One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory

Yu Luo

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 83 references

One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the one-shot dynamic coherence cost and distillation of quantum channels are bounded by the channel's log-robustness and hypothesis-testing relative entropy, with catalytic cost also controlled by log-robustness.

desk verdict A solid one-shot dynamic coherence paper whose main new theorem currently has a fixable but real error in the epsilon-prime bookkeeping; the rest of the framework is sound and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09345 v3 pith:B43JJRJL submitted 2025-02-13 quant-ph

Yu Luo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumresourcetheorydynamiccoherencechannelssuperchannelsFouriertransformone-shotmanipulationcatalysislog-robustness

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 develops a dynamic resource theory of quantum coherence in which classical channels are free and two classes of free superchannels, maximally incoherent superchannels (MISC) and dephasing-covariant incoherent superchannels (DISC), are allowed. Its central claim is that the one-shot cost of using quantum Fourier transform (QFT) channels to simulate an arbitrary quantum channel is bounded above and below by the channel's log-robustness of coherence, while the one-shot distillation of QFT from a channel is bounded by its hypothesis-testing relative entropy. The paper further shows that when a catalyst is allowed and the free superchannels are relaxed to $\delta$-MISC, the catalytic cost remains controlled by the same log-robustness measure. If these bounds are correct, coherence measures for quantum channels acquire a concrete operational meaning: they tell how many QFT 'golden units' are needed to implement a given operation, or can be extracted from it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) channel $\mathcal{F}_d$, chosen as the golden unit because it has maximal log-robustness $\log d^2$ and, under MISC, can generate any channel. The argument is carried by two families of free superchannels: MISCs, which map classical channels to classical channels, and DISCs, which commute with the dephasing superchannel. The key constructions are explicit superchannels (Eqs. (15), (21), and (81)) that use the overlap of a channel's Choi matrix with the QFT's Choi matrix to interpolate between a target channel and a classical channel, so the resource cost is expressed directly through the feasibility condition defining log-robustness. The proofs also rely on the Choi-matrix representation of channel max-relative entropy and on the additivity of channel log-robustness under tensor products, the latter being assumed from prior work.

What would settle it

Compute the channel log-robustness $\widehat{LR}(\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{F}_l)$ for a non-classical channel $\mathcal{N}$ and a QFT channel $\mathcal{F}_l$ in dimension 2 or 3; if it is strictly less than $\widehat{LR}(\mathcal{N}) + \log l^2$, the additivity assumption behind the lower bound of Theorem 13 is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves explicit two-sided bounds for the one-shot dynamic coherence cost and one-sided bounds for distillation. For MISC, the cost satisfies $\widehat{LR}^\epsilon(\mathcal{N}) \le c^{(1)}_{\epsilon,\mathrm{MISC}}(\mathcal{N}) < \widehat{LR}^\epsilon(\mathcal{N}) + \log(d_0/(d_0-1))^2$, and under DISC the identical form holds with the dephasing log-robustness $\widehat{LR}^\epsilon_\Delta$ in place of $\widehat{LR}^\epsilon$. For distillation, it proves $d^{(1)}_{\epsilon,\mathrm{MISC}}(\mathcal{N}) \le C_H^{2\epsilon}(\mathcal{N})$ and $d^{(1)}_{\epsilon,\mathrm{DISC}}(\mathcal{N}) \le C_{H,\Delta}^{2\epsilon}(\mathcal{N})$, where $C_H$ and $C_{H,\Delta}$ are the hypothesis-testing relative entropy of coherence and its dephasing variant. In the catalytic setting with $\delta$-MISC, Theorem 13 gives $\widehat{LR}^{\epsilon'}(\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{F}_l) - \log[l^2(1-2\epsilon')] + 2 \ge \tilde{c}^{(1)}_{\epsilon,\delta}(\mathcal{N}) \ge \widehat{LR}^\epsilon(\mathcal{N}\otimes \mathcal{F}_l) - \log[l^2(1+\delta)]$, with $\epsilon' = \epsilon^2/(2|A_0|)$. These are obtained by constructing explicit superchannels that achieve the bounds and by using monotonicity of the resource measures under free superchannels. If correct, the results give a direct operational interpretation of the log-robustness, dephasing log-robustness, and hypothesis-testing relative entropy of quantum channels.

