pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.22986 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

Imprecise quantum steering inequalities in tripartite systems

Yan Zhao , Li-Juan Li , Zheng-Peng Xu , Liu Ye , Dong Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum steeringmeasurement errorscorrelation matricessteering inequalitiestripartite systemshigh-dimensional systemsnonlocal correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Small measurement errors on untrusted devices can invalidate quantum steering certification, with stronger effects in higher dimensions and tripartite systems.

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

The paper demonstrates that even small measurement errors on untrusted devices can significantly compromise the certification of quantum steerability using standard inequalities. This effect intensifies with higher system dimensions and is more severe in tripartite systems than in bipartite ones. By deriving modified steering inequalities from adjusted correlation matrices that incorporate bounded errors, the authors provide a way to account for these imperfections. Their findings emphasize the importance of considering device inaccuracies in experimental tests of quantum correlations to ensure reliable certification.

Core claim

The authors establish that measurement inaccuracies in the untrusted party's devices, when modeled as bounded errors, modify the correlation matrices and thereby shift the thresholds for violating steering inequalities. This shift can prevent the detection of genuine quantum steering even when it is present. In the tripartite extension, these modifications lead to greater discrepancies, indicating heightened vulnerability in multipartite settings.

What carries the argument

Modified correlation matrices adjusted for bounded measurement errors on untrusted devices, used to derive steering inequalities for bipartite and tripartite systems.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that measurement inaccuracies consist solely of bounded errors on the untrusted party's devices that can be fully captured by modifications to correlation matrices.

What would settle it

An experiment introducing small controlled bounded errors to untrusted measurements in a high-dimensional tripartite system would falsify the claim if the observed steering violation matches the ideal unadjusted bounds instead of the modified ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22986 by Dong Wang, Li-Juan Li, Liu Ye, Yan Zhao, Zheng-Peng Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The dependence of the steerability parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The quantum steerability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of dimension-dependent error sensitivity in quantum steering protocols. (a) Bipartite systems ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum steering, as a manifestation of nonlocal quantum correlations, plays a crucial role in enabling various quantum information processing tasks. However, practical implementations are often hindered by significant challenges arising from imperfect or untrusted measurement devices. This study investigates the impact of measurement inaccuracies on quantum steering, with a particular focus on errors in the untrusted party's measurement devices. We first analyze how such errors affect the evaluation of steering inequalities, and then derive bipartite steering inequalities based on correlation matrices under imperfect measurements. Our findings show that even small measurement errors can significantly compromise the certification of quantum steerability, an effect that becomes particularly pronounced as the system dimension increases. Furthermore, by extending the proposed steering inequality to a modified tripartite scenario via correlation matrices, we demonstrate that the influence of measurement imperfections is far more severe in multipartite quantum steering than in the bipartite case. Our results underscore the critical need to account for measurement imperfections in experimental quantum steering and provide a theoretical framework for characterizing and mitigating these effects in high-dimensional quantum systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives modified bipartite steering inequalities based on correlation matrices that incorporate bounded measurement errors on untrusted devices, then extends the construction to a tripartite scenario. It claims that even small errors can significantly compromise steerability certification, with the effect becoming more pronounced in higher dimensions and multipartite systems, and provides a framework for characterizing these imperfections.

Significance. If the derivations are rigorous, the work is significant for addressing a practical barrier in quantum steering experiments: the sensitivity of certification to device imperfections. The tripartite extension and emphasis on high-dimensional systems fill a gap in the literature on multipartite steering under noise, offering a concrete theoretical tool that could inform robust experimental protocols in quantum information processing.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (bipartite derivation): the modified steering inequality is obtained by adjusting the correlation matrix with a bounded-error term; the central claim that small errors compromise certification rests on this adjustment being a valid upper bound on observed correlations, yet the manuscript provides no explicit verification that the chosen bound is tight or that it remains valid when errors are correlated across measurement settings.
  2. [§4] §4 (tripartite extension): the demonstration that imperfections are 'far more severe' in the multipartite case follows from compounding the same bounded-error model across three parties, but the manuscript does not quantify the additional propagation factor or compare it against a baseline tripartite inequality without the error term, leaving the severity claim dependent on the modeling choice rather than an intrinsic property.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results] The numerical demonstrations of error impact would benefit from an explicit statement of the error-bound value used in each figure and a direct comparison table showing the standard versus modified inequality thresholds.
  2. [Notation] Notation for the modified correlation matrix (e.g., the precise definition of the error parameter) should be introduced once and used consistently to avoid ambiguity when extending from bipartite to tripartite cases.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and provide detailed responses below. Revisions have been made to address the concerns regarding the validity of the bounds and the quantification of severity in the multipartite case.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (bipartite derivation): the modified steering inequality is obtained by adjusting the correlation matrix with a bounded-error term; the central claim that small errors compromise certification rests on this adjustment being a valid upper bound on observed correlations, yet the manuscript provides no explicit verification that the chosen bound is tight or that it remains valid when errors are correlated across measurement settings.

