Quantifying quantum-state texture

Hui Liu; Tinggui Zhang; Yiding Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Quantifying quantum-state texture

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that trace-distance, geometric, and fidelity-based functions are valid quantum-state texture measures, while the $\ell^1$, relative-entropy, and robustness constructions fail.

desk verdict Useful negative results and two solid measures, but the geometric measure's proof is invalid and the paper misses that Tg is exactly TF. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18166 v1 pith:4K4MVUGI submitted 2025-04-25 quant-ph

Yiding Wang , Hui Liu , Tinggui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581P4081P68 PACS 04.70.Dy03.65.Ud04.62.+v

keywords quantum-statetexturemeasuresresourcetheorytracedistancegeometricmeasureUhlmannfidelityl1normconvexroof

topics The Measurement Problem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum-state texture treats a density matrix as a three-dimensional plot and measures how uneven it is; the only perfectly textureless state is the uniform superposition $|f_1\rangle=d^{-1/2}\sum_i|i\rangle$. The authors test candidate quantifiers against three axioms: nonnegativity with zero on $f_1$, monotonicity under channels that preserve $f_1$, and convexity. They prove that the trace-distance measure $T_{tr}(\rho)=D(\rho,f_1)$, the geometric measure $T_g$ (convex roof of $1-|\langle f_1|\psi\rangle|^2$), and the fidelity-based measures $T_F(\rho)=1-F(\rho,f_1)$ and $T_B(\rho)=2(1-\sqrt{F(\rho,f_1)})$ satisfy these axioms. They also prove that the $\ell^1$-norm measure can increase under a free operation and that relative entropy and robustness diverge for most states, so none of those three can serve as a texture quantifier. The payoff is an experimentally friendly set of probes, two of which signal a nonequilibrium situation through their temperature dependence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the textureless state $f_1=|f_1\rangle\langle f_1|$ with $|f_1\rangle=d^{-1/2}\sum_i|i\rangle$, together with the three axioms that define a valid texture measure: nonnegativity and vanishing on $f_1$; nonincrease under completely positive trace-preserving maps that fix $f_1$; and convexity. All proposed measures are constructed by measuring some distance from $\rho$ to $f_1$ or by building an overlap with $f_1$: the trace distance works because it is contractive and strongly convex; the geometric measure works through the pure-state identity $D(|\psi\rangle,f_1)^2=1-|\langle f_1|\psi\rangle|^2$ and a convex-roof extension; the fidelity measures work because $F(\rho,f_1)=\langle f_1|\rho|f_1\rangle$ for the pure state $f_1$, reducing them to the single overlap $\langle f_1|\rho|f_1\rangle$. The failure mechanisms are equally specific: the $\ell^1$ norm is not monotone under free operations, and entropy or robustness diverge when the state has support in the kernel of $f_1$.

