Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Bounding Large-Scale Bell Inequalities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A projection-based method computes valid upper bounds on large-scale Bell-inequality quantum violations orders of magnitude faster than standard SDP solvers, trading a few percent of tightness for a ~100x speedup and minimal memory.

desk verdict A genuinely faster way to get approximate NPA upper bounds, but the paper never verifies that its returned points are actually dual-feasible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08532 v2 pith:KY3Q7H2Z submitted 2024-12-11 quant-ph

Luke Mortimer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4090C22
keywords BellinequalitiesNPAhierarchysemidefiniteprogrammingalternatingprojectionsL-BFGSquantumnonlocalityupperboundsdualSDP
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

Bell inequalities certify quantum non-locality, but computing the maximal quantum violation of a large one is a semidefinite program — the NPA hierarchy — that quickly outgrows standard solvers. This paper claims that a far cheaper route exists: work in the dual of the NPA program, where every feasible point is already a valid upper bound, and find such a point by 'exile and projection' — moving far from the feasible set along the objective direction, then projecting back with alternating projections accelerated by the low-memory L-BFGS optimization algorithm. On randomized two-outcome inequalities with 130 inputs per party (a first-level moment matrix of size 261×261), the method returns a bound roughly 2% above the optimum in about one-hundredth of the time taken by MOSEK or SCS, with minimal memory. The trade-off is that the bounds are not the tightest possible, and the method is a heuristic, so its purpose is to supply valid quick-and-dirty bounds for problems that would otherwise be intractable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual of the NPA-hierarchy SDP, whose feasible set is the intersection of an affine subspace (the linear relations among moment-matrix entries) with the positive-semidefinite cone, and in which every feasible point is a valid upper bound on the quantum value. The method, summarised in Algorithm 1, takes a starting point (usually zero), travels far from the feasible set in the direction of the objective, and then alternates two projections: onto the affine space, by solving the linear constraints with a warm-started linear solver, and onto the positive-semidefinite cone, by zeroing negative eigenvalues. L-BFGS provides the acceleration: the displacement between one affine projection and the next is used as an approximate gradient and the squared error as the line-search objective, giving super-linear convergence while storing only a handful of previous gradients. A refinement loop then moves the projected point a geometrically decreasing fraction of the way back toward the far-away point and re-projects, tightening the bound toward the optimum as the user is willing to spend more time.

What would settle it

Run the published code on one of the randomized Rxx22 benchmark instances and compute the minimum eigenvalue of the returned dual slack matrix $C - \sum_i A_i y_i$; if any eigenvalue is negative beyond numerical tolerance, the reported bound is not a certified upper bound. Alternatively, search for any instance in which the method's reported upper bound lies below a known lower bound for the same inequality — for example, a seesaw bound for a fixed state dimension — which would likewise expose invalidity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a feasible point of the dual NPA semidefinite program — and therefore a certified upper bound on the maximum quantum violation of a Bell inequality — can be found orders of magnitude faster than solving the SDP, by starting far outside the feasible set in the direction of the objective and projecting back onto it. The projections alternate between the affine subspace of linear moment-matrix constraints and the positive-semidefinite cone; L-BFGS accelerates the process by treating the displacement between successive affine projections as an approximate gradient, yielding convergence in a few iterations instead of hundreds. Benchmark results: for the I3322 inequality, a single shot at level 1 returns the loose bound 6.34423 in 1 ms and twelve refinement iterations recover the exact bound 5.5; at level 3 a single shot gives 5.41829 in 217 ms. On randomized Rxx22 inequalities with 130 inputs per side, the method is roughly 100x faster than MOSEK and SCS while staying within about 2% of the optimal bound. The author states the main drawback explicitly: at equal computational cost the method never beats a true SDP solver in tightness, so its value lies in very large systems where the level-1 SDP cannot even be run.

Load-bearing premise

The results are valid upper bounds only if the point the method returns actually lies in the dual feasible set — meaning the final moment matrix is positive semidefinite to numerical tolerance — and the paper reports no direct feasibility check, such as the minimum eigenvalue of the returned matrix, and the L-BFGS acceleration is a heuristic with no convergence proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large Bell inequalities whose first-level NPA SDP is too big for standard solvers can still receive valid upper bounds.
  • For 130 inputs per side, bounds arrive roughly 100x faster than MOSEK or SCS, within about 2% of the optimum, using memory comparable to a first-order solver.
  • The same exile-and-projection recipe applies to other SDP relaxations and to the commuting-variable problems that give classical bounds, since only the affine and semidefinite-cone projections are required.
  • The user controls the speed-versus-tightness trade-off: a single shot gives a fast loose bound, while repeated refinement moves toward the optimum at increasing computational cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A certification step that computes the minimum eigenvalue of the returned dual slack matrix would cost roughly one extra projection and would convert the heuristic bound into a verifiable upper bound without changing the algorithm.
  • The stable ~2% overshoot across randomized instances hints that the projection path escapes the dual feasible set in a regular way; identifying when that regularity breaks would predict which inequalities the method can be trusted on.
  • The method could serve as a triage or warm-start tool in larger pipelines — for example, deciding which large Bell inequalities deserve an exact solve, or seeding an interior-point solver with a feasible dual point.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a heuristic method for obtaining upper bounds on the quantum violation of Bell inequalities at a fixed level of the NPA hierarchy. The method works in the dual SDP: it starts from a point far outside the feasible set along the objective direction, then uses alternating projections onto the affine and PSD cones, accelerated by L-BFGS, to reach a point near the feasible boundary. A refinement loop repeats this with shrinking step sizes to improve the bound. The paper benchmarks the method on the I3322 inequality at levels 1 and 3 of the NPA hierarchy and on randomized Rxx22 inequalities with up to 130 inputs per party, reporting time and memory advantages over MOSEK and SCS and bounds typically within about 2% of the SDP optimum.