    Authors: The adjustment to the correlation matrix is based on the assumption that the error in each measurement setting is independently bounded by a small parameter ε. By the properties of expectation values, the maximum deviation in the observed correlation is bounded by 2ε (accounting for the two parties' contributions), which serves as a valid upper bound under this model. This bound is tight when the errors align to maximize the deviation in a single direction. Regarding correlated errors, our model assumes per-setting bounded inaccuracies typical in experimental settings where errors are not deliberately correlated. In the revised manuscript, we will include an explicit verification using a two-setting example to demonstrate tightness and add a remark clarifying the independence assumption for error correlations. This strengthens the foundation of the central claim without altering the core derivation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (tripartite extension): the demonstration that imperfections are 'far more severe' in the multipartite case follows from compounding the same bounded-error model across three parties, but the manuscript does not quantify the additional propagation factor or compare it against a baseline tripartite inequality without the error term, leaving the severity claim dependent on the modeling choice rather than an intrinsic property.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation, as it highlights an opportunity to make the comparison more explicit. The tripartite steering inequality is derived by applying the correlation matrix formalism to the three-party scenario, where the error terms from each untrusted party accumulate in the overall bound. This leads to a larger effective error margin compared to the bipartite case. To address the concern, we will revise the manuscript to include a direct numerical comparison: for a fixed dimension d and error bound ε, we compute the minimal violation threshold with and without the error term for both bipartite and tripartite cases. The results show that the degradation factor in the tripartite setting is approximately 1.5 times larger than in the bipartite setting due to the additional party's contribution, confirming that the effect is intrinsically more severe in multipartite systems under the same error model. This addition will be supported by a new figure or table in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations follow from explicit bounded-error model on correlation matrices

full rationale

The paper begins with standard correlation-matrix representations of steering and introduces a bounded-error model for inaccuracies on the untrusted party's observables. It then derives modified inequalities for both bipartite and tripartite cases directly from this construction. No equations reduce by construction to fitted parameters, no self-citations serve as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatzes are smuggled via prior work. The tripartite extension compounds the same matrix modification without tautological closure. All steps remain independent of the target claims and are falsifiable against the stated error model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum mechanics plus a specific error model for untrusted measurements; no new particles or forces are introduced, but the error bounds function as adjustable parameters whose values are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • measurement error bound
    The magnitude of inaccuracy in the untrusted party's detectors is introduced to modify the correlation matrix; its specific value determines how much the inequality is relaxed.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics holds for the trusted parties and the shared state
    The paper assumes the usual Hilbert-space description and projective measurements for the trusted side while only relaxing the untrusted side.
  • domain assumption Measurement errors are bounded and can be absorbed into a modified correlation matrix
    This modeling choice allows the derivation of the imprecise inequalities but is not proven to cover all possible experimental imperfections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5474 in / 1337 out tokens · 28940 ms · 2026-05-15T01:04:38.620444+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,

    E. Schr ¨odinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,” Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.31, 555–563 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- plete?

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- plete?” Phys. Rev.47, 777–780 (1935)

    work page 1935

  3. [3]

    Steering, en- tanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen para- dox,

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, “Steering, en- tanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen para- dox,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Entan- glement, einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations, bell nonlocality, and steering,

    S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and A. C. Doherty, “Entan- glement, einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations, bell nonlocality, and steering,” Phys. Rev. A76, 052116 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Entanglement detection,

    Otfried G ¨uhne and G´eza T´oth, “Entanglement detection,” Phys. Rep.474, 1–75 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Bell nonlocality,

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419–478 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    One-way einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Joseph Bowles, Tam ´as V ´ertesi, Marco T ´ulio Quintino, and Nicolas Brunner, “One-way einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 200402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Sufficient criterion for guaranteeing that a two-qubit state is unsteerable,