What would settle it

Set $d=2$ and take the completely positive trace-preserving map with Kraus operators $K_1=\sqrt{p}|f_1\rangle\langle 0|$, $K_2=\sqrt{p}|f_1\rangle\langle 1|$, and $K_3=\sqrt{1-p}\,U$, where $U$ fixes $|f_1\rangle$ up to a phase; this map satisfies $\Lambda(f_1)=f_1$ but violates the left-eigenvector condition used in Theorem 2. For a range of $p$ and random states $\rho$, compute $T_g(\Lambda(\rho))$ and $T_g(\rho)$: any instance of $T_g(\Lambda(\rho))>T_g(\rho)$ refutes the theorem as stated, while a systematic absence of increases would point to the theorem being true by a proof that avoids the left-eigenvector assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a classification of candidate quantum-state texture measures. For a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space, write $|f_1\rangle=d^{-1/2}\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}|i\rangle$ and $f_1=|f_1\rangle\langle f_1|$. The paper proves that $T_{tr}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}|\rho-f_1|$ is a texture measure, using contractivity of the trace distance under quantum channels and its strong convexity. It defines the geometric measure $T_g(|\psi\rangle)=1-|\langle f_1|\psi\rangle|^2$ for pure states, extended by convex roof to mixed states, and uses the identity $D(|\psi\rangle,f_1)^2=T_g(|\psi\rangle)$ to obtain the lower bound $T_g(\rho)\ge [D(\rho,f_1)]^2$. For fidelity, the purity of $f_1$ gives $F(\rho,f_1)=\langle f_1|\rho|f_1\rangle$, so $T_F(\rho)=1-F(\rho,f_1)$ and $T_B(\rho)=2(1-\sqrt{F(\rho,f_1)})$ require only the overlap with $f_1$. The paper shows that these four measures all reach their maximum on the Fourier states and their linear combinations. In contrast, the $\ell^1$-norm measure can increase under a free operation in dimension two; and both relative entropy $S(\rho\|f_1)$ and robustness are infinite for states supported partly on the orthogonal complement of $f_1$, making them too coarse to quantify texture.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the geometric measure cannot increase under free operations assumes that each noise operator individually sends the uniform state $f_1$ to a scalar multiple of itself from the left, an assumption stronger than the stated condition that the whole channel preserves $f_1$; if that stronger assumption fails, the given monotonicity proof for $T_g$ collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The trace-distance measure $T_{tr}$ distinguishes the two one-parameter families $\sigma_\alpha$ and $\tau_\alpha$ for every $\alpha\in[0,1]$, whereas the earlier rugosity measure assigns them the same value, so texture measures differ in resolving power.
Since $F(\rho,f_1)=\langle f_1|\rho|f_1\rangle$ for pure $f_1$, the fidelity measures $T_F$ and $T_B$ require only estimation of one overlap, which is what makes them experimentally friendly.
For thermal Gibbs states, $T_F$ and $T_B$ depend only on the dimension $d$, while for the coherent Gibbs kets $|\psi\rangle_T$ they depend on temperature, so either measure can act as a witness of a nonequilibrium situation.
The geometric measure satisfies the analytic lower bound $T_g(\rho)\ge [D(\rho,f_1)]^2$, giving a computable estimate whenever the convex-roof value is hard to obtain.
All four measures the paper validates attain their maximum value on the Fourier states and on linear combinations of Fourier states, consistent with the resource-theoretic maximality of those states.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: on pure states $T_g$ and $T_F$ coincide because both reduce to $1-|\langle f_1|\psi\rangle|^2$; the paper does not discuss whether the convex-roof extension of $T_g$ equals $T_F$ on mixed states, which would make the geometric measure's given monotonicity proof unnecessary.
Beyond the paper: the monotonicity proof for $T_g$ assumes each Kraus operator is a left eigenvector of $f_1$, which is stronger than the channel fixing $f_1$; a systematic search over channels that fix $f_1$ but violate that condition would tell whether the geometric measure is independently a resource monotone.
Beyond the paper: because $T_F(\rho)=1-\sum_{ij}\rho_{ij}/d$, the fidelity measures could in principle be estimated by measuring the expectation value of the projector $|f_1\rangle\langle f_1|$ and related coherences, without full state tomography; the paper notes experimental friendliness but does not spell out an estimation protocol.
Beyond the paper: the $\ell^1$ counterexample is given in dimension two; checking whether free operations in higher dimensions also admit such increases would show whether the $\ell^1$ failure is a generic obstruction or an artifact of small dimension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper is a mixed bag, but there is enough real content to warrant a serious look. The genuinely new part is the negative results: the l1 norm fails as a texture measure, and both relative entropy and robustness, while satisfying the formal axioms, are infinite for any state with rank > 1 (or with support orthogonal to the textureless state f1), so they cannot quantify texture in practice. The trace distance measure Ttr is correctly proven to be valid, and the example showing it distinguishes states that Parisio's rugosity cannot is a nice touch. The fidelity-based measures TF and TB are also correctly validated and have the advantage of being experimentally accessible; the nonequilibrium witness calculation is a useful addition.

The soft spot is Theorem 2. The monotonicity proof for the geometric measure Tg assumes that each Kraus operator K_n satisfies ⟨f1|K_n = α_n ⟨f1|, but the free-operation condition Λ(f1)=f1 only gives K_n|f1⟩ ∝ |f1⟩. These are not the same, and the replacement channel K_n=|f1⟩⟨n| is a concrete counterexample. As written, the proof of Theorem 2 is invalid. The theorem itself is salvageable, but only because Tg(ρ)=1−⟨f1|ρ|f1⟩ for every state: the convex roof is flat, so Tg is exactly the fidelity measure TF. The paper misses this identity entirely; it even presents a lower bound in Theorem 3 and an appendix as though Tg were hard to compute. That is a substantial oversight, not just a technical typo.