Significance. If the returned points are certified feasible for the dual NPA SDP, the method would be a practically useful tool for obtaining quick upper bounds on large Bell inequalities that are beyond the reach of standard solvers. The paper is self-contained, the open-source code is a concrete asset, and the benchmark against external solvers is appropriate. The main advertised deliverable, however, is a certified upper bound, and the manuscript currently does not provide the feasibility certificate that this claim requires. The method is clearly presented as a heuristic approximation, and the author is candid about its limitations, but the missing verification step is load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Algorithm 1 and Section III.C] The paper's central claim is that every returned point is a valid upper bound, but this holds only if the final dual point y satisfies both the affine constraints and C - sum_i A_i y_i ⪰ 0. No such feasibility certificate is reported anywhere: the manuscript does not give the minimum eigenvalue of the dual slack matrix, does not give the affine residual, and Algorithm 1 does not end with a verification step. Because the final affine projection can reintroduce negative eigenvalues and the L-BFGS update can move the iterate away from the feasible set, the matrices underlying Tables I, II, and Figures 5-7 are not certified as feasible unless a check is performed after the fact. I ask the author to add an explicit feasibility test to the algorithm, report the minimum eigenvalue and affine residual for every reported instance, and state the tolerances used; without this, the advertised 'valid upper bound' is not supported by the text.
  2. [Section III.B and Section IV.A] The claimed super-linear convergence of the L-BFGS-accelerated alternating projections is not established. The standard L-BFGS convergence theory applies to smooth objectives with true gradients, whereas here the 'gradient' is the difference between two affine projections and the line-search 'objective' is the squared error of an unspecified quantity; the paper provides no convergence proof and no convergence traces beyond a comment that Aitken acceleration reduced 300 iterations to 250. Since the central speed advantage rests on this acceleration, the paper should either present empirical convergence data for representative Rxx22 instances, including iteration counts, stopping criteria, and final feasibility residuals, or explicitly label the acceleration as a heuristic whose observed performance is the only evidence for the speed claim.
  3. [Section IV.B] The benchmarking methodology is under-specified in a way that affects the headline speedup. The text does not state the tolerances used by MOSEK and SCS, the solver versions, or whether the timings in Figure 5 include model parsing and setup; the statement that error bars are 'barely visible' in Figure 5 would be more convincing if the per-run variance were reported, as is done for Figure 6. These details are needed to assess whether the reported speed comparison is robust rather than an artifact of default settings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] SCS is not an interior-point solver; it is a first-order operator-splitting method. The sentence listing 'first-order interior point solvers include SCS and SDPA' should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV.A] The phrase 'linear error less than 10^-10' is not defined and does not obviously measure feasibility; it should be replaced by a precise metric such as the objective gap, the primal/dual residual, or the minimum eigenvalue of the dual slack.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The pseudocode is underspecified: 'enough iterations', 'if better solution desired', and the meaning of the iteration counts in Tables I and II are not defined, making it difficult to reproduce the exact procedure from the text alone.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The comment that the diagram 'may somewhat resemble a whale' is informal and should be removed from a journal article.
  5. [Section I and Section V] There are several minor textual issues: 'Einstein-Podolsky-Rosenparadox' is missing a space, and the closing statement that the method is 'an approximation algorithm for an NP-hard problem' should be qualified, since a fixed-level NPA SDP is a convex optimization problem that is polynomial-time solvable in principle.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is self-contained and benchmarks against external solvers; the only self-citation is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. It starts from the dual of the NPA SDP (Eq. 4), where any feasible point certifies an upper bound, and the algorithm alternately projects onto the affine constraints and the PSD cone (Eqs. 6-7, Algorithm 1) before reporting the objective of the resulting point. The benchmark comparisons in Tables I-II and Figures 5-7 are against independent external solvers MOSEK and SCS, and the roughly 2% error is a measured outcome averaged over 100 random seeds, not a parameter fitted to the solvers' answers. No equation defines the target bound in terms of the algorithm's output or vice versa, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input-as-prediction step. The only self-citation is reference [10], by the author and co-authors, used as introductory background for the seesaw method; it does not support the central claims. The paper honestly states its main limitation in Section V: 'The main drawback of the method is the looseness of the bounds, which unfortunately prevents the possibility of ever beating true SDP solvers if one wants the tightest bound possible.' That is a performance limitation, not circularity. Separately, the paper does not report a final feasibility certificate such as the minimum eigenvalue of the returned dual slack matrix, so the validity of the advertised upper bound is not fully verified; this is a correctness and verification concern, not an instance of circular reasoning.