Load-bearing premise

The results hinge on the assumption that the coherence log-robustness of two channels combined in parallel is simply the sum of their individual log-robustnesses; this is used without proof in the catalytic cost bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The log-robustness of a quantum channel becomes an operationally meaningful resource measure: up to small gaps, it determines how many QFT channels are needed to simulate the channel in one shot.
The regularized cost equals the asymptotic log-robustness (Corollary 4), so the theory is asymptotically exact in the cost direction.
The hypothesis-testing relative entropy of coherence limits one-shot QFT distillation, providing a monotone that quantifies distillable dynamic coherence.
Allowing a catalyst and slightly coherence-generating superchannels ($\delta$-MISC) does not change the governing resource measure: the cost is still controlled by log-robustness.
The dephasing versions of these measures are singled out when DISC superchannels are used, giving a quantitative distinction between the two free-operation sets.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open whether the gap between the upper and lower catalytic bounds can be closed by optimizing the catalyst dimension $l$; an explicit optimization over $l$ would sharpen the resource-theoretic picture.
Because the QFT is used as a universal golden unit, the same machinery might transfer to other channel resource theories (e.g., magic channels or imaginarity) by substituting the corresponding golden channel, although the paper does not explore this.
A direct numerical test of additivity of channel log-robustness in low dimensions would independently probe the main assumption behind the catalytic lower bound.
The explicit superchannel constructions are, in principle, algorithmic recipes for simulating any channel with QFT resources, but their circuit complexity is not addressed here.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a genuine contribution to dynamic coherence resource theory. The one-shot cost and distillation bounds under MISC and DISC are clean, correctly use standard superchannel techniques, and give the QFT channel a clear operational role. The genuinely new material is the catalytic cost under δ-MISC (Theorem 13), which is the reason to read the paper.

The catalytic section has a load-bearing flaw. Lemma 12 is stated and proved with ε′ = ε²/(2|A0|²), and its final inequality uses |A0|√(2ε′) = ε. Theorem 13, however, sets ε′ = ε²/(2|A0|). Substituting that value gives |A0|√(2ε′) = ε√|A0|, which is larger than ε for |A0| > 1. So the superchannel Θ constructed in the proof of Theorem 13 does not, as written, guarantee the error tolerance required by Definition 10. The theorem may be salvageable by redefining ε′ consistently, but as stated the proof does not establish the claimed upper bound. This is not a minor typo; it is the central new result.

The reader's concern about additivity of log-robustness under tensor products is, on inspection, not fragile. The proof only needs LR(F_d ⊗ F_l) = log d² + log l², which follows from the uniform Choi coefficients of QFT channels. So that part is fine.

Other soft spots are smaller. The DISC definition in Eq. (2) as written is a type error: it should read ∆_B ∘ Θ = Θ ∘ ∆_A, not ∆_B on both sides. The paper also underplays its proximity to the general one-shot yield-cost relations in Refs. [51,63]; the catalytic result is the clear point of separation. The proof of Theorem 13's upper bound uses a somewhat crude +2 estimate, but that is consistent with the prior art and not a concern.

The paper is written clearly and the author engages honestly with the existing literature, including noting an alternative state-based formulation in Ref. [53]. The framework of taking classical channels as free and QFT as the golden unit is well motivated.

