Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

A new approximate Eastin-Knill theorem

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A single conditional min-entropy bound is necessary and sufficient for a quantum code to support universal transversal gates and approximately correct local erasure.

desk verdict Genuinely new iff condition for approximate erasure correction of covariant codes, with an exact W-state threshold; the transversal-code corollary needs a proved covariance equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00427 v2 pith:7EIHP3GP submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph

Rhea Alexander This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P7081P45 PACS 03.67.Pp03.67.-a
keywords Eastin-Knilltheoremapproximatequantumerrorcorrectiontransversalgateserasurenoiseconditionalmin-entropyresourcetheoryofasymmetrycovariantcodesW-statecode
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the Eastin-Knill obstruction to combining quantum error correction with universal transversal gates has an exact single-shot approximate form. For any encoder that is covariant with respect to the full unitary group $U(d_L)$ and any covariant noise channel, the code is $\varepsilon$-correctable if and only if a conditional min-entropy of the Choi state of the encoded-and-noised channel falls below $-\log d_L(1-c\varepsilon)$, with $c=(d_L+1)/d_L$. For local erasure this specializes to a condition on the Choi state after tracing out the erased subsystem. The condition is checkable by a semidefinite program, so it gives a rigorous yes-or-no test for whether a covariant code can meet a target error rate, and for the $W$-state code it evaluates to the exact threshold $\varepsilon \ge (N_e/n)(1-1/d_L)$. This turns a theorem that forbids an entire regime into a boundary that distinguishes achievable from unachievable approximate transversal codes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the conditional min-entropy $H_{\min}(A|B)_\Sigma$, a single-shot entropy measuring how much uncertainty about $A$ remains given $B$, used as a resource monotone in the resource theory of asymmetry, together with the identification of covariant quantum error correction with multi-state purification. The key identity expresses the optimal overlap with a pure target under $G$-covariant channels as $2^{-H_{\min}(B|A)_{\Pi_G(\psi^T\otimes\rho)}}$; for the compact group $U(d_L)$, Haar-twirl identities collapse the purification condition into a bound on the Choi state of $N\circ E$. A functional additivity lemma splits the twirled operator into a flat, deterministic term and the Choi term, which is what produces the prefactor $c=(d_L+1)/d_L$, and the final condition is an SDP because conditional min-entropy is SDP-computable. In the erasure case the noise is simply a partial trace, which is covariant for any group, so the whole theorem transfers to the transversal-gate setting.