There are a few smaller things: the relative entropy appendix says the measure "meets three conditions" but then shows it is infinite for most states, which is worth stating more directly; and the l1 counterexample relies on the existence of a free map from |f2⟩ to |f*⟩, which is cited to [1] rather than constructed. I did not find a problem with the trace distance or fidelity proofs.

Who is this for? Anyone working on resource theories of coherence or asymmetry will find the negative results and the fidelity measures useful. The paper needs revision before it is publishable: fix the proof of Theorem 2, acknowledge Tg=TF, and reframe the geometric measure accordingly. But the core findings—Ttr is a good measure, l1/relative entropy/robustness are not—hold up, so I'd send it to a competent referee rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops quantification schemes for quantum-state texture (QST), a resource whose unique textureless state is the uniform superposition f1. It proposes a trace-distance measure Ttr, a convex-roof geometric measure Tg, a fidelity-based measure TF, and a Bures-type measure TB, and it tests whether each satisfies the three axioms for a QST measure: positivity and vanishing on f1, monotonicity under operations that fix f1, and convexity. It also argues that the l1-norm measure, relative entropy, and robustness are unsuitable quantifiers, and it applies TF and TB to Gibbs states and coherent Gibbs kets as nonequilibrium indicators. The paper presents the main derivations in Section II and supporting analyses in Appendices A-D.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful toolbox for QST quantification and extends the resource-theoretic framework initiated by Parisio. The manuscript has real strengths: all measures are defined analytically with no fitted parameters; the proofs for Ttr, TF, and TB are straightforward applications of standard trace-distance contractivity, fidelity monotonicity, and joint concavity of fidelity; and the examples in Section II illustrate state-discrimination advantages of Ttr over state rugosity. The main caveat is that the proof of monotonicity for the geometric measure Tg contains an unjustified step, and the paper does not notice that Tg is exactly equal to TF, which both repairs the proof and changes the presentation of Tg as difficult to compute.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Theorem 2 proof] The monotonicity proof for Tg contains an unjustified equality. In the chain for Tg(Λ(|ψ⟩)), the step Tg(K_n|ψ⟩/√p_n) = 1 − |⟨f1|K_n|ψ⟩|²/p_n = 1 − α_n²|⟨f1|ψ⟩|²/p_n requires ⟨f1|K_n = α_n⟨f1| as an operator identity. The stated free-operation condition Λ(f1)=f1 only implies K_n|f1⟩ ∝ |f1⟩ because Σ_n K_n f1 K_n† = f1 is a rank-one operator, and a right-eigenvector property does not imply the left-eigenvector property. For example, the replacement channel with Kraus operators K_n = |f1⟩⟨n| is trace-preserving and fixes f1, but ⟨f1|K_n = ⟨n|, so the disputed equality fails for generic |ψ⟩, e.g., |ψ⟩=|0⟩ in d=2. As written, Theorem 2 does not establish monotonicity of Tg.
[Section II, Theorems 2 and 3] The paper does not notice that the convex-roof geometric measure collapses to the fidelity measure. For every decomposition ρ = Σ_i p_i |ψ_i⟩⟨ψ_i|, one has Σ_i p_i |⟨f1|ψ_i⟩|² = ⟨f1|ρ|f1⟩, so Tg(ρ) = 1 − ⟨f1|ρ|f1⟩ = TF(ρ). Thus every decomposition is optimal, and the claimed analytical lower bound in Theorem 3 is not a genuine bound but a consequence of an exact closed form; the statement that Tg is difficult to obtain directly is therefore misleading. The authors should state the identity Tg = TF explicitly and use it to repair the proof of Theorem 2, since monotonicity of Tg then follows from Theorem 4.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, definition of free operations] The condition for Kraus operators is garbled: the text reads "Σ_n K_n† K_n = /BD", which should be Σ_n K_n† K_n = I, the identity operator.