Should it go to peer review? Yes. The core ideas are sound, the framework will be useful to the resource-theory community, and the main theorem is very likely repairable. A careful referee should ask for the ε′ inconsistency to be fixed, the DISC definition corrected, and the relation to Refs. [51,63] made more explicit. After those changes the paper would be a solid addition. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the catalytic construction.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a dynamic resource theory of quantum coherence in which classical channels are the free channels, quantum Fourier transform (QFT) channels are the golden units, and the free superchannels are maximally incoherent superchannels (MISC) and dephasing-covariant incoherent superchannels (DISC). It defines one-shot dynamic coherence cost and distillation, proves bounds relating the cost to the (smoothed) log-robustness and dephasing log-robustness (Theorems 1 and 3), and bounds distillation by hypothesis-testing relative-entropy quantities (Theorems 6 and 9). It then introduces δ-MISC operations and states two-sided bounds for the one-shot catalytic dynamic coherence cost of a channel (Theorem 13).

Significance. If the results hold, they give the channel log-robustness, dephasing log-robustness, and the respective hypothesis-testing quantities a direct operational meaning as one-shot dynamic coherence cost and distillation measures, with the QFT channel singled out as the natural golden unit. Theorems 1, 3, 6, and 9 are supported by explicit measure-and-prepare superchannel constructions and standard data-processing arguments, and the smoothed bounds are of the expected form. The catalytic section is the most ambitious part, but Theorem 13 as written contains an internal parameter inconsistency and a quantifier gap; these are local in nature and appear fixable, but they currently prevent the paper's central catalytic claim from being accepted as proven.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 5, Theorem 13 vs. Lemma 12] There is a load-bearing inconsistency in the definition of ε′. Lemma 12 defines ε′ = ε²/(2|A0|²) and, in Eq. (73), proves ½‖Nε_A − N_A‖⋄ ≤ |A0|√(2ε′) = ε. Theorem 13, however, states and uses ε′ = ε²/(2|A0|), both in the theorem statement and in the final line of its proof. Substituting this larger ε′ into Eq. (73) gives only ½‖Nε_A − N_A‖⋄ ≤ |A0|√(2ε′) = ε√|A0|, which exceeds ε whenever |A0| > 1. Since Definition 10 requires the simulating channel N′_A to satisfy ½‖N′_A − N_A‖⋄ ≤ ε, the superchannel Θ constructed in Eq. (81) may not be a feasible catalytic-cost protocol for the stated error, and the upper bound in Eq. (74) is not established as written. The proof can be repaired by using Lemma 12's ε′ = ε²/(2|A0|²) consistently throughout Theorem 13.
[Sec. 5, Theorem 13, lower bound] The lower-bound proof in Eq. (77) starts with an optimal protocol for the catalytic cost and fixes the catalyst size l of that optimal protocol. The theorem statement, however, asserts that there exists one l with l² ≥ 1 + 1/δ for which both the upper and lower bounds hold. No argument is given that the optimal protocol can be chosen with such an l, nor that the lower bound for the l used in the upper-bound construction follows from Eq. (77). As written, the two-sided quantified statement of Theorem 13 is therefore not proven; the theorem needs to be rephrased so that the existence of l in the upper bound and the validity of the lower bound are related by an explicit argument.
[Sec. 5, Eq. (78)–(79)] In the upper-bound proof, Eq. (78) writes M_{ε′}^{AB} ≤ 2^{LR_{ε′}(N^ε_A ⊗ F_l)} P_{AB}, and Eq. (79) keeps the smoothing parameter centered at N^ε_A. Lemma 12, however, gives LR(M_{ε′}^{AB}) ≤ LR_{ε′}(N_A ⊗ F_l), with the smoothing centered at the original channel N_A, not at the approximate channel N^ε_A. The inequality with N^ε_A in the exponent therefore does not follow from Eq. (60). The chain is repaired by replacing N^ε_A with N_A in the exponents of Eqs. (78) and (79), after which the subsequent use of p ≥ 1 − 2ε′ is valid.

minor comments (6)

