arxiv: 2605.04981 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Exact identification of unknown unitary processes

Santiago Llorens , Arnau Diebra , Michal Sedl\'ak , Ramon Mu\~noz-Tapia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum unitary identificationfaulty devicesanomaly detectionzero-error protocolsrepresentation theoryancillary systemsquantum information

0 comments

The pith

The optimal probability to identify faulty unknown unitaries in a series of devices is independent of how many devices there are.

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

This paper seeks to determine the best way to find which devices in a chain of quantum processors are applying a wrong unknown unitary operation. It models the identification problem using representation theory when nothing is known about the actual unitaries involved. For one or two faulty devices, the highest achievable success probability turns out not to depend on the total length of the chain. A simple method that adds extra ancillary systems reaches this best probability and lets each device be checked on its own. The authors also look at cases with any number of faults and any system size, calculate how well their method works, and suggest it may be the best possible overall.

Core claim

The paper shows that the optimal success probability for exactly identifying the anomalous devices when there is one or two of them is independent of the total number of devices n. This result is obtained by modeling the different hypotheses with representation-theoretic tools in the zero-error setting. They introduce a protocol with ancillary systems that achieves this optimal probability and has the advantage of permitting independent tests of each device. For arbitrary k anomalies and local dimension d, the protocol performance is evaluated and its global optimality is conjectured.

What carries the argument

Representation-theoretic tools for modeling the zero-error identification of unknown unitary anomalies in a series of devices.

If this is right

The success probability remains the same for any total number of devices.
The ancillary protocol allows independent testing of each device.
The protocol can be applied to arbitrary numbers of anomalies and dimensions.
It is conjectured to be optimal in the general case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the independence holds, then verifying faults in larger quantum systems does not require proportionally more resources.
The independent testing feature could simplify debugging in quantum circuits.
Proving the conjecture would establish an optimal general method for this type of identification.

Load-bearing premise

That there is complete ignorance about which specific unitary transformations the devices are applying.

What would settle it

Measuring the success probability for identifying a single anomaly with different total device numbers, such as 5 and 20, to see if it stays constant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04981 by Arnau Diebra, Michal Sedl\'ak, Ramon Mu\~noz-Tapia, Santiago Llorens.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the most general causal view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representation of the optimal view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Pairs of Young diagrams associated with the irreps view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: 1 2 3 4 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ FIG. 4. An example of an element A of the walled Brauer algebra Bd 2,2, acting on V ⊗2 ⊗ (V ∗ ) ⊗2 . The dashed line separates the usual vector spaces from the dual vector spaces. The algebra is generated by three types of elements acting on the tensor product space (C d ) ⊗n ⊗ (C d ) ⊗m: • Left transpositions: si , with i = 1, . . . , n−1, which correspond to swapping the i-th subsyste… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. An example of an element of the walled Brauer algebra, acting on view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. A mixed Young diagram, view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bratteli diagram for view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The accurate identification of faulty hardware is a fundamental requirement for reliable quantum information processing. We address this problem in a quantum setting, where a series of $n$ devices is intended to apply the same unitary operation, but $k$ malfunctioning devices among them apply a different, unknown unitary action. Under the assumption of complete ignorance regarding the specific unitary transformation applied, we model our hypotheses using representation-theoretic tools and study the zero-error protocol for identifying these faulty devices. We derive the optimal success probability for the single- and two-anomaly scenarios, demonstrating that it is independent of the total number of devices in the series. Furthermore, we present a simple protocol that makes use of ancillary systems that achieves this optimal limit. Notably, this protocol offers significant operational advantages, such as allowing us to test each device independently. Finally, we extend our analysis to the general scenario in which both the number of anomalies and the local dimension of the systems are arbitrary, evaluating our protocol's performance and conjecturing its global optimality in the general case.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives n-independent optimal success probabilities for identifying one or two unknown faulty unitaries among n devices and gives an ancillary protocol that achieves them while allowing independent tests.