What would settle it

Compute $H_{\min}(L|P/j)_{J(\mathrm{tr}_{P_j}\circ E)}$ for a $U(d_L)$-covariant code and compare it with $-\log d_L(1-c\varepsilon)$; a code that violates the inequality yet admits a decoder with worst-case infidelity $\varepsilon$ would refute the necessity direction. A concrete candidate: find any decoder for the $W$-state code that reaches $\varepsilon < (N_e/n)(1-1/d_L)$ under erasure, for instance $\varepsilon<0.005$ with $n=100$ qutrits and one erased subsystem, since the paper claims no such decoder exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: if the encoding map $E_{L\to P}$ and the noise $N_{P\to P'}$ are both $U(d_L)$-covariant, then a recovery map achieving worst-case infidelity $\varepsilon$ over all pure logical states exists if and only if $H_{\min}(L|P')_{J(N\circ E)} \le -\log d_L(1-c\varepsilon)$, where $c=(d_L+1)/d_L$ and $J(\cdot)$ is the Choi state. Corollary 1 applies this to erasure of the $j$-th subsystem, giving $H_{\min}(L|P/j)_{J(\mathrm{tr}_{P_j}\circ E)} \le -\log d_L(1-c\varepsilon)$ as the necessary and sufficient condition for a code to admit a transversal implementation of the full unitary group and approximately correct that erasure. The proof routes quantum error correction through the resource theory of asymmetry: under covariant encoding and noise the optimal decoder may be taken covariant, so finding a decoder is the same as finding a covariant purification of every logical state up to error $\varepsilon$, and the multi-state purification lemma reduces this to a single conditional min-entropy. At $\varepsilon=0$ the bound reproduces the exact Eastin-Knill impossibility, and the $W$-state code saturates the inequality, yielding the closed-form threshold of Corollary 2.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the identification of 'supports a transversal implementation of every logical unitary' with a single fixed product-form rotation of the physical subsystems accompanying each logical unitary; the paper cites an earlier reference for this identification rather than proving it, and if a code realizes its gates only projectively the bound may not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $U(d_L)$-covariant code, the condition can be evaluated by solving an SDP, giving a certificate that a target worst-case error $\varepsilon$ is either achievable or impossible before any decoder is constructed.
  • The $W$-state code corrects the erasure of $N_e$ subsystems exactly when $\varepsilon \ge (N_e/n)(1-1/d_L)$; with $n=100$ qutrits and one encoded qubit this puts the achievable single-erasure error at $0.005$.
  • Setting $\varepsilon=0$ in the bound recovers the original Eastin-Knill no-go result, so the theorem contains the exact theorem as a limiting case rather than merely approximating it.
  • For erasure of any number $m<n$ of subsystems, the proof goes through unchanged, so the same entropic test governs codes that lose several physical qudits.
  • In the limit of large physical system size $n$, the threshold scales as $1/n$, matching the known asymptotic behavior and indicating that approximate transversality is a finite-size advantage that disappears in the infinite-size limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the same purification machinery applies to discrete subgroups such as the Clifford group; if it does, the result would give necessary-and-sufficient single-shot thresholds for magic-state-injection-style fault tolerance, not just full unitary covariance.
  • Because the theorem is an if-and-only-if SDP, one could in principle optimize over encoders to minimize achievable $\varepsilon$ under erasure; the paper does not perform such a search, but its formulation makes this a natural next step.
  • The fact that the $W$-state code saturates the bound suggests, though the paper does not claim, that saturating families may be characterized by a Choi state splitting into a uniform term plus a smaller covariant code; verifying this would give a structural classification of optimal approximate transversal codes.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a resource-theoretic framework for approximate quantum error correction and states a new necessary and sufficient condition for a U(d_L)-covariant encoder followed by U(d_L)-covariant noise to be epsilon-correctable in the worst-case pure-state fidelity sense. The condition is an upper bound on the conditional min-entropy of the Choi state of the noisy encoding, and it is claimed to hold for any code admitting a transversal implementation of the full unitary group when the noise is local erasure. The main tool is a multi-state purification lemma for the resource theory of asymmetry, and the paper applies the result to the W-state code, deriving the exact threshold epsilon >= (N_e/n)(1 - 1/d_L) and constructing an explicit decoder for known erasure.

