35. [35]

    Heinosaari and O

    T. Heinosaari and O. Kerppo. Antidistinguishability of pure quantum states.J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 51(36):365303, 2018.doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aad1fc

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aad1fc 2018

  36. [36]

    Janotta, C

    P. Janotta, C. Gogolin, J. Barrett, and N. Brunner. Limits on nonlocal correlations from the structure of the local state space.New J. Phys., 13(6):063024, 2011.doi:10.1088/ 1367-2630/13/6/063024

    2011

  37. [37]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, 1969.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 23.880

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 1969

  38. [38]

    B. S. Cirel’son. Quantum generalizations of bell’s inequality.Lett. Math. Phys., 4:93–100, 1980.doi:10.1007/BF00417500

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00417500 1980

  39. [39]

    Navascu´ es and H

    M. Navascu´ es and H. Wunderlich. A glance beyond the quantum model.Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 466(2115):881–890, 2009.doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0453

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0453 2009

  40. [40]

    S. S. Bhattacharya, S. Saha, T. Guha, and M. Banik. Nonlocality without entangle- ment: Quantum theory and beyond.Phys. Rev. Research, 2(1):012068, 2020.doi:10.1103/ physrevresearch.2.012068

    2020

  41. [41]

    Kvashchuk, P

    M. Kvashchuk, P. Chernyshova, L. E.A. Porto, T.-A. Ohst, L. B. Vieira, and M. T. Quintino. The most discriminable quantum states in the multicopy regime, 2026.arXiv:2604.xxxxx. AppendixA.Multiple copies of GU-states A.1.Proof of Theorem 4.5.For the proof of Theorem 4.5 we need a few math- ematical preliminaries, which are going to appear several times in ...

    2026

  42. [42]

    Consequently, we get an interesting block-structure

    Moreover, all entries, that have equal total number of 1’s in the bit strings indexing their position, are equal. Consequently, we get an interesting block-structure. 46 TIM ACHENBACH, LEEVI LEPP ¨AJ ¨AR VI, HANWOOL LEE, AND TEIKO HEINOSAARI ϱ(2) = 1 8 ⎛ ⎜⎜⎜ ⎝ 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 ⎞ ⎟⎟⎟ ⎠ , ϱ (3) = 1 16 ⎛ ⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜ ⎝ 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 ...