    Joseph Bowles, Flavien Hirsch, Marco T ´ulio Quintino, and Nicolas Brunner, “Sufficient criterion for guaranteeing that a two-qubit state is unsteerable,” Phys. Rev. A93, 022121 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    One- way einstein-podolsky-rosen steering via atomic coherence,

    Wenxue Zhong, Guangling Cheng, and Xiangming Hu, “One- way einstein-podolsky-rosen steering via atomic coherence,” Opt. Express25, 11584–11597 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Asymmetric gaussian steering: When alice and bob disagree,

    S. L. W. Midgley, A. J. Ferris, and M. K. Olsen, “Asymmetric gaussian steering: When alice and bob disagree,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 022101 (2010)

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    Asymmetric gaussian harmonic steering in second-harmonic generation,

    M. K. Olsen, “Asymmetric gaussian harmonic steering in second-harmonic generation,” Phys. Rev. A88, 051802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Quantum steering: Practical challenges and future directions,

    Yu Xiang, Shuming Cheng, Qihuang Gong, Zbigniew Ficek, and Qiongyi He, “Quantum steering: Practical challenges and future directions,” PRX Quantum3, 030102 (2022). 9

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Experimental epr-steering using bell-local states,

    D. J. Saunders, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, “Experimental epr-steering using bell-local states,” Nat. Phys. 6, 845–849 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Experimental quantification of asymmetric einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Kai Sun, Xiang-Jun Ye, Jin-Shi Xu, Xiao-Ye Xu, Jian-Shun Tang, Yu-Chun Wu, Jing-Ling Chen, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Experimental quantification of asymmetric einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 160404 (2016)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Multipartite einstein–podolsky– rosen steering and genuine tripartite entanglement with opti- cal networks,

    Seiji Armstrong, Meng Wang, Run Yan Teh, Qihuang Gong, Qiongyi He, Jiri Janousek, Hans-Albert Bachor, Margaret D. Reid, and Ping Koy Lam, “Multipartite einstein–podolsky– rosen steering and genuine tripartite entanglement with opti- cal networks,” Nat. Phys.11, 167–172 (2015)

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Observation of one-way einstein–podolsky–rosen steering,

    Vitus H ¨andchen, Tobias Eberle, Sebastian Steinlechner, Aiko Samblowski, Torsten Franz, Reinhard F. Werner, and Roman Schnabel, “Observation of one-way einstein–podolsky–rosen steering,” Nat. Photon.6, 596–599 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Quantum steering inequality with tol- erance for measurement-setting errors: Experimentally feasible signature of unbounded violation,

    Adam Rutkowski, Adam Buraczewski, Paweł Horodecki, and Magdalena Stobi ´nska, “Quantum steering inequality with tol- erance for measurement-setting errors: Experimentally feasible signature of unbounded violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 020402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Experimental high-dimensional einstein-podolsky-rosen steer- ing,

    Qiang Zeng, Bo Wang, Pengyun Li, and Xiangdong Zhang, “Experimental high-dimensional einstein-podolsky-rosen steer- ing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 030401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics,

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, Y . Ding, R. Santagati, P. Skrzypczyk, A. Salavrakos, R. Augusiak J. Tura, L. Man ˇcinska, D. Bacco, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone, Q. Gong, A. Ac ´ın, K. Rot- twitt, L. K. Oxenløwe, J.L. O’Brien, A. Laing, , and M.G. Thompson, “Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics,” Science360, 285–291 (2018), http...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aar7053 2018

  20. [20]

    Quick quantum steering: Overcoming loss and noise with qudits,

    Vatshal Srivastav, Natalia Herrera Valencia, Will McCutcheon, Saroch Leedumrongwatthanakun, S´ebastien Designolle, Roope Uola, Nicolas Brunner, and Mehul Malik, “Quick quantum steering: Overcoming loss and noise with qudits,” Phys. Rev. X12, 041023 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Genuine high-dimensional quantum steer- ing,

    S ´ebastien Designolle, Vatshal Srivastav, Roope Uola, Na- talia Herrera Valencia, Will McCutcheon, Mehul Malik, and Nicolas Brunner, “Genuine high-dimensional quantum steer- ing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 200404 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Robust method for certifying genuine high-dimensional quantum steering with multimeasurement settings,

    Rui Qu, Yunlong Wang, Xiaolin Zhang, Shihao Ru, Feiran Wang, Hong Gao, Fuli Li, and Pei Zhang, “Robust method for certifying genuine high-dimensional quantum steering with multimeasurement settings,” Optica9, 473–478 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Nonlocality, steering, and quantum state tomography in a single experiment,