Significance. If the stated equivalence between transversal universality and U(d_L)-covariance is justified, the paper provides a clean single-shot entropic criterion that is both necessary and sufficient, SDP-computable, and directly connected to the Eastin-Knill theorem. The multi-state purification lemma (Lemma 1) is a useful generalization of prior asymmetry-theory results and is of independent interest. The W-state example gives a concrete, falsifiable threshold and an explicit achievability construction. The appendices contain detailed proofs, and the derivations are largely self-contained. The main reservation is that the advertised scope of Corollary 1 is broader than what the proof establishes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV C, Corollary 1; Section II B] The proof of Corollary 1 identifies 'admits a transversal implementation of the full unitary group' with U(d_L)-covariance under a fixed tensor-product representation, as expressed in Eq. (32). This identification is asserted and cited to Ref. [15] but not proved. The per-gate definition in Eq. (3) only guarantees, for each U, existence of local unitaries V_U satisfying E U = V_U E; it does not guarantee that the V_U form a genuine group representation on the full physical space. Lemma 3 and Theorem 1 require a single representation g -> U^g_P satisfying E U^g_L = U^g_P E and N U^g_P = U^g_{P'} N. If the transversal implementations are chosen per gate and only constrained on the code subspace, the twirled decoder in Lemma 3 is not manifestly G-covariant, and the reduction of epsilon-correctability to the multi-state purification problem is not established. Thus the necessity direction of the entropic condition is unproved for codes whose transversal gates do not form a tensor-product representation. The authors should either prove the equivalence or explicitly restrict Corollary 1 to U(d_L)-covariant encoders, which is the setting of Theorem 1.
  2. [Theorem 1, Eq. (26); Corollary 1, Eq. (31)] The inequality Hmin(L|P') <= -log d_L(1-c epsilon) is only defined for epsilon < d_L/(d_L+1), since 1-c epsilon becomes non-positive for larger epsilon. For epsilon >= d_L/(d_L+1) the condition is automatically satisfied by the general lower bound Hmin >= -log d_L, but this is not stated. The theorem and corollary should specify the domain of epsilon and clarify the behavior at the boundary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV D, Eq. (43) and Example 2] The explicit decoder defined in Eq. (43) is not shown to be trace-preserving. In particular, the adjoint V(n-N_e)^\dagger annihilates the state |d_L,...,d_L>, so applying the decoder to the component (N_e/n)|d_L,...,d_L><d_L,...,d_L| in Eq. (46) yields zero rather than the term (N_e/n)|chi><chi| claimed in Eq. (49). The construction should be completed to a valid CPTP map, or a clear statement should be added that the fidelity bound in Eq. (50) holds after such a completion.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Corallary' in Section IV C, 'it's conceptual simplicity' in Section III B, 'analagous' in Section IV A, and 'minimization' in Lemma 1 and Appendix D where the optimization is a maximization. The erasure channel definition in Eq. (27) says 'n-j-1 subsystems' but should be 'n-j subsystems'. In Corollary 2, 'qubits' should be 'qudits'.
  3. [Section II B] The sentence 'which is equivalent [15] to Eq. (3) holding for all unitaries U_L in U(d_L)' is ambiguous: Eq. (3) holding for all U is not by itself equivalent to U(d_L)-covariance unless the local unitaries form a representation. The authors should clarify whether they adopt covariance as the definition of universality or intend a separate proof.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The derivation of the identity (B1) is standard but compressed; the step replacing the CPTP maximization over the twirled Choi operator with a maximization over unital channels relies on the fact that the adjoint of a TP map is unital. This is correct but could be stated explicitly for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central iff condition is derived from asymmetry-purification lemmas and prior channel-covariance results, and the only author-owned lemma is reproved in the appendix.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, Theorem 1 and Corollary 1, is not obtained by fitting any parameter to the quantity it predicts. Theorem 1 is proved from Lemma 1 (multi-state approximate purification), the known identity relating G-covariant state conversion to conditional min-entropy [37], Lemma 3 (the optimal decoder can be taken to be G-covariant, proved in Appendix C), and Lemma 4 (linearity of the functional Phi, quoted from Ref. [58] but fully reproved in Appendix D). Corollary 1 then applies Theorem 1 to erasure by verifying in Lemma 2.1 that the partial trace is U(d)-covariant with respect to a tensor-product representation. The W-state threshold in Corollary 2 is an explicit evaluation of the Choi state of that code, not an input to the theorem, so it is an application rather than a prediction that reduces to a fit. The only author-owned citation is Ref. [58]; because the needed lemma is reproved in the paper and is a parameter-free mathematical statement, it is not load-bearing self-citation. The skeptical concern that Eq. (32) merely 'encompasses' transversality without proving the required group representation is a possible gap in justification, but it is not circularity of any enumerated kind: it does not make the theorem equivalent to its inputs, nor does it rename a fitted quantity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

No numbers are fitted to data; c and lambda are derived constants from group theory. No new physical entities are introduced. The result is a theorem about known channels and codes, resting on standard resource-theoretic axioms and one cited equivalence between transversality and covariance.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All Hilbert spaces are finite-dimensional; U(dL) is compact.
    Stated in Section II A and footnote 1. The compactness is needed for Haar integration, Sion's minimax theorem, and the SDP formulation.
  • domain assumption Transversal implementation of the full unitary group is equivalent to U(dL)-covariance of the encoder with respect to a tensor-product representation.
    Invoked in Section II B and in the proof of Corollary 1, Eq. (32), citing Ref. [15]. Not proved in this paper; it determines the scope of the theorem.
  • standard math The set of G-covariant quantum channels is closed, compact, and convex for compact G on finite-dimensional spaces.
    Required in Appendix A, Proposition 5 and in Lemma 1 to apply Sion's minimax theorem.
  • standard math The identity max_{E in OG} tr[psi E(rho)] = 2^{-Hmin(B|A)_{PiG(psi^T tensor rho)}}.
    Eq. (B1), reproduced from Refs. [37,41]. It is the bridge between G-covariant state conversion and conditional min-entropy.
  • standard math The erasure channel and the partially depolarizing channel are G-covariant.
    Lemma 2, proved in Section IV B. It allows Theorem 1 to be applied to local erasure noise.
  • domain assumption The W-state code of Ref. [15], defined in Eq. (37), is U(dL)-covariant and its Choi state has the form used in Appendix E.
    Taken from Ref. [15] and used in Corollary 2 to compute the exact erasure threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new approximate Eastin-Knill theorem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EIHP3GP