[Section II, Theorem 5 proof] The sentence "based on the proof in Theorem 5, we obtain F(Λ(ρ),f1) ≥ F(ρ,f1)" refers to the wrong theorem; it should cite Theorem 4.
[Section II, Eq. (14)] The fidelity formula is typographically garbled: "Tr(√ρ1/2σρ1/2)" should read Tr(√(√ρ σ √ρ)) or an equivalent standard expression.
[Section II, Theorem 2 proof] The notation Tg(K_n|ψ⟩/√p_n) is shorthand for the geometric measure of the normalized state; it would be clearer to write Tg of the density matrix K_n|ψ⟩⟨ψ|K_n†/p_n.
[Appendix D] The index n is overloaded: it denotes both the number of Fourier states in the linear combination and the Kraus index in the main text. A different symbol, such as m, would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all measures are tested against externally given axioms with no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper contains no significant circularity. The QST axioms (i)-(iii) are taken from Parisio's external prior work [1]; the paper's own contribution is to test candidate measures against those axioms. Each measure is defined by an explicit formula (trace distance to f1, convex-roof geometric measure, fidelity-based TF and TB, and the l1/relative-entropy/robustness candidates), and the verification of the axioms is done by direct calculation using standard facts: contractivity and strong convexity of trace distance, joint convexity of relative entropy, joint concavity of sqrt-fidelity, and Uhlmann fidelity for pure states. No parameter is fitted to data, and no prediction is used backwards to set a definition. The citations to [1] for the free-operation structure and for inequality (16) are external, not self-citations, and the central claims do not reduce to those citations by construction. The only concern in the paper is a proof gap in Theorem 2: the monotonicity argument for Tg assumes left-eigenvector behavior ⟨f1|Kn = αn⟨f1| from Λ(f1)=f1, which does not follow from the stated right-eigenvector condition; the repair is the unstated identity Tg=TF. That is a correctness and rigor issue, not a circularity, because the geometric measure is still defined independently and its claimed properties are not obtained by renaming or fitting its input. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The measures are defined without fitted parameters. All claims rest on the resource-theoretic axioms for quantum-state texture introduced in [1], plus standard quantum information inequalities. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The unique textureless state is f1 = (1/d) Σ_{i,j} |i><j|, the uniform superposition projector.
Defined in [1]; the entire resource theory is built on this zero-resource set.
domain assumption Free operations are CPTP maps Λ with Λ(f1)=f1, and the three conditions (nonnegativity, monotonicity, convexity) define a valid QST measure.
Taken from [1]; the paper verifies these conditions for its proposed measures.
domain assumption For any free operation with Kraus operators {K_n}, each K_n satisfies K_n|f1⟩ ∝ |f1⟩.
Used in the proofs of monotonicity for Tg and relative entropy. The paper attributes this to [1].
domain assumption Fourier states |f_k⟩ (k>1) are maximal QST resources, and any state can be reached from them by free operations.
Used in the l1 counterexample (Appendix A) and Appendix D; attributed to [1].
domain assumption Eq. (16) from [1]: for any free operation Λ, Σ_{i,j} ρ_{ij} ≤ Σ_{i,j} Λ(ρ)_{ij}.
Used in the proof of Theorem 4 for TF monotonicity; equivalent to fidelity monotonicity for f1-preserving channels.
standard math Standard properties of trace distance, fidelity, and relative entropy (monotonicity, joint convexity, strong convexity) are assumed.
Textbook results cited as [40], [41], [43], [44].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying quantum-state texture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4K4MVUGI