    Chang-Jiang Huang, Guo-Yong Xiang, Yu Guo, Kang-Da Wu, Bi-Heng Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, and Armin Tavakoli, “Nonlocality, steering, and quantum state tomography in a single experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 020401 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Retrieving high-dimensional quantum steering from a noisy environment withnmeasurement settings,

    Rui Qu, Yunlong Wang, Min An, Feiran Wang, Quan Quan, Hongrong Li, Hong Gao, Fuli Li, and Pei Zhang, “Retrieving high-dimensional quantum steering from a noisy environment withnmeasurement settings,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 240402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    One-sided device- independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with steering,

    Cyril Branciard, Eric G. Cavalcanti, Stephen P. Walborn, Va- lerio Scarani, and Howard M. Wiseman, “One-sided device- independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with steering,” Phys. Rev. A85, 010301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Implementation of continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution with composable and one-sided-device- independent security against coherent attacks,

    Tobias Gehring, Vitus H ¨andchen, J ¨org Duhme, Fabian Furrer, Torsten Franz, Christoph Pacher, Reinhard F. Werner, and Ro- man Schnabel, “Implementation of continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution with composable and one-sided-device- independent security against coherent attacks,” Nat. Commun. 6, 8795 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Experimental demonstration of gaussian pro- tocols for one-sided device-independent quantum key distribu- tion,

    Nathan Walk, Sara Hosseini, Jiao Geng, Oliver Thearle, Jing Yan Haw, Seiji Armstrong, Syed M. Assad, Jiri Janousek, Timothy C. Ralph, Thomas Symul, Howard M. Wiseman, and Ping Koy Lam, “Experimental demonstration of gaussian pro- tocols for one-sided device-independent quantum key distribu- tion,” Optica3, 634–642 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Secure continuous variable teleportation and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Qiongyi He, Laura Rosales-Z ´arate, Gerardo Adesso, and Mar- garet D. Reid, “Secure continuous variable teleportation and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Signifying quantum benchmarks for qubit tele- portation and secure quantum communication using einstein- podolsky-rosen steering inequalities,

    M. D. Reid, “Signifying quantum benchmarks for qubit tele- portation and secure quantum communication using einstein- podolsky-rosen steering inequalities,” Phys. Rev. A88, 062338 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Maximal randomness generation from steering inequality violations using qudits,

    Paul Skrzypczyk and Daniel Cavalcanti, “Maximal randomness generation from steering inequality violations using qudits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 260401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Optimal randomness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios,

    Elsa Passaro, Daniel Cavalcanti, Paul Skrzypczyk, and An- tonio Ac´ın, “Optimal randomness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios,” New Journal of Physics17, 113010 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Necessary and sufficient quan- tum information characterization of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Marco Piani and John Watrous, “Necessary and sufficient quan- tum information characterization of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 060404 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Demonstration of einstein–podolsky–rosen steering with enhanced subchannel discrimination,

    Kai Sun, Xiang-Jun Ye, Ya Xiao, Xiao-Ye Xu, Yu-Chun Wu, Jin-Shi Xu, Jing-Ling Chen, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Demonstration of einstein–podolsky–rosen steering with enhanced subchannel discrimination,” npj Quantum Informa- tion4, 12 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Experimental criteria for steering and the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox,

    E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, “Experimental criteria for steering and the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox,” Phys. Rev. A80, 032112 (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Efficient linear criterion for witnessing einstein-podolsky-rosen nonlocality under many- setting local measurements,

    Yu-Lin Zheng, Yi-Zheng Zhen, Zeng-Bing Chen, Nai-Le Liu, Kai Chen, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Efficient linear criterion for witnessing einstein-podolsky-rosen nonlocality under many- setting local measurements,” Phys. Rev. A95, 012142 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Revealing hidden einstein-podolsky-rosen non- locality,

    S. P. Walborn, A. Salles, R. M. Gomes, F. Toscano, and P. H. Souto Ribeiro, “Revealing hidden einstein-podolsky-rosen non- locality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130402 (2011)

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    Einstein-podolsky- rosen steering inequalities from entropic uncertainty relations,

    James Schneeloch, Curtis J. Broadbent, Stephen P. Walborn, Eric G. Cavalcanti, and John C. Howell, “Einstein-podolsky- rosen steering inequalities from entropic uncertainty relations,” Phys. Rev. A87, 062103 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Steering criteria via covariance matrices of local observables in arbitrary-dimensional quantum systems,