@misc{pith2026250500427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new approximate Eastin-Knill theorem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EIHP3GP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00427}
}
abstract

Transversal encoded gatesets are highly desirable for fault tolerant quantum computing. However, a quantum error correcting code which exactly corrects for local erasure noise and supports a universal set of transversal gates is ruled out by the Eastin-Knill theorem. Here we provide a new approximate Eastin-Knill theorem for the single-shot regime when we allow for some probability of error in the decoding. In particular, we show that a quantum error correcting code can support a universal set of transversal gates and approximately correct for local erasure if and only if the conditional min-entropy of the Choi state of the encoding and noise channel is upper bounded by a simple function of the worst-case error probability. Our no-go theorem can be computed by solving a semidefinite program, and, in the spirit of the original Eastin-Knill theorem, is formulated in terms of a condition that is both necessary and sufficient, ensuring achievability whenever it is passed. As an example, we find that with $n=100$ physical qutrits we can encode $k=1$ logical qubit in the $W$-state code, which admits a universal transversal set of gates and corrects for single subsystem erasure with error probability of $\varepsilon = 0.005$. To establish our no-go result, we leverage tools from the resource theory of asymmetry, where, in the single-shot regime, a single (output state-dependent) resource monotone governs all state purifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Quantum error correction as asymme￾try distillation). Given any G-covariant encoder EL→P and G-covariant noise channel NP→P , then their sequence (N ◦ E)L→P , as depicted in (a), is also G-covariant. (b) Whenever (N ◦ E)L→P is indeed a G-covariant channel, as was first shown in Ref. [20], the optimal decoder DP→L can also be assumed to be G-covariant (also see Lemma 3). There￾fore, we can view quantum error correct… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Performance of the transversal W-state code) The W-state code admits a transversal implementation of the full unitary group and can ε-correct for the erasure of Ne physical subsystems. Here we plot the performance of this code with increasing number of physical subsystems n in the limit where the number of encoded qubits k = log dL → ∞ for different values of Ne, whose achievability is guaranteed by Corollary 2. In… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Bomb´ ın, New Journal of Physics17, 083002 (2015)

    H. Bomb´ ın, New Journal of Physics17, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  2. [1]

    Here we have j≤n

    (Unknown erasure). Here we have j≤n. Unknown erasure noise N erasure P→P′ as given in Eq. (27) is co- variant with respect to the groupG and tensor prod- uct unitary representations Ug P := Nn i=1Ug Pi and Ug P′ :=Nj i=1Ug Pi of G

    work page

  3. [2]

    Here we have j =n, that is, P = P′

    (Partially depolarizing noise). Here we have j =n, that is, P = P′. Partially depolarizing noise N (p) P as given in Eq. (28) is covariant with respect to the groupG and arbitrary unitary representationUg P of G, for all p∈ [0, 1]. Proof of 1. We first note the following commutation rela- tion for the partial trace: trA◦UA⊗VB =VB◦trA, which holds for any ...

  4. [3]

    Proposition 3

    A single, complete monotone for exact conversion to pure states Let us consider the following proposition, which provides a single complete monotone for state transformations under a closed, convex resource theory for which the final state in question is rank-one. Proposition 3. LetρA andψB be two quantum states of systems A andB, respectively, whereψB∈ p...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Approximate conversion Whenever there exists a free operation E∈O and a state σ satisfying F (ψ,σ )≥ 1−ε such thatE(ρ) = σ, we will write ρ O →ε ψ. (A8) With this notation in place, let us note the following proposition, which now provides a single complete monotone for approximate state transformations under any closed, convex resource theory for which t...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Multi-state conversion For convenience of the reader, let us briefly recap the setting of multi-state conversion as described in Section III D of the main text. We seek to generalize the results we have seen so far to the case where we have two (continuous or discrete) ensembles of states ρA :={ρµ}µ∈Λ andψB :={ψµ}µ∈Λ, parameterized by some real-valued µ o...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Q. Xu, J. P. B. Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveendran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Nature Physics 20, 1084 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Yamasaki and M

    H. Yamasaki and M. Koashi, Nature Physics 20, 247 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Gottesman, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, edited by J.-P

