Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Global versus Local Discrimination of Locally Implementable Multipartite Unitaries

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that for locally implementable bipartite unitaries, global and LOCC distinguishability can separate in both directions: some pairs are globally but not locally distinguishable, while other sets are locally but not…

desk verdict Real examples inside a nonstandard probe model, but the 'LOCC' label hides a load-bearing restriction that makes Theorem 2 false under the standard channel-discrimination convention. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10430 v3 pith:4ZJVPKNL submitted 2025-09-12 quant-ph

Satyaki Manna , Sneha Suresh , Anandamay Das Bhowmik , Debashis Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords unitarydiscriminationLOCCproductunitariesadaptivestrategiesrestrictedquantumchannelnonlocalitywithoutentanglemententangledprobes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies single-shot discrimination of locally implementable (product) multipartite unitaries under global operations versus LOCC. It classifies strategies into restricted (fixed probing states) and adaptive (probing states chosen based on earlier outcomes) and asks whether the two paradigms ever disagree. The answer is yes, in both directions: the authors exhibit pairs of qubit unitaries that a global user can distinguish with a fixed probe but that LOCC cannot distinguish even adaptively; four-qutrit sets that LOCC can distinguish adaptively but no global fixed-probe strategy can; and five-qubit unitaries that are globally indistinguishable to any adaptive strategy using separable probes yet LOCC-distinguishable with an entangled probe. The results also show that for bipartite qubit unitaries adaptive and restricted LOCC are equivalent, and that LOCC distinguishability can depend on which party starts.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a four-way classification of discrimination protocols (global restricted, global adaptive, LOCC restricted, LOCC adaptive), together with the standard criterion that two unitaries $U_1, U_2$ are perfectly distinguishable iff the convex hull of the eigenvalues of $U_1^\dagger U_2$ contains zero (the $\min|\mathrm{con}\{\cdot\}|$ condition). The proofs hinge on constructing unitary sets with engineered phase relations---e.g. $\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta = \pi$ for Theorem 2---so that a chosen probe (the Bell state $|\phi^+\rangle$) makes evolved states orthogonal while local probes can never achieve the eigenvalue-convex-hull condition. For Theorem 3, the asymmetry comes from the order of operation: Alice's initial qutrit measurement splits Bob's task into distinguishable pairs, whereas Bob's starting measurement cannot eliminate enough candidates.