[Definition 3, Eq. (2)] The defining equation of DISC should read Δ_B ∘ Θ = Θ ∘ Δ_A; as printed, Δ_B ∘ Θ = Θ ∘ Δ_B is not type-correct for Θ: A → B.
[Proof of Theorem 3, Eq. (22)] The first coefficient in the expression for Θ ∘ Δ[N] should be (Tr(J_{F_{d0}}J_{Δ[N]}) − 1/d0²), not (1 − Tr(J_{F_{d0}}J_{Δ[N]})); with the printed coefficient the displayed equality to Δ[N_ε] is incorrect.
[Lemma 12, Eq. (64)–(67)] The notation Ω_B[\tilde M_{ε′}^{AB}] should be explicitly defined as the action of the B-side superchannel (id_A ⊗ Ω_B) on the bipartite channel; as written, Ω_B by itself is defined only on channels with input/output systems B0/B1, not on channels with input A0B0 and output A1B1.
[Corollary 4] The claim that d_n ≥ 2 in the regularization proof is false when LR^ε(N^{⊗n}) = 0, e.g., for classical N; in that case the expression log((d_n/(d_n−1))²) is undefined. This case should be handled separately.
[End of Theorem 13 proof] There is a typo 'to easure' for 'to ensure', and the displayed bound '1/l²+1 ≤ δ' should read '1/(l²−1) ≤ δ' to match the preceding derivation.
[Eq. (77), additivity citation] The proof cites Ref. [53] for additivity of the channel log-robustness under tensor products. For the specific tensor product F_d ⊗ F_l used here, additivity follows directly from the uniform Choi coefficients of QFT channels, so the general additivity citation is not a blocker; a direct one-line proof would make the argument self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: bounds follow from independent definitions and explicit superchannel constructions; the Theorem 13 epsilon-prime mismatch is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. The operational quantities c(1), d(1), and the catalytic cost (Definitions 4, 6, and 10) are defined by explicit simulation protocols, independently of the resource measures LR, LR_Delta, C_H, and C_H,Delta. The lower bounds are monotonicity arguments: Lemma 2 and Eq. (20) use only the fact that free superchannels map classical channels to classical channels, the data-processing inequality for channel max-relative entropy, and the externally computed values LR(F_d) = LR_Delta(F_d) = log d^2. The upper bounds construct explicit superchannels (Eqs. (15), (21), and (81)) and verify MISC, DISC, or delta-MISC membership directly; no parameter is fitted to the claimed bound. The catalytic result imports one external property, additivity of channel log-robustness under tensor products, from Ref. [53] at Eq. (77); this is unproved in the present paper but is neither a self-citation nor identical with the target inequality. The only self-citations ([40], [78]) accompany definitions and background and are not load-bearing. Two rigor issues should be flagged, but neither is circularity. First, Theorem 13 states epsilon-prime = epsilon^2/(2|A_0|), whereas Lemma 12's guarantee of Eq. (62) requires epsilon-prime = epsilon^2/(2|A_0|^2), so the constructed protocol is only shown to have diamond error epsilon sqrt(|A_0|), not epsilon. Second, Eq. (77)'s additivity is cited rather than proved. Both are correctness or completeness concerns, not reductions of a claimed result to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the results are analytical bounds. The main imported assumptions are standard quantum information inequalities and the cited additivity of channel log-robustness. No invented physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

standard math Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and standard Choi-Jamiolkowski representation of channels and superchannels.
Used throughout Section 2 and all proofs to express channels as Choi matrices and superchannels via pre- and post-processing.
domain assumption Channel log-robustness is additive under tensor products.
Invoked in Theorem 13 lower bound (Eq. (77)) via LR(F_d tensor F_l) = log d^2 + log l^2 and LR(N' tensor F_l) decompositions; cited to Ref [53] but not proven in this paper.
standard math Data processing inequalities hold for max-relative entropy and hypothesis-testing relative entropy of channels under superchannels.
Used in Lemmas 2, 5, 8, 10, and Theorem 6; standard results from quantum information theory.
domain assumption Theorem 6 of Ref [15] characterizing MIO channels is valid and applies to the constructed post-processing channel in Appendix A.
Used to prove that the QFT channel is a golden unit under MISC; the result is imported from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B43JJRJL