    D. Gottesman, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, edited by J.-P. Fran¸ coise, G. L. Naber, and T. S. Tsun (Academic Press, Oxford, 2006) pp. 196–201, preprint available at arXiv:quant-ph/0507174

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    Paetznick and B

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090505 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Jochym-O’Connor and R

    T. Jochym-O’Connor and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 010505 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    T. J. Yoder, R. Takagi, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031039 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Wills, M.-H

    A. Wills, M.-H. Hsieh, and H. Yamasaki, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07764 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state culti- vation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]. 19

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. P. Woods and ´A. M. Alhambra, Quantum 4, 245 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Faist, S

    P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041018 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    D. W. Leung, M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, and Y. Ya- mamoto, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2567 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    B´ eny and O

    C. B´ eny and O. Oreshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 120501 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Kubica and R

    A. Kubica and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 150503 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gupta, A

    P. Gupta, A. Morello, and B. C. Sanders, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07045 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhou, Z.-W

    S. Zhou, Z.-W. Liu, and L. Jiang, Quantum5, 521 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 163 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 149 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Harlow and H

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics 383, 1669 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, E. Crosson, M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, and J. Bowen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 110502 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Y. Yang, Y. Mo, J. M. Renes, G. Chiribella, and M. P. Woods, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023107 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kong and Z.-W

    L. Kong and Z.-W. Liu, PRX Quantum 3, 020314 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Hayden, S

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, S. Popescu, and G. Salton, PRX Quantum 2, 010326 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    M. M. Wilde, Quantum information theory (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Gilchrist, N

    A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062310 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1888 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    M. A. Nielsen, Physics Letters A 303, 249 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Renner, Security of QKD, Ph.D

    R. Renner, Security of QKD, Ph.D. thesis, ETH (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Tomamichel, A framework for non-asymptotic quan- tum information theory (2013), arXiv:1203.2142 [quant- ph]

    M. Tomamichel, A framework for non-asymptotic quan- tum information theory (2013), arXiv:1203.2142 [quant- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    G. Gour, M. M. Wilde, S. Brandsen, and I. J. Geng, Quantum 8, 1529 (2024)

    2024

  32. [41]

    Marvian, Ph.D

    I. Marvian, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2012)

    2012

  33. [42]

    G. Gour, D. Jennings, F. Buscemi, R. Duan, and I. Mar- vian, Nature Communications 9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  34. [43]

    Marvian, Nature Communications 11, 25 (2020)

    I. Marvian, Nature Communications 11, 25 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    Noether, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis- senschaften zu G¨ ottingen, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse 1918, 37 (1918)

    E. Noether, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis- senschaften zu G¨ ottingen, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse 1918, 37 (1918)

    1918

  36. [45]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  37. [46]

    Gour, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05474 (2024)

    G. Gour, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05474 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Gour and R

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, New Journal of Physics 10, 033023 (2008)

    2008

  39. [48]

    Marvian and R

    I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens, New Journal of Physics 15, 033001 (2013)

    2013

  40. [49]

    Datta, R

    C. Datta, R. Ganardi, T. V. Kondra, and A. Streltsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 240204 (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

    Schumacher, Phys

    B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2614 (1996)

    1996

  42. [51]

    Dolev, V

    K. Dolev, V. Calvera, S. S. Cree, and D. J. Williamson, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 158 (2022)

    2022

  43. [52]

    M. J. W. Hall and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041006 (2012)

    2012

  44. [53]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

    2004

  45. [54]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  46. [55]

    Liu and S

    Z.-W. Liu and S. Zhou, npj Quantum Information 9, 119 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  48. [57]

    Regula and R

    B. Regula and R. Takagi, Nature Communications 12, 4411 (2021)

    2021

  49. [58]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, PRX Quantum 3, 010337 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Takagi and B

    R. Takagi and B. Regula, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031053 (2019)

    2019

  51. [60]

    Regula, K

    B. Regula, K. Fang, X. Wang, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 010401 (2018)

    2018

  52. [61]

    Y. V. Prokhorov, Theory of Probability & Its Applica- tions 1, 157 (1956), https://doi.org/10.1137/1101016

    1956 doi

  53. [62]

    Sion, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 8, 171 (1958)

    M. Sion, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 8, 171 (1958)

    1958

  54. [63]

    Alexander, S

    R. Alexander, S. Gvirtz-Chen, and D. Jennings, New Journal of Physics 24, 053023 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    A. A. Mele, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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