What would settle it

For the qutrit set (3), numerically maximize over all four-qutrit probing states $|\psi\rangle$ the quantity $\min_{i\neq j} |\langle\psi| V_i^\dagger V_j \otimes 1 \otimes 1 |\psi\rangle|$; if any probe makes all pairs orthogonal, the claimed global restricted indistinguishability of Theorem 3 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a set of counterexamples to the intuition that global access is always at least as powerful as LOCC for telling apart unitary processes. Theorem 2 gives a pair of qubit unitaries of the form $U_1 = A_1\otimes R_1$, $U_2 = A_2\otimes R_2$ with phases satisfying $\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta = \pi$; these are globally distinguishable with a restricted strategy (using the shared Bell state $|\phi^+\rangle$ as probe, the evolved states are orthogonal) yet are not distinguishable under LOCC, even adaptively. Theorem 3 gives four qutrit unitaries $\{1_3\otimes 1_3, 1_3\otimes\Omega, \Omega\otimes 1_3, \Omega\otimes B\}$ that are LOCC-distinguishable when Alice starts adaptively but globally indistinguishable under any restricted strategy; moreover they are LOCC-indistinguishable if Bob starts (Proposition 1). Theorem 4 gives five qubit unitaries $\{1_2\otimes 1_2, Z\otimes X, X\otimes H, X\otimes \bar H, XZ\otimes H\}$ that are globally indistinguishable to every adaptive strategy using single-system separable probes yet LOCC-distinguishable when Alice and Bob share a Bell probe. The paper also proves Theorem 1: for bipartite qubit unitaries, adaptive and restricted LOCC strategies coincide for perfect distinguishability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that in every LOCC protocol each party independently prepares its own probe state locally, so the parties share no initial entanglement; if LOCC were allowed to begin with a shared entangled state such as $|\phi^+\rangle$, some of the claimed separations (in particular Theorem 2) would fail, since any two orthogonal pure states are LOCC-distinguishable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any bipartite qubit unitary set, an optimal perfect-distinguishing LOCC protocol can always be restricted (fixed probe): adaptivity buys nothing (Theorem 1).
  • Global access is not strictly stronger than LOCC for unitary discrimination: the four-qutrit set (3) is LOCC-distinguishable but globally restricted-indistinguishable.
  • LOCC is not always weaker either: the pairs in (2) are globally distinguishable but LOCC-indistinguishable even adaptively.
  • Probe entanglement can activate LOCC distinguishability: the five-qubit set (4) fails under separable probes globally but succeeds via an entangled Bell probe under LOCC.
  • The order in which LOCC parties act can matter: the set (3) is distinguishable if Alice starts but not if Bob does.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is a multipartite example separating global adaptive strategies from both global restricted and LOCC adaptive; the paper's Observation 2 already reduces the bipartite case to a dichotomy.
  • These separations are sensitive to the probe-preparation model; allowing free pre-shared entanglement in LOCC may erase the Theorem 2-type gaps, so the boundary between 'LOCC with local probes' and 'LOCC with shared resources' deserves explicit treatment in future work.
  • The asymmetry of Proposition 1 hints that 'who speaks first' is a structural resource for unitary discrimination, analogous to asymmetric state-discrimination scenarios; one could test whether similar starter-dependence appears in other channel discrimination tasks.
  • The Theorem 4 result suggests a practical principle: when entanglement is cheap between parties but global access is unavailable, entanglement-assisted LOCC can outperform any separable-probe global strategy---an observation with potential relevance to distributed quantum certification.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies single-shot discrimination of locally implementable (product) multipartite unitaries, comparing global operations with LOCC and classifying strategies as restricted (fixed probing states) or adaptive (probing states chosen based on previous outcomes). The main results are: Theorem 1 (for bipartite qubit unitaries, adaptive and restricted LOCC are equivalent), Theorem 2 (a family of product qubit unitaries is globally distinguishable with restricted strategies but not LOCC-distinguishable), Theorem 3 (a set of four product qutrit unitaries is LOCC-distinguishable adaptively but globally indistinguishable with restricted strategies), Proposition 1 (asymmetry of LOCC distinguishability for the set in Theorem 3), and Theorem 4 (a set of five product qubit unitaries is globally indistinguishable with single-system probes but LOCC-distinguishable with an entangled probe). The proofs are mainly explicit constructions in the appendices, with orthogonality conditions checked directly, and the paper also proves structural equivalences among strategy classes.

