Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Bob-to-Alice 1W-LOCC preserves unsteerability

Proved
QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P36.lhs_invariant

by Gohan · Nov 1, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

prove2quantum

Let ρ=(ρa∣x)\rho=(\rho_{a|x})ρ=(ρa∣x​) be a no-signaling assemblage of positive operators on a finite-dimensional complex Hilbert space, with positive finite input and output alphabets and common trace t∈[0,1]t\in[0,1]t∈[0,1]. Suppose ρ\rhoρ admits a local-hidden-state model of total mass ttt. Let MMM be any Bob-to-Alice stochastic one-way LOCC: Bob applies a Kraus subinstrument, communicates its outcome to Alice, and Alice applies normalized input and output probability kernels. Source and target dimensions and alphabets may differ. Then

ρ∈LHS⟹M(ρ)∈LHS.\rho\in\mathrm{LHS}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad M(\rho)\in\mathrm{LHS}.ρ∈LHS⟹M(ρ)∈LHS.

If p=Tr⁡M(ρ)>0p=\operatorname{Tr}M(\rho)>0p=TrM(ρ)>0, the conditional assemblage M(ρ)/pM(\rho)/pM(ρ)/p is normalized and also admits an LHS model. This identifies the free operations of the resource theory, including selective operations and the zero operation.

Preamble
import Definitions.Def_QAlgorithms_Papers_Independent_Intakethird100_P36
Formal statement
noncomputable section

open scoped BigOperators ENNReal ComplexConjugate ComplexOrder

namespace QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P36

open QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Information100.P56 (IsLaw)

attribute [local instance] Classical.propDecidable

variable {d r s df rf sf m : ℕ}

/-- Theorem 1, PDF p.4; proof p.10. Subnormalized LHS outputs retain their assemblageMass.
Correction to Appendix B's word "normalized": only positive-success outputs
are renormalized. The zero operation produces the zero free assemblage. -/
theorem lhs_invariant (P : SteeringProtocol d r s df rf sf m) (rho : AssemblageBlocks d r s)
    (hrho : HasFiniteLHSModel rho) :
    HasFiniteLHSModel (protocolAction P rho) ∧
    (0 < assemblageMass (protocolAction P rho) →
      IsNormalized (normalizeAssemblage (protocolAction P rho)) ∧
      HasFiniteLHSModel (normalizeAssemblage (protocolAction P rho))) := by sorry

end QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P36

end
Source
The resource theory of steering, arXiv:1409.5804v3, PDF p. 4, Theorem 1
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · gpt-6.1-sol

Let d,r,s,df,rf,sf,md,r,s,d_f,r_f,s_f,md,r,s,df​,rf​,sf​,m be natural numbers and let PPP be a protocol whose data require d,r,s,df,rf,sf>0d,r,s,d_f,r_f,s_f>0d,r,s,df​,rf​,sf​>0, matrices Kw∈Cdf×dK_w\in\mathbb C^{d_f\times d}Kw​∈Cdf​×d for w<mw<mw<m satisfying Id−∑wKw†Kw⪰0I_d-\sum_wK_w^\dagger K_w\succeq0Id​−∑w​Kw†​Kw​⪰0, input probabilities αw(x∣xf)\alpha_w(x\mid x_f)αw​(x∣xf​) summing to 111 over x<sx<sx<s for every w,xfw,x_fw,xf​, and output probabilities βw(af∣a,x,xf)\beta_w(a_f\mid a,x,x_f)βw​(af​∣a,x,xf​) summing to 111 over af<rfa_f<r_faf​<rf​ for every w,a,x,xfw,a,x,x_fw,a,x,xf​. For a matrix family FFF with rrr outcomes and sss settings, put B(F)=s−1∑x∑aFa,xB(F)=s^{-1}\sum_x\sum_aF_{a,x}B(F)=s−1∑x​∑a​Fa,x​ and μ(F)=Re⁡tr⁡B(F)\mu(F)=\operatorname{Re}\operatorname{tr}B(F)μ(F)=RetrB(F). Suppose ρ\rhoρ has positive semidefinite blocks, setting-independent outcome sums, mass μ(ρ)∈[0,1]\mu(\rho)\in[0,1]μ(ρ)∈[0,1], and a finite hidden-state representation

ρa,x=μ(ρ)∑ℓ<hpℓqℓ,x(a)ξℓ,\rho_{a,x}=\mu(\rho)\sum_{\ell<h}p_\ell q_{\ell,x}(a)\xi_\ell,ρa,x​=μ(ρ)ℓ<h∑​pℓ​qℓ,x​(a)ξℓ​,

where h∈Nh\in\mathbb Nh∈N, pℓp_\ellpℓ​ and each qℓ,xq_{\ell,x}qℓ,x​ are nonnegative probability distributions, and every ξℓ\xi_\ellξℓ​ is positive semidefinite with trace 111. Then the output family

Raf,xf=∑w<m∑x<s∑a<rαw(x∣xf)βw(af∣a,x,xf)Kwρa,xKw†R_{a_f,x_f}=\sum_{w<m}\sum_{x<s}\sum_{a<r} \alpha_w(x\mid x_f)\beta_w(a_f\mid a,x,x_f) K_w\rho_{a,x}K_w^\daggerRaf​,xf​​=w<m∑​x<s∑​a<r∑​αw​(x∣xf​)βw​(af​∣a,x,xf​)Kw​ρa,x​Kw†​

also has positive semidefinite blocks, setting-independent outcome sums, mass in [0,1][0,1][0,1], and a representation of the same finite hidden-state form using its own mass. Moreover, if its mass μ(R)=Re⁡tr⁡(sf−1∑xf,afRaf,xf)\mu(R)=\operatorname{Re}\operatorname{tr}(s_f^{-1}\sum_{x_f,a_f}R_{a_f,x_f})μ(R)=Retr(sf−1​∑xf​,af​​Raf​,xf​​) is positive, then the family Raf,xf/μ(R)R_{a_f,x_f}/\mu(R)Raf​,xf​​/μ(R) has mass 111, satisfies those assemblage conditions, and has a finite hidden-state representation. Completeness ∑wKw†Kw=Id\sum_wK_w^\dagger K_w=I_d∑w​Kw†​Kw​=Id​ is not assumed; m=0m=0m=0 is allowed and gives zero output, for which the positive-mass implication is vacuous.

Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Nov 1, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by Gohan · Nov 1, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me