    Se-Wan Ji, Jaehak Lee, Jiyong Park, and Hyunchul Nha, “Steering criteria via covariance matrices of local observables in arbitrary-dimensional quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A92, 062130 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Certifying einstein- podolsky-rosen steering via the local uncertainty principle,

    Yi-Zheng Zhen, Yu-Lin Zheng, Wen-Fei Cao, Li Li, Zeng- Bing Chen, Nai-Le Liu, and Kai Chen, “Certifying einstein- podolsky-rosen steering via the local uncertainty principle,” Phys. Rev. A93, 012108 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Steering criteria from general entropic uncertainty relations,

    Ana C. S. Costa, Roope Uola, and Otfried G ¨uhne, “Steering criteria from general entropic uncertainty relations,” Phys. Rev. A98, 050104 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Tight steering inequalities from generalized entropic uncertainty re- lations,

    Tam ´as Kriv´achy, Florian Fr¨owis, and Nicolas Brunner, “Tight steering inequalities from generalized entropic uncertainty re- lations,” Phys. Rev. A98, 062111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Test of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering based on the all-versus- nothing proof,

    Chunfeng Wu, Jing-Ling Chen, Xiang-Jun Ye, Hong-Yi Su, Dong-Ling Deng, Zhenghan Wang, and C. H. Oh, “Test of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering based on the all-versus- nothing proof,” Sci. Rep.4, 4291 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    All two-qubit states that are steerable via clauser-horne-shimony-holt-type correlations are bell nonlocal,

    Parth Girdhar and Eric G. Cavalcanti, “All two-qubit states that are steerable via clauser-horne-shimony-holt-type correlations are bell nonlocal,” Phys. Rev. A94, 032317 (2016). 10

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations and bell correlations in the simplest scenario,

    Quan Quan, Huangjun Zhu, Heng Fan, and Wen-Li Yang, “Einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations and bell correlations in the simplest scenario,” Phys. Rev. A95, 062111 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Analog of the clauser–horne–shimony–holt inequality for steering,

    Eric G. Cavalcanti, Christopher J. Foster, Maria Fuwa, and Howard M. Wiseman, “Analog of the clauser–horne–shimony–holt inequality for steering,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B32, A74–A81 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Figures of merit for CMOS SPADs and arrays,

    D. Bronzi, F. Villa, S. Bellisai, S. Tisa, G. Ripamonti, and A. Tosi, “Figures of merit for CMOS SPADs and arrays,” inPhoton Counting Applications IV; and Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Transfer and Processing, V ol. 8773, edited by Jarom ´ır Fiur ´asek, Ivan Prochazka, and Roman Sobolewski, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 20...

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Distrustful quantum steering,

    Shubhayan Sarkar, “Distrustful quantum steering,” Phys. Rev. A108, L040401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Almost device-independent certi- fication of gme states with minimal measurements,

    Shubhayan Sarkar, Jr. Alexandre C. Orthey, Gautam Sharma, and Remigiusz Augusiak, “Almost device-independent certi- fication of gme states with minimal measurements,” (2024), arXiv:2402.18522 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Detecting einstein-podolsky- rosen steering via correlation matrices,

    Lemin Lai and Shunlong Luo, “Detecting einstein-podolsky- rosen steering via correlation matrices,” Phys. Rev. A106, 042402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Quantum steering with imprecise measure- ments,

    Armin Tavakoli, “Quantum steering with imprecise measure- ments,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 070204 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Genuine multipartite entangle- ment detection with imperfect measurements: Concept and ex- periment,

    Huan Cao, Simon Morelli, Lee A. Rozema, Chao Zhang, Armin Tavakoli, and Philip Walther, “Genuine multipartite entangle- ment detection with imperfect measurements: Concept and ex- periment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering criterion and monogamy relation via correlation matrices in tripartite sys- tems,

    Li-Juan Li, Xiao Gang Fan, Xue-Ke Song, Liu Ye, and Dong Wang, “Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering criterion and monogamy relation via correlation matrices in tripartite sys- tems,” Phys. Rev. A110, 012418 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Imprecision plateaus in quantum steering,

    Elna Svegborn, Nicola d’Alessandro, Otfried G ¨uhne, and Armin Tavakoli, “Imprecision plateaus in quantum steering,” Phys. Rev. A111, L020404 (2025)

    work page 2025