Significance. If the results are read under a clearly and consistently stated probe model, the paper offers concrete examples of global/LOCC separations for locally implementable unitaries, a relatively underexplored question. The constructions in Appendices A and B are explicit and self-contained, and the paper usefully distinguishes restricted vs adaptive strategies. However, the significance is substantially undercut by the manuscript's inconsistent treatment of whether LOCC protocols may begin with an entangled probe shared across the parties: Theorem 2 is false under the standard convention allowing an arbitrary input probe, while Theorem 4's LOCC protocol uses exactly such a shared entangled probe. These issues must be resolved before the claimed separations can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Protocols for LOCC distinguishability; Theorem 2] The LOCC model defined in this section restricts each party to independently prepare its own probe state ρ_AkBk, so the collective input is a tensor product across the parties and no pre-shared entanglement is available. This restriction is not stated in the abstract, the introduction, or the theorem statements, which use the unqualified phrase 'under LOCC'. Under the standard channel-discrimination convention in which the input probe is part of the strategy and may be entangled across the parties, Theorem 2 is false: the shared Bell state |φ+> used in the GDR proof in Appendix A is an allowed input, and after applying U1 or U2 from (2) the output states are orthogonal, so they are perfectly distinguishable by LOCC. The claimed separation (i) therefore holds only for the paper's restricted probe model, and the paper must state this restriction in the abstract and in every theorem statement.
  2. [Theorem 4 and Appendix D] Theorem 4's LOCC protocol begins with the shared Bell state |φ+> as the initial probing state, which is not a product of independently prepared local states and is therefore not allowed by the LOCC model defined in the section 'Protocols for LOCC distinguishability'. Conversely, if the authors intend to allow entangled probes under LOCC, then Theorem 2's LOCC-indistinguishability claim fails. The manuscript therefore uses two incompatible notions of LOCC in Theorems 2 and 4. The authors should adopt one convention and revise the affected statements and proofs accordingly.
  3. [Appendix D, first paragraph] The proof that the unitaries in (4) are globally indistinguishable with single-system probes is not given in full. It asserts that the only triples Alice can eliminate are (X,X,XZ) and that all other listed triples are impossible, but no argument is provided to rule out other measurements on a single-qubit probe. Since this is the basis for the first half of Theorem 4, a complete proof is needed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrases 'under LOCC' and 'indistinguishable under LOCC' should be qualified as 'LOCC with independently prepared (product) probes' once the model in Section 'Protocols for LOCC distinguishability' is adopted.
  2. [Observation 1, Eq. (1)] The ordering diagram GDR≤GDA≤≤LDR≤LDA is visually confusing; the intended nesting of the two chains (global vs LOCC) should be made explicit with labeled arrows or a clear sentence.
  3. [Appendix A] In the GDR proof, the phrase 'from (1)' is misleading; the distinguishability follows from orthogonality of the evolved states, not from the ordering diagram in Observation 1.
  4. [Appendix B] The notation '1(R1)+e^{i2π/3}(R2)+e^{i4π/3}(R3)' is hard to read; it should be written with explicit multiplication, e.g., R1 + e^{i2π/3}R2 + e^{i4π/3}R3. Also, 'Krauss operators' should be 'Kraus operators'.
  5. [Appendix D] The text lists Bob's distinguishable pairs as including '(H,H)', but from (4) the relevant pair is (H, \bar H); this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  6. [Theorem 1 proof] The proof relies on Theorem 4 of the authors' own preprint arXiv:2504.14499 as a black box; this dependency should be stated explicitly in the main text, and the status of that preprint should be clarified.
  7. [Appendix C] The see-saw SDP method is described in a single sentence; to make Proposition 1 verifiable, the authors should give the full SDP formulation or a reference that completely specifies the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central theorems are explicit constructions verified by direct orthogonality and enumeration; the sole self-citation is parameter-free and not derived from this paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for the central claims. Theorems 2-4 are explicit constructions: the proofs check orthogonality of evolved probe states (Appendix A), show that no restricted probe can make all required pairs orthogonal (Appendix B), and enumerate the possible eliminating measurements for single-system probes (Appendix D). These are direct computations, not fitted parameters disguised as predictions. The only backward reference is in Theorem 1, whose proof invokes Theorem 4 of the same authors' arXiv:2504.14499; that cited theorem is a parameter-free statement about qubit unitary discrimination with maximally entangled probes and does not assume the current paper's conclusions, so under the review rules it is independent support and not circular. The LOCC protocol definitions explicitly restrict each party to preparing its own probe state; this is a modeling convention stated in the 'Protocols for LOCC distinguishability' section. Whether the abstract's unqualified 'LOCC' should carry that caveat is a scope or correctness question, not a circularity: the theorem proofs use the stated definition rather than smuggling the conclusion into the premise. Appendix C's SDP ('see-saw') finding that S_max^Q < 1 is a numerical claim that would need independent verification, but lack of verification is not circular dependence.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central examples are explicit constructions and do not rely on fitted numerical parameters. The phases in Theorem 2 are existence witnesses, not fitted constants. The main unproved inputs are the standard unitary-distinguishability criterion, a self-cited theorem for qubit LOCC equivalence, two structural observations, and the numerical SDP result behind the asymmetry claim.