read the letter

The key point is that success probability for spotting one or two faulty devices with completely unknown unitaries stays constant no matter how large n gets, and the authors supply a protocol using ancillas that reaches this bound and lets you check devices separately rather than all at once. This n-independence is the main new element. Standard quantum process tomography or hypothesis testing usually sees performance drop as the number of devices grows, but the representation-theoretic modeling of the unknown unitaries here produces bounds that do not depend on n for the k=1 and k=2 cases. The protocol itself is straightforward and carries clear operational benefits for hardware debugging. They also extend the analysis to arbitrary k and local dimension, which is useful even though optimality in the general case remains a conjecture. The soft spots are limited. The phrase zero-error protocol appears alongside success probabilities that are less than one, so the guarantee is only that the protocol never errs when it outputs an answer, not that it always succeeds. The general-case optimality is stated as a conjecture rather than a proof, which leaves that extension open. A referee would still want the full derivations for the k=1 and k=2 bounds to confirm tightness, but nothing in the structure suggests circularity or hidden fitting. This paper is for quantum information researchers working on device characterization, fault detection, and process identification. Readers who need concrete protocols for anomaly detection in unitary gates will get direct value from the independence result and the independent-testing feature. It has enough specific new bounds and a workable construction to deserve a serious referee. I would send it to peer review; the core claims are concrete enough to benefit from expert checks on the representation theory steps and protocol optimality.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of identifying k faulty devices among a series of n that apply an unknown unitary instead of the intended one, under complete ignorance of the unitary. Using representation-theoretic tools to model the hypotheses, it derives the optimal zero-error success probability for the cases k=1 and k=2, showing this probability is independent of n. A simple ancillary-assisted protocol is presented that achieves this optimum and permits independent testing of each device. The analysis is extended to arbitrary k and local dimension d, with an evaluation of the protocol's performance and a conjecture that it is globally optimal.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the result establishes a clean, n-independent bound on zero-error identification of unknown unitary anomalies together with an explicit, operationally convenient protocol that saturates it for small k. The independence from n and the independent-testing feature are practically relevant for scalable quantum hardware verification, and the representation-theoretic approach is standard yet applied here to yield falsifiable, parameter-free probabilities. The conjecture for general k,d invites follow-up work.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (single-anomaly case): the optimality claim for the derived success probability requires an explicit information-theoretic or minimax argument showing that no other measurement strategy can exceed the reported value; the current representation-theoretic bound should be cross-checked against the protocol's achieved rate to confirm saturation rather than merely matching.
[§4] §4 (two-anomaly case): the extension of the n-independence result to k=2 relies on the ancillary protocol enabling independent tests; the manuscript should include a short calculation demonstrating that the joint success probability factors exactly as the product of single-device probabilities under the stated group-invariance assumptions.

minor comments (4)

[Introduction] The notation for the unknown unitary U and the faulty unitary V should be introduced once with a clear statement of the assumption that V is drawn from the same Haar measure or completely unknown.
[Protocol description] Figure 1 (protocol diagram) would benefit from an explicit label indicating the ancillary system dimension and the measurement basis used for the final identification step.
[General case] In the general-k section, the performance evaluation table or plot should report both the conjectured optimal probability and the protocol's achieved value for at least two values of d>2 to allow direct comparison.
[Introduction] A brief remark on the relation to prior work on quantum channel discrimination or unitary tomography would help situate the zero-error focus.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, positive assessment, and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (single-anomaly case): the optimality claim for the derived success probability requires an explicit information-theoretic or minimax argument showing that no other measurement strategy can exceed the reported value; the current representation-theoretic bound should be cross-checked against the protocol's achieved rate to confirm saturation rather than merely matching.