@misc{pith2026250209345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-shot manipulation of coherence in dynamic quantum resource theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B43JJRJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09345}
}

abstract

A fundamental problem in quantum information is to understand the operational significance of quantum resources. Quantum resource theories (QRTs) provide a powerful theoretical framework that aids in analyzing and comprehending the operational meaning of these resources. Early resource theories primarily focused on analyzing static quantum resources. Recently, there has been growing interest in the study of dynamic quantum resources. In this paper, we utilize superchannel theory to describe the dynamic resource theory of quantum coherence. In this dynamic resource theory, we treat classical channels as free channels and consider two classes of free superchannels that preserve channel incoherence (maximally incoherent superchannels (MISC) and dephasing-covariant incoherent superchannels (DISC)) as free resources. We regard the quantum Fourier transform as the golden unit of dynamic coherence resources. We first establish the one-shot theory of dynamic coherence cost and dynamic coherence distillation, which involves converting the quantum Fourier transform into an arbitrary quantum channel using MISC and DISC. Next, we introduce a class of free superchannels known as $\delta$-MISC, which asymptotically generate negligible dynamic coherence. Finally, we provide upper and lower bounds for the one-shot catalytic dynamic coherence cost of quantum channels under the action of these $\delta$-MISC superchannels.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

[53]

Saxena, E

G. Saxena, E. Chitambar, and G. Gour. Dynamical resourc e theory of quantum coherence. Phys. Rev. Research, 2:023298, Jun 2020

work page 2020
[1]

J. Aberg. Quantifying superposition. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0612146, 2006

arXiv 2006
[2]

Ahnefeld, T

F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, and M. B. Plenio. Coherence as a resource for shor’s algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:120501, Sep 2022

2022
[3]

G. D. Berk, A. J. P . Garner, B. Y adin, K. Modi, and F. A. Poll ock. Resource theories of multi-time processes: A window into quantum non-Markovianity. Quantum, 5:435, Apr. 2021. 17

2021
[4]

F. G. Brandao and N. Datta. One-shot rates for entangleme nt manipulation under non-entangling maps. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 57(3):1754–1760, 2011

2011
[5]

F. G. Brandão and G. Gour. Reversible framework for quant um resource theories. Physical Review Letters, 115(7):070503, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

F. G. Brandao and M. B. Plenio. A reversible theory of enta nglement and its relation to the second law. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 295:829–851, 2010

work page 2010
[7]

Buhrman, R

H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf. Nonlocali ty and communication complexity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:665–698, Mar 2010

work page 2010

Show all 83 references

[8]

Buscemi, E

F. Buscemi, E. Chitambar, and W. Zhou. Complete resource theory of quantum incompatibility as quantum programmability. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:120401, Mar 2020

2020
[9]

Buscemi, K

F. Buscemi, K. Kobayashi, and S. Minagawa. A complete and operational resource theory of measurement sharpness. Quantum, 8:1235, Jan. 2024

2024
[10]

Chiribella, G

G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P . Perinotti. Transf orming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 83(3):30004, 2008

2008
[11]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour. Critical examination of incoh erent operations and a physically consis- tent resource theory of quantum coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:030401, Jul 2016

2016
[12]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour. Quantum resource theories. Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(2):025001, 2019

2019
[13]

Cooney, M

T. Cooney, M. Mosonyi, and M. M. Wilde. Strong converse e xponents for a quantum channel dis- crimination problem and quantum-feedback-assisted commu nication. Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, 344(3):797–829, 2016

2016
[14]

N. Datta. Min-and max-relative entropies and a new enta nglement monotone. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 55(6):2816–2826, 2009

2009
[15]

M. G. Díaz, K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Rosati, M. Skotiniotis, J . Calsamiglia, and A. Winter. Using and reusing coherence to realize quantum processes. Quantum, 2:100, 2018

2018
[16]