free parameters (1)
  • phases α, β, γ, δ in Theorem 2 unitaries = not fitted; any values with α,β,γ,δ < π/2 and α+β+γ+δ=π
    Hand-chosen phases that make the two evolved Bell states orthogonal globally while keeping each local pair individually indistinguishable. The proof works for any such values, so the central claim is existence rather than a numerical prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Two unitaries U1,U2 are distinguishable iff 0 is in the convex hull of eigenvalues of U1†U2.
    Used throughout (Introduction, Appendices A, B, D) to test pairwise distinguishability of unitaries by checking whether a convex combination of eigenvalues sums to zero. This is a known result from D'Ariano et al., cited as [27,28].
  • domain assumption Theorem 4 of [28] (same authors, arXiv:2504.14499): if a set of qubit unitaries is distinguishable, then any common maximally entangled probe distinguishes them.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to show LDA equals LDR for qubit unitaries. The result is cited from a self-authored preprint and is not proved or machine-checked in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Observation 2: For bipartite unitaries, GDA is equivalent to either GDR or LDA.
    Asserted in the main text with a one-sentence justification and used in Appendices B and C to convert GDR/LDA results into GDA conclusions. No rigorous proof is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Observation 1: The strategy ordering GDR ≤ GDA, LDR ≤ LDA, with the given inclusions between global and LOCC classes.
    Stated without proof as the basis for the strategy hierarchy; used to infer LDR indistinguishability from GDR failure and vice versa. The exact partial order is not formally established.
  • ad hoc to paper The see-saw SDP hierarchy in Appendix C correctly decides non-existence of a discriminating measurement.
    Proposition 1's asymmetry conclusion rests on the claim that the optimization (C1) has S_max < 1; no numerical value, dual certificate, or code is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global versus Local Discrimination of Locally Implementable Multipartite Unitaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZJVPKNL

@misc{pith2026250910430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global versus Local Discrimination of Locally Implementable Multipartite Unitaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZJVPKNL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10430}
}
read the original abstract

We study single-shot distinguishability of locally implementable multipartite unitaries under Local Operations and Classical Communication (LOCC) and global operations. As unitary discrimination depends on both the choice of probing states and the measurements on the evolved states, we classify LOCC and global distinguishability into two categories: adaptive strategies, where probing states are chosen based on measurement outcomes from other subsystems, and restricted strategies, where probing states remain fixed. Our findings uncover three surprising features in the bipartite setting and establish new structural limits for unitary discrimination: (i) Certain pairs of unitaries are globally distinguishable with restricted strategies but indistinguishable under LOCC, even with adaptive strategies. (ii) There exist sets of four unitaries that are distinguishable via LOCC, yet remain globally indistinguishable with restricted strategies. (iii) Some sets of unitaries are globally indistinguishable under adaptive strategies, when probed with separable states, but become distinguishable via LOCC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Circuit diagrams illustrating four different protocols for distinguishing a set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Nonlocality without entanglement in exclusion of quantum states

    quant-ph 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Three bipartite product states are globally antidistinguishable yet not LOCC antidistinguishable under the paper's restricted one-pass LOCC model, giving a claimed minimal example of exclusion-based nonlocality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum nonlocality without entanglement,

    Charles H. Bennett, David P . DiVincenzo, Christopher A. Fuchs, Tal Mor, Eric Rains, Peter W. Shor, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters, “Quantum nonlocality without entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A59, 1070–1091 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states,

    Jonathan Walgate, Anthony J. Short, Lucien Hardy, and Vlatko Vedral, “Local distinguishability of multipartite orthogonal quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4972– 4975 (2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Nonlocality, asym- metry, and distinguishing bipartite states,

    Jonathan Walgate and Lucien Hardy, “Nonlocality, asym- metry, and distinguishing bipartite states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 147901 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Distinguishing bipartitite orthogo- nal states using locc: Best and worst cases,