Authors: The representation-theoretic analysis in §3 derives the success probability directly from the multiplicity of the relevant irreducible representations in the decomposition of the n-fold tensor product Hilbert space under the action of the unitary group. This yields the exact maximum probability attainable by any POVM, because the zero-error success probability is bounded above by the normalized dimension of the invariant subspace corresponding to the correct hypothesis (via Schur-Weyl duality). The ancillary protocol saturates this bound by achieving the full projection onto that subspace. To make the saturation explicit, we will add a short paragraph in the revised §3 that directly compares the protocol's achieved rate to the representation-theoretic value and notes that no strategy can exceed it, as any other measurement would have success probability at most the maximum eigenvalue of the corresponding projector. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (two-anomaly case): the extension of the n-independence result to k=2 relies on the ancillary protocol enabling independent tests; the manuscript should include a short calculation demonstrating that the joint success probability factors exactly as the product of single-device probabilities under the stated group-invariance assumptions.

Authors: We will insert the requested short calculation in the revised §4. Under the ancillary-assisted protocol, each device is tested with its own independent ancillary system, and the overall state is a tensor product. Because the measurement for each test is invariant under the simultaneous unitary conjugation on the system-ancilla pair, the joint probability of correctly identifying both anomalies factors exactly as the product of the individual single-anomaly probabilities. The group-invariance eliminates cross terms, confirming that the n-independence for k=2 follows immediately from the k=1 result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper models hypotheses for unknown unitaries via standard representation theory under complete ignorance, derives the optimal zero-error success probability for k=1 and k=2 anomalies (showing n-independence), and explicitly constructs an ancillary-assisted protocol that saturates the bound while enabling independent testing. No load-bearing step reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the group-invariance approach and protocol construction are independent of the target success probability and follow directly from the stated assumptions without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption of complete ignorance of the unitary and on standard representation theory; no free parameters or new invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption complete ignorance regarding the specific unitary transformation applied
Explicitly invoked to model hypotheses for the faulty devices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1248 out tokens · 48982 ms · 2026-05-08T16:24:15.297779+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Two anomalies When considering the scenario ofk= 2 anomalies, the symmetry constraints and feasibility conditions in the SDP take a simpler form, allowing for a fully analytical solution. More importantly, fork≤n/2—a natural regime given thatkrepresents the number of anomalies—numerical checks for small values ofn(n= 4 andn= 5) show that parallel and sequ...
[2]

In both cases, the most relevant feature was that, in two spatial dimensions, density shows spatially periodic patterns of hexagonal symmetry ifpis large enough

Extension to an arbitrary number of anomalies We can tackle the general scenario of arbitrary number of anomalous devices and local dimension using the same local parallel strategy. The performance of this strategy in the general scenario can be explicitly expressed in terms of the local dimension of the subsystems as (see Appendix B) Ps(k, d) = 1 dk tr C...

work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2026
[3]

Tartakovsky, I

A. Tartakovsky, I. Nikiforov, and M. Basseville, Sequential analysis: Hypothesis testing and changepoint detection(CRC press, 2014)

2014
[4]

V. A. Siris and F. Papagalou, inIEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2004. GLOBECOM’04., Vol. 4 (IEEE, 2004) pp. 2050–2054

2004
[5]

Thottan and C

M. Thottan and C. Ji, IEEE Transactions on signal processing51, 2191 (2003)

2003
[6]

Ahmed, A

M. Ahmed, A. N. Mahmood, and M. R. Islam, Future Generation Computer Systems55, 278 (2016)

2016
[7]

Zipfel, F

J. Zipfel, F. Verworner, M. Fischer, U. Wieland, M. Kraus, and P. Zschech, Computers & Industrial Engineering177, 109045 (2023)

2023
[8]

D. Nigg, M. M¨ uller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Hennrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and R. Blatt, Science345, 302 (2014)

2014
[9]

C´ orcoles, E

A. C´ orcoles, E. Magesan, S. J. Srinivasan, A. W. Cross, M. Steffen, J. M. Gambetta, and J. M. Chow, Nature Communications6, 6979 (2015)

2015
[10]

Aruteet al., Nature574, 505 (2019)

F. Aruteet al., Nature574, 505 (2019)

2019
[11]

Khatri and M

S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, arXiv:2011.04672 (2020)

work page arXiv 2011
[12]

Liao, W.-Q

S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, and others, Nature 549, 43 (2017)

2017
[13]

Degen, F

C. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[14]