Egloff, J

D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, T. Theurer, and M. B. Plenio. Of l ocal operations and physical wires. Phys. Rev. X, 8:031005, Jul 2018

2018
[17]

Fang and Z.-W

K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu. No-go theorems for quantum resour ce puriﬁcation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125:060405, Aug 2020

2020
[18]

Fang and Z.-W

K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu. No-go theorems for quantum resour ce puriﬁcation: New approach and channel theory. PRX Quantum, 3:010337, Mar 2022

2022
[19]

R. P . Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. In Feynman and computation, pages 133–153. cRc Press, 2018

2018
[20]

Forster, S

M. Forster, S. Winkler, and S. Wolf. Distilling nonloca lity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102:120401, Mar 2009

2009
[21]

G. Gour. Comparison of quantum channels by superchanne ls. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 65(9):5880–5904, 2019

2019
[22]

G. Gour. Resources of the quantum world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05474, 2024

2024
[23]

Gour and C

G. Gour and C. M. Scandolo. Dynamical entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:180505, Oct 2020

2020
[24]

Gour and C

G. Gour and C. M. Scandolo. Entanglement of a bipartite c hannel. Phys. Rev. A, 103:062422, Jun 2021. 18

2021
[25]

Gour and A

G. Gour and A. Winter. How to quantify a dynamical quantu m resource. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 123:150401, Oct 2019

2019
[26]

Gühne, E

O. Gühne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P . Pellonpää, and R . Uola. Colloquium: Incompatible mea- surements in quantum information science. Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:011003, Feb 2023

2023
[27]

Hayashi and H

M. Hayashi and H. Y amasaki. Generalized quantum stein’ s lemma and second law of quantum resource theories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02722, 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Hickey and G

A. Hickey and G. Gour. Quantifying the imaginarity of qu antum mechanics. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(41):414009, 2018

2018
[29]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horode cki. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, Jun 2009

2009
[30]

C.-Y . Hsieh. Communication, dynamical resource theor y, and thermodynamics. PRX Quantum , 2:020318, May 2021

2021
[31]

A. Jencova. A general theory of comparison of quantum ch annels (and beyond). IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 67(6):3945–3964, 2021

2021
[32]

Ji and E

K. Ji and E. Chitambar. Incompatibility as a resource fo r programmable quantum instruments. PRX Quantum, 5:010340, Mar 2024

2024
[33]

B. D. Jones, N. Linden, and P . Skrzypczyk. The hadamard g ate cannot be replaced by a resource state in universal quantum computation. Quantum, 8:1470, 2024

2024
[34]

H.-J. Kim, S. Lee, L. Lami, and M. B. Plenio. One-shot man ipulation of entanglement for quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 67(8):5339–5351, 2021

2021
[35]

Kristjánsson, G

H. Kristjánsson, G. Chiribella, S. Salek, D. Ebler, and M. Wilson. Resource theories of communi- cation. New Journal of Physics, 22(7):073014, 2020

2020
[36]

L. Lami. A solution of the generalised quantum stein’s l emma. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06410, 2024

2024 arXiv
[37]

Liu and X

Y . Liu and X. Y uan. Operational resource theory of quant um channels. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:012035, Feb 2020

2020
[38]

Z.-W. Liu, K. Bu, and R. Takagi. One-shot operational qu antum resource theory. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:020401, Jul 2019

2019
[39]

Z.-W. Liu, X. Hu, and S. Lloyd. Resource destroying maps . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 118:060502, Feb 2017

2017
[40]

Y . Luo, F. Meng, and Y . Wang. Epsilon measures of state-b ased quantum resource theory. Phys. Rev. A, 109:052413, May 2024

2024
[41]

Marvian and R

I. Marvian and R. W. Spekkens. How to quantify coherence : Distinguishing speakable and un- speakable notions. Phys. Rev. A, 94:052324, Nov 2016

2016
[42]

S. Milz, J. Bavaresco, and G. Chiribella. Resource theo ry of causal connection. Quantum, 6:788, Aug. 2022

2022
[43]