    Michael Nathanson, “Distinguishing bipartitite orthogo- nal states using locc: Best and worst cases,” Journal of Mathematical Physics46(2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Locc distinguishability of unilaterally transformable quantum states,

    Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, Sibasish Ghosh, and Gu- ruprasad Kar, “Locc distinguishability of unilaterally transformable quantum states,” New Journal of Physics 13, 123013 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Nonlocality without entanglement: Quantum theory and beyond,

    Some Sankar Bhattacharya, Sutapa Saha, Tamal Guha, and Manik Banik, “Nonlocality without entanglement: Quantum theory and beyond,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012068 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Strong quantum nonlo- cality without entanglement,

    Saronath Halder, Manik Banik, Sristy Agrawal, and Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, “Strong quantum nonlo- cality without entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040403 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Local distinguishability with preserva- tion of entanglement,

    Scott M. Cohen, “Local distinguishability with preserva- tion of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A75, 052313 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Entanglement, mixed- ness, and perfect local discrimination of orthogonal quan- tum states,

    Somshubhro Bandyopadhyay, “Entanglement, mixed- ness, and perfect local discrimination of orthogonal quan- tum states,” Phys. Rev. A85, 042319 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Activating strong nonlocality from lo- cal sets: An elimination paradigm,

    Subhendu B. Ghosh, Tathagata Gupta, Ardra A. V ., Anan- damay Das Bhowmik, Sutapa Saha, Tamal Guha, and Amit Mukherjee, “Activating strong nonlocality from lo- cal sets: An elimination paradigm,” Phys. Rev. A106, L010202 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Non- locality without entanglement in general multipartite quantum systems,

    Xiao-Fan Zhen, Shao-Ming Fei, and Hui-Juan Zuo, “Non- locality without entanglement in general multipartite quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A106, 062432 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Self-testing nonlocality without entanglement,

    Ivan ˇSupi´c and Nicolas Brunner, “Self-testing nonlocality without entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A107, 062220 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Quantum non- locality without entanglement: explicit dependence on prior probabilities of nonorthogonal mirror-symmetric states,

    Donghoon Ha and Younghun Kwon, “Quantum non- locality without entanglement: explicit dependence on prior probabilities of nonorthogonal mirror-symmetric states,” npj Quantum Information7, 81 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Strong quantum nonlocality and unextendibility without entanglement in N-partite systems with oddN,

    Yiyun He, Fei Shi, and Xiande Zhang, “Strong quantum nonlocality and unextendibility without entanglement in N-partite systems with oddN,” Quantum8, 1349 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Multipartite nonlocality with- out entanglement in many dimensions,

    J. Niset and N. J. Cerf, “Multipartite nonlocality with- out entanglement in many dimensions,” Phys. Rev. A74, 052103 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Bounds on multipartite entangled orthogo- nal state discrimination using local operations and classi- cal communication,

    M. Hayashi, D. Markham, M. Murao, M. Owari, and S. Virmani, “Bounds on multipartite entangled orthogo- nal state discrimination using local operations and classi- cal communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 040501 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Bipartite subspaces having no bases dis- tinguishable by local operations and classical communi- cation,

    John Watrous, “Bipartite subspaces having no bases dis- tinguishable by local operations and classical communi- cation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 080505 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Local indistinguishability: More nonlocal- ity with less entanglement,

    Michał Horodecki, Aditi Sen(De), Ujjwal Sen, and Karol Horodecki, “Local indistinguishability: More nonlocal- ity with less entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 047902 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Quantum computations: algorithms and er- ror correction,

    A Yu Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and er- ror correction,” Russian Mathematical Surveys52, 1191 (1997)

    1997

  12. [20]

    All entangled states are useful for channel discrimination,

    Marco Piani and John Watrous, “All entangled states are useful for channel discrimination,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 250501 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Using entanglement improves the precision of quantum measurements,

    G. Mauro D’Ariano, Paoloplacido Lo Presti, and Matteo G. A. Paris, “Using entanglement improves the precision of quantum measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 270404 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Optimal discrimination of quan- tum operations,