Reiter, A

F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Nature communications8, 1822 (2017)

2017
[15]

Skotiniotis, S

M. Skotiniotis, S. Llorens, R. Hotz, J. Calsamiglia, and R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, Physical Review Research6, 033329 (2024)

2024
[16]

Llorens, G

S. Llorens, G. Sent´ ıs, and R. Munoz-Tapia, Quantum8, 1452 (2024)

2024
[17]

Choi, Linear algebra and its applications10, 285 (1975)

M.-D. Choi, Linear algebra and its applications10, 285 (1975)

1975
[18]

Jamio lkowski, Reports on mathematical physics3, 275 (1972)

A. Jamio lkowski, Reports on mathematical physics3, 275 (1972)

1972
[19]

Chiribella, G

G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Physical Review A80, 022339 (2009)

2009
[20]

A. Cox, M. De Visscher, S. Doty, and P. Martin, Journal of Algebra320, 169 (2008)

2008
[21]

Grinko, A

D. Grinko, A. Burchardt, and M. Ozols, arXiv:2310.02252 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[22]

Balanz´ o-Juand´ o, M

M. Balanz´ o-Juand´ o, M. Studzi´ nski, and F. Huber, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 115202 (2024)

2024
[23]

Studzi´ nski, T

M. Studzi´ nski, T. M lynik, M. Mozrzymas, M. Horodecki, and D. Grinko, arXiv:2501.13067 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[24]

V. G. Turaev, Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya35, 411 (1990)

1990
[25]

Koike, Advances in Mathematics74, 57 (1989)

K. Koike, Advances in Mathematics74, 57 (1989)

1989
[26]

Grinko,Mixed Schur–Weyl duality in quantum information, Ph.D

D. Grinko,Mixed Schur–Weyl duality in quantum information, Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (2025)

2025
[27]

Collins and P

B. Collins and P. ´Sniady, Communications in Mathematical Physics264, 773 (2006)

2006
[28]

A. A. Mele, Quantum8, 1340 (2024)

2024
[29]

Weingarten, Journal of Mathematical Physisc19 (1978)

D. Weingarten, Journal of Mathematical Physisc19 (1978). 9

1978
[30]

Collins, S

B. Collins, S. Matsumoto, and J. Novak, Notices of the American Mathematical Society69, 1 (2022)

2022
[31]

M. T. Quintino, Q. Dong, A. Shimbo, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, Physical review letters123, 210502 (2019)

2019
[32]

Sedl´ ak, A

M. Sedl´ ak, A. Bisio, and M. Ziman, Physical Review Letters122, 170502 (2019)

2019
[33]

Ac´ ın, Physical Review Letters87, 177901 (2001)

A. Ac´ ın, Physical Review Letters87, 177901 (2001)

2001
[34]

Diebra, S

A. Diebra, S. Llorens, E. Bagan, G. Sent´ ıs, and R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, Physical Review Research8, L012001 (2026)

2026
[35]

E. M. Rains, the electronic journal of combinatorics , R12 (1998)

1998
[36]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables(US Government printing office, 1968)

1968
[37]

Sent´ ıs, E

G. Sent´ ıs, E. Bagan, J. Calsamiglia, and R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, Physical Review A88, 052304 (2013)

2013
[38]

Llorens, W

S. Llorens, W. Gonz´ alez, G. Sent´ ıs, J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, and E. Bagan, Quantum9, 1687 (2025)

2025
[39]

Llorens, A

S. Llorens, A. Diebra, M. Sedl´ ak, and R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, Exact-identification-unknown-unitary (2026),https://github.com/SantiagoLlorens/ Exact-identification-unknown-unitary

2026
[40]

Grinko, A

D. Grinko, A. Burchardt, and M. Ozols, walledbrauer-gtbasis (2023),https://github.com/ dgrinko/walledbrauer-gtbasis. 10 Appendix A: Algebra of partially transposed permutations In this appendix, we provide a concise introduction to the representation-theoretic framework underlying the symmetry analysis of the main text. We describe the algebra of partiall...

2023