@misc{pith2026250418166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying quantum-state texture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4K4MVUGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18166}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum-state texture is a newly recognized quantum resource that has garnered attention with the advancement of quantum theory. In this work, we introduce several potential quantum-state texture measure schemes and check whether they satisfy the three fundamental conditions required for a valid quantum-state texture measure. Specifically, the measure induced by the l_1-norm serves as a vital tool for quantifying coherence, but we prove that it cannot be used to quantify quantum state texture. Furthermore, we show that while relative entropy and robustness meet three fundamental conditions, they are not optimal for quantifying quantum-state texture. Fortunately, we still find that there are several measures that can be used as the measure standard of quantum-state texture. Among them, the trace distance measure and the geometric measure are two good measurement schemes. In addition, the two measures based on Uhlmann's fidelity are experimentally friendly and can serve as an ideal definition of quantum-state texture measures in non-equilibrium situations. All these researches on quantum-state texture measure theory can enrich the resource theory framework of quantum-state texture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18166 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

How- ever, for trace distance, we have Ttr(σα ) = 3 −α 4 , Ttr(τα ) = 1 4 (1 −α + √ α2 + 2α + 5)

cannot distinguish between these two states. How- ever, for trace distance, we have Ttr(σα ) = 3 −α 4 , Ttr(τα ) = 1 4 (1 −α + √ α2 + 2α + 5). Clearly, Ttr(τα ) > Ttr(σα ), and the corresponding nu- merical results are shown in Figure 1, which shows that our trace distance measurement can distinguish all σα and τα for parameters α ∈ [0, 1]. However, we ne...

work page
[2]

Parisio, Quantum-state texture and gate identiﬁca- tion, Phys

F. Parisio, Quantum-state texture and gate identiﬁca- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260801 (2024)

2024
[3]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

2011
[5]

Hillery, Coherence as a resource in decision problems : The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation, Phys

M. Hillery, Coherence as a resource in decision problems : The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012111 (2016)

2016
[6]

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

work page 2015
[7]

Lostaglio, D

M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings and T. Rudolph, Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires constraints beyond free energy, Nat. Commun 6, 6383 (2015)

2015
[8]

Narasimhachar and G

V. Narasimhachar and G. Gour, Low-temperature ther- modynamics with quantum coherence, Nat. Commun 6, 7689 (2015)

2015

Show all 45 references

[9]

Francica, J

G. Francica, J. Goold and F. Plastina, Role of coher- ence in the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 99, 042105 (2019)

2019
[10]

Lloyd, Quantum coherence in biological systems, J

S. Lloyd, Quantum coherence in biological systems, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 302, 012037 (2011)

2011
[11]

S. F. Huelga and M. B. Plenio, Vibrations, quanta, and biology, Contemp. Phys. 54, 181 (2013)

2013
[12]

Romero, R

E. Romero, R. Augulis, V. I. Novoderezhkin, M. Ferretti , J. Thieme, D. Zigmantas and R. van Grondelle, Quan- tum coherence in photosynthesis for eﬃcient solar-energy conversion, Nat. Phys. 10, 676 (2014)

2014
[13]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[14]

W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

1998
[15]

Vidal, R

G. Vidal, R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entan- glement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

2002
[16]

Simon, J

C. Simon, J. Kempe, Robustness of multiparty entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052327 (2002)

2002
[17]

Mintert, M

F. Mintert, M. Kus and A. Buchleitner, Concurrence of mixed multi-partite quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 260502 (2005)

2005
[18]

Vedral, M

V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997)

1997
[19]

Wei and P

T.C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of en- tanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003)

2003
[20]

Z.H. Ma, Z.H. Chen, J.L. Chen , C. Spengler, A. Gabriel and M. Huber, Measure of genuine multipartite entangle- ment with computable lower bounds, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062325 (2011)

2011
[21]

Y. Guo, Y. Jia, X. Li and L. Huang, Genuine multipar- tite entanglement measure, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 145303 (2021)

2021
[22]

Jin, Y.H

Z.X. Jin, Y.H. Tao, Y.T. Gui, S.M. Fei, X. Li-Jost and C.F. Qiao, Concurrence triangle induced genuine mul- tipartite entanglement measure, Results in Physics. 44, 106155 (2022)

2022
[23]

Jin, S.M

Z.X. Jin, S.M. Fei, X. Li-Jost and C.F. Qiao, Informa- tionally complete measures of quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012409 (2023)

2023
[24]

Vidal and R

G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Robustness of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 59, 141 (1999)

1999
[25]

Shapira, Y

D. Shapira, Y. Shimoni and O. Biham, Groverian mea- sure of entanglement for mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 73, 044301 (2006)

2006
[26]

Emary and C

C. Emary and C. W. J. Beenakker, Relation between 7 entanglement measures and Bell inequalities for three qubits, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032317 (2004)

2004
[27]

Sadhukhan, S

D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, Multipartite entanglement accumula- tion in quantum states: Localizable generalized geomet- ric measure, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022301 (2017)

2017
[28]