A. Mitra. Quantifying unsharpness of observables in an outcome-independent way. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 61(9):236, 2022

2022
[44]

Mitra and M

A. Mitra and M. Farkas. Characterizing and quantifying the incompatibility of quantum instru- ments. Phys. Rev. A, 107:032217, Mar 2023. 19

2023
[45]

Napoli, T

C. Napoli, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, M. Piani, N. Jo hnston, and G. Adesso. Robustness of coherence: An operational and observable measure of quan tum coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 116:150502, Apr 2016

2016
[46]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information . Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[47]

Nuradha and M

T. Nuradha and M. M. Wilde. Fidelity-based smooth min-r elative entropy: Properties and applica- tions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 70(6):4170–4196, 2024

2024
[48]

Piani, M

M. Piani, M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, C. Napoli, N. Jo hnston, and G. Adesso. Robustness of asymmetry and coherence of quantum states. Phys. Rev. A, 93:042107, Apr 2016

2016
[49]

Popescu and D

S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an ax iom. F oundations of Physics, 24(3):379– 385, 1994

1994
[50]

B. Regula. Probabilistic transformations of quantum r esources. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:110505, Mar 2022

2022
[51]

Regula and R

B. Regula and R. Takagi. One-shot manipulation of dynam ical quantum resources. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:060402, Aug 2021

2021
[52]

Rosset, F

D. Rosset, F. Buscemi, and Y .-C. Liang. Resource theory of quantum memories and their faithful veriﬁcation with minimal assumptions. Phys. Rev. X, 8:021033, May 2018

2018
[54]

Saxena and G

G. Saxena and G. Gour. Quantifying multiqubit magic cha nnels with completely stabilizer- preserving operations. Phys. Rev. A, 106:042422, Oct 2022

2022
[55]

H. T. Senyasa and G. Torun. Golden states in resource the ory of superposition. Phys. Rev. A , 105:042410, Apr 2022

2022
[56]

P . W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime facto rization and discrete logarithms on a quan- tum computer. SIAM review, 41(2):303–332, 1999

1999
[57]

Simnacher, N

T. Simnacher, N. Wyderka, C. Spee, X.-D. Y u, and O. Gühne . Certifying quantum memories with coherence. Phys. Rev. A, 99:062319, Jun 2019

2019
[58]

Skrzypczyk and N

P . Skrzypczyk and N. Linden. Robustness of measurement , discrimination games, and accessible information. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:140403, Apr 2019

2019
[59]

Stratton, C.-Y

B. Stratton, C.-Y . Hsieh, and P . Skrzypczyk. Dynamical resource theory of informational nonequi- librium preservability. Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:110202, Mar 2024

2024
[60]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio. Colloquium: Q uantum coherence as a resource. Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:041003, Oct 2017

2017
[61]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio. Colloquium: q uantum coherence as a resource. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(4):041003, 2017

2017
[62]

Streltsov, S

A. Streltsov, S. Rana, P . Boes, and J. Eisert. Structure of the resource theory of quantum coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:140402, Oct 2017

2017
[63]

Takagi, B

R. Takagi, B. Regula, and M. M. Wilde. One-shot yield-co st relations in general quantum resource theories. PRX Quantum, 3:010348, Mar 2022

2022
[64]

Takagi, K

R. Takagi, K. Wang, and M. Hayashi. Application of the re source theory of channels to communi- cation scenarios. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:120502, Mar 2020. 20

2020
[65]

Tendick, M

L. Tendick, M. Kliesch, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß. Dist ance-based resource quantiﬁcation for sets of quantum measurements. Quantum, 7:1003, May 2023

2023
[66]

Theurer, D

T. Theurer, D. Egloff, L. Zhang, and M. B. Plenio. Quanti fying operations with an application to coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:190405, May 2019

2019
[67]