    Massimiliano F. Sacchi, “Optimal discrimination of quan- tum operations,” Phys. Rev. A71, 062340 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Adaptive versus nonadaptive strate- gies for quantum channel discrimination,

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, Debbie W. Leung, and John Watrous, “Adaptive versus nonadaptive strate- gies for quantum channel discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 032339 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Entanglement in channel discrimination with restricted measurements,

    William Matthews, Marco Piani, and John Watrous, “Entanglement in channel discrimination with restricted measurements,” Phys. Rev. A82, 032302 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Distinguishing quantum operations hav- ing few kraus operators,

    John Watrous, “Distinguishing quantum operations hav- ing few kraus operators,” (2008), arXiv:0710.0902 [quant- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Single-shot distinguisha- 6 bility and antidistinguishability of quantum measure- ments,

    Satyaki Manna, Sneha Suresh, Manan Singh Kach- hawaha, and Debashis Saha, “Single-shot distinguisha- 6 bility and antidistinguishability of quantum measure- ments,” Phys. Rev. A111, 022221 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Improved discrimination of unitary transfor- mations by entangled probes,

    G Mauro D’Ariano, Paoloplacido Lo Presti, and Matteo G A Paris, “Improved discrimination of unitary transfor- mations by entangled probes,” Journal of Optics B: Quan- tum and Semiclassical Optics4, S273 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Maximally entangled states are not always useful for single shot distinguishability of unitaries,

    Satyaki Manna, Anandamay Das Bhowmik, and De- bashis Saha, “Maximally entangled states are not always useful for single shot distinguishability of unitaries,” (2025), arXiv:2504.14499 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations,

    A. Ac ´ın, “Statistical distinguishability between unitary operations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177901 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Optimal estimation of quantum dynamics,

    A. Ac ´ın, E. Jan ´e, and G. Vidal, “Optimal estimation of quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A64, 050302 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Per- fect distinguishability of quantum operations,

    Runyao Duan, Yuan Feng, and Mingsheng Ying, “Per- fect distinguishability of quantum operations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 210501 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Entan- glement is not necessary for perfect discrimination be- tween unitary operations,

    Runyao Duan, Yuan Feng, and Mingsheng Ying, “Entan- glement is not necessary for perfect discrimination be- tween unitary operations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 100503 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Lo- cal distinguishability of multipartite unitary operations,

    Runyao Duan, Yuan Feng, and Mingsheng Ying, “Lo- cal distinguishability of multipartite unitary operations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 020503 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Single-shot discrimination of quantum unitary processes,

    M ´ario Ziman and Michal Sedl ´ak, “Single-shot discrimination of quantum unitary processes,” Journal of Modern Optics57, 253–259 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340903349963

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Perfect discrimination of quantum measurements using entangled systems,

    Chandan Datta, Tanmoy Biswas, Debashis Saha, and Remigiusz Augusiak, “Perfect discrimination of quantum measurements using entangled systems,” New Journal of Physics23, 043021 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    General approach to quantum channel impossibility by local operations and classical communi- cation,

    Scott M. Cohen, “General approach to quantum channel impossibility by local operations and classical communi- cation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 020501 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Distinguishability and indistinguishability by local operations and classical communication,

    Heng Fan, “Distinguishability and indistinguishability by local operations and classical communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 177905 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask),

    Eric Chitambar, Debbie Leung, Laura Man ˇcinska, Maris Ozols, and Andreas Winter, “Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask),” Communications in Mathematical Physics (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Activating strong nonlocality from lo- cal sets: An elimination paradigm,

    Subhendu B. Ghosh, Tathagata Gupta, Ardra A. V ., Anan- damay Das Bhowmik, Sutapa Saha, Tamal Guha, and Amit Mukherjee, “Activating strong nonlocality from lo- cal sets: An elimination paradigm,” Phys. Rev. A106, L010202 (2022). Appendix A: Proof of theorem 2 For GDR, Alice an...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.