Sen(De) and U

A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entan- glement measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012308 (2010)

2010
[29]

S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C. J. Broadbent and J. H. Eberly, Genuinely multipartite concurrence of N-qubit X matrices, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062303 (2012)

2012
[30]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso and M. B. Plenio, Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

2017
[31]

M.L. Hu, X.Y. Hu, J.C. Wang, Y. Peng, Y.R. Zhang and H. Fan, Quantum coherence and geometric quantum discord, Phys. Rep. 762, 1-100 (2018)

2018
[32]

Baumgratz, M

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

2014
[33]

K.F. Bu, U. Singh, S.M. Fei, A. K. Pati and J.D. Wu, Maximum relative entropy of coherence: An operational coherence measure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150405 (2017)

2017
[34]

Jin and S.M

Z.X. Jin and S.M. Fei, Quantifying quantum coherence and nonclassical correlation based on Hellinger distance, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062342 (2018)

2018
[35]

Bischof, H

F. Bischof, H. Kampermann and D. Bruß, Resource the- ory of coherence based on positive-operator-valued mea- sures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 110402 (2019)

2019
[36]

J. Xu, L.H. Shao and S.M. Fei, Coherence measures with respect to general quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022420 (2020)

2020
[37]

Sun and S

L.L. Sun and S. Yu, Universal method to estimate quan- tum coherence, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042428 (2022)

2022
[38]

Budiyono and H

A. Budiyono and H. K. Dipojono, Quantifying quantum coherence via nonreal Kirkwood-Dirac quasiprobability, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022408 (2023)

2023
[39]

Napoli, T

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

2016
[40]

Uhlmann, Entropy and optimal decompositions of states relative to a maximal commutative subalgebra, arXiv:quant-ph/9704017 (1998)

A. Uhlmann, Entropy and optimal decompositions of states relative to a maximal commutative subalgebra, arXiv:quant-ph/9704017 (1998)

1998 arXiv
[41]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2000)

2000
[42]

P. J. Coles, M. Cerezo and L. Cincio, Strong bound be- tween trace distance and Hilbert-Schmidt distance for low-rank states, Phy. Rev. A 100, 022103 (2019)

2019
[43]

transition probability

A. Uhlmann, The “transition probability” in the state space of a ∗-algebra, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976)

1976
[44]

J. A. Miszczak, Z. Puchala, P. Horodecki, A. Uhlmann, K. ˙Zyczkowski, Sub– and super–ﬁdelity as bounds for quantum ﬁdelity, Quantum Inf. Comput. 9, 103 (2009)

2009
[45]

M. B. Ruskai, Inequalities for quantum entropy: A revie w with conditions for equality, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4358 (2002). Appendix A: the l1 measure of QST Analogous to the case of quantum coherence, the l1- norm-induced measure for quantum state texture can be expressed as: T1(...

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

How- ever, for trace distance, we have Ttr(σα ) = 3 −α 4 , Ttr(τα ) = 1 4 (1 −α + √ α2 + 2α + 5)

cannot distinguish between these two states. How- ever, for trace distance, we have Ttr(σα ) = 3 −α 4 , Ttr(τα ) = 1 4 (1 −α + √ α2 + 2α + 5). Clearly, Ttr(τα ) > Ttr(σα ), and the corresponding nu- merical results are shown in Figure 1, which shows that our trace distance measurement can distinguish all σα and τα for parameters α ∈ [0, 1]. However, we ne...

work page

[2] [2]

Parisio, Quantum-state texture and gate identiﬁca- tion, Phys

F. Parisio, Quantum-state texture and gate identiﬁca- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260801 (2024)

2024

[3] [3]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004

[4] [4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011)

2011

[5] [5]

Hillery, Coherence as a resource in decision problems : The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation, Phys

M. Hillery, Coherence as a resource in decision problems : The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012111 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

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

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Lostaglio, D

M. Lostaglio, D. Jennings and T. Rudolph, Description of quantum coherence in thermodynamic processes requires constraints beyond free energy, Nat. Commun 6, 6383 (2015)

2015

[8] [8]

Narasimhachar and G

V. Narasimhachar and G. Gour, Low-temperature ther- modynamics with quantum coherence, Nat. Commun 6, 7689 (2015)

2015