Theurer, N

T. Theurer, N. Killoran, D. Egloff, and M. B. Plenio. Res ource theory of superposition. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:230401, Dec 2017

2017
[68]

Torun, H

G. Torun, H. T. Senyasa, and A. Yildiz. Resource theory o f superposition: State transformations. Phys. Rev. A, 103:032416, Mar 2021

2021
[69]

V edral and M

V . V edral and M. B. Plenio. Entanglement measures and pu riﬁcation procedures. Phys. Rev. A , 57:1619–1633, Mar 1998

1998
[70]

V edral, M

V . V edral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P . L. Knight. Qu antifying entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:2275–2279, Mar 1997

1997
[71]

V eitch, S

V . V eitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emers on. The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation. New Journal of Physics, 16(1):013009, jan 2014

2014
[72]

Wang and R

L. Wang and R. Renner. One-shot classical-quantum capa city and hypothesis testing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:200501, May 2012

2012
[73]

X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y . Su. Quantifying the magic of q uantum channels. New Journal of Physics, 21(10):103002, 2019

2019
[74]

J. Watrous. The theory of quantum information . Cambridge University Press, 2018

2018
[75]

M. M. Wilde, M. Berta, C. Hirche, and E. Kaur. Amortized c hannel divergence for asymptotic quantum channel discrimination. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 110:2277–2336, 2020

2020
[76]

K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xia ng, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov. Operational resource theory of imaginarity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:090401, Mar 2021

2021
[77]

K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xia ng, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov. Resource theory of imaginarity: Quantiﬁcati on and state conversion. Phys. Rev. A, 103:032401, Mar 2021

2021
[78]

Z. Xi, Y . Luo, and L.-H. Shao. Coherence manipulation un der non-cohering operations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 52(37):375301, 2019

2019
[79]

J. Xu. Imaginarity of gaussian states. Phys. Rev. A, 108:062203, Dec 2023

2023
[80]

X. Y uan. Hypothesis testing and entropies of quantum ch annels. Phys. Rev. A , 99:032317, Mar 2019

2019
[81]

Y uan, Y

X. Y uan, Y . Liu, Q. Zhao, B. Regula, J. Thompson, and M. Gu . Universal and operational bench- marking of quantum memories. npj Quantum Information, 7(1):108, 2021

2021
[82]

Zanoni and C

E. Zanoni and C. M. Scandolo. Choi-deﬁned resource theo ries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12569, 2024

2024 arXiv
[83]

B. Zhao, K. Ito, and K. Fujii. Probabilistic channel sim ulation using coherence. Phys. Rev. Res. , 6:043316, Dec 2024. 21 A The golden units in the dynamic QRT of coherence In this section, we demonstrate that QFT channels serve as the golden units in the dynamic resource the...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [53]

Saxena, E

G. Saxena, E. Chitambar, and G. Gour. Dynamical resourc e theory of quantum coherence. Phys. Rev. Research, 2:023298, Jun 2020

work page 2020

[2] [1]

J. Aberg. Quantifying superposition. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0612146, 2006

arXiv 2006

[3] [2]

Ahnefeld, T

F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, and M. B. Plenio. Coherence as a resource for shor’s algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:120501, Sep 2022

2022

[4] [3]

G. D. Berk, A. J. P . Garner, B. Y adin, K. Modi, and F. A. Poll ock. Resource theories of multi-time processes: A window into quantum non-Markovianity. Quantum, 5:435, Apr. 2021. 17

2021

[5] [4]

F. G. Brandao and N. Datta. One-shot rates for entangleme nt manipulation under non-entangling maps. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 57(3):1754–1760, 2011

2011

[6] [5]

F. G. Brandão and G. Gour. Reversible framework for quant um resource theories. Physical Review Letters, 115(7):070503, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

F. G. Brandao and M. B. Plenio. A reversible theory of enta nglement and its relation to the second law. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 295:829–851, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Buhrman, R

H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf. Nonlocali ty and communication complexity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:665–698, Mar 2010

work page 2010