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

The method has no invented physical entities. Its free parameters are algorithm hyperparameters (travel distance, step-size decay, iteration counts) that are unspecified and may have been tuned. The axioms include standard convex analysis results and stronger ad hoc assumptions about the L-BFGS heuristic and numerical accuracy, which are not proven.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial travel distance
    The 'exile' step moves a large distance in the objective direction; the value is only described as 'some large (relative to the problem) distance' in Section III, with no formula or default.
  • Step-size reduction coefficient c
    In Section III.C, the geometric decrease alpha_{i+1} = c * alpha_i uses a coefficient c 'chosen to determine the rate of decrease'; its value is not specified.
  • Number of L-BFGS iterations and memory size
    The L-BFGS implementation uses a limited number of previous gradients, but the paper does not state the memory parameter or the stopping criterion.
  • Refinement iteration count = 1, 12, 100
    In Tables I and II, the 'Ours (1)', 'Ours (12)', and 'Ours (100)' results depend on the number of outer refinement iterations, a user-chosen stopping point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NPA dual feasible set is nonempty and has nonempty interior (Slater's condition holds) for the considered Bell inequalities.
    Required for the alternating projections to converge to a feasible point; standard for NPA hierarchies with full correlator matrices, but not explicitly stated in the paper.
  • standard math Alternating projections onto two convex sets with nonempty intersection converge to a point in the intersection.
    Invoked in Section III.A; a classical result from Bauschke and Borwein, which the paper cites.
  • ad hoc to paper The L-BFGS acceleration using differences between affine points as gradients achieves super-linear convergence in practice.
    No proof is given; the paper states 'we get convergence in super-linear time' based on empirical observation. This is a heuristic central to the method's speed.
  • domain assumption Numerical projections (BiCGSTAB for affine constraints, eigensolver for the PSD cone) are accurate enough that the final point is feasible.
    The validity of the upper bound depends on the final moment matrix being positive semidefinite within tolerance; the paper does not quantify this precision or report a feasibility check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounding Large-Scale Bell Inequalities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KY3Q7H2Z

@misc{pith2026241208532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounding Large-Scale Bell Inequalities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KY3Q7H2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08532}
}
read the original abstract

Bell inequalities are an important tool for studying non-locality, however quickly become computationally intractable as the system size grows. We consider a novel method for finding an upper bound for the quantum violation of such inequalities by combining the NPA hierarchy, the method of alternating projections, and the memory-efficient optimisation algorithm L-BFGS. Whilst our method may not give the tightest upper bound possible, it often does so several orders of magnitude faster than state-of-the-art solvers, with minimal memory usage, thus allowing solutions to problems that would otherwise be intractable. We benchmark using the well-studied I3322 inequality as well as a more general large-scale randomized inequality RXX22. For randomized inequalities with 130 inputs either side (a first-level moment matrix of size 261x261), our method is ~100x faster than both MOSEK and SCS whilst giving a bound only ~2% above the optimum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram showing how the seesaw method and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram showing the outline of our method. Be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram showing how the method of alternating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram in 3D showing how we get the gradients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph showing how the runtime of our algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graph showing how the memory usage of our algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Three numerical approaches to find mutually unbiased bases using Bell inequalities

    Maria Prat Colomer, LukeMortimer, IrénéeFrérot, Máté Farkas, and Antonio Acín. Three numerical approaches to find mutually unbiased bases using bell inequalities. Quantum, 6:778, 2022. doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-17-778. URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.09429v3.pdf

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique, 1(3):195–200, 1964. ISSN 0554-128X. doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195. URL http:// link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1 .195

    doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

  3. [2]

    Efficient quantum key distribution secure against no-signalling eavesdroppers

    Antonio Acin, Serge Massar, and Stefano Pironio. Ef- ficient quantum key distribution secure against no- signalling eavesdroppers. New Journal of Physics, 8 (8):126, 2006. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/8/8/126. URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0605246v2.pdf

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  4. [3]

    Se- cure device-independent quantum key distribution with causally independent measurement devices.Nature com- munications, 2(1):238, 2011

    Lluis Masanes, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Acín. Se- cure device-independent quantum key distribution with causally independent measurement devices.Nature com- munications, 2(1):238, 2011. doi:10.1038/ncomms1244. URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.1567v2.pdf

    arXiv 2011

  5. [4]

    Information-theoretic temporal Bell inequality and quantum computation

    Fumiaki Morikoshi. Information-theoretic temporal bell inequality and quantum computation. Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 73(5): 052308, 2006. doi:10.1103/physreva.73.052308. URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0602011v3.pdf

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  6. [5]

    Maximal quantum randomness in Bell tests

    Chirag Dhara, Giuseppe Prettico, and Antonio Acín. Maximal quantum randomness in bell tests. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 88 (5):052116, 2013. doi:10.1103/physreva.88.052116. URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0650v2.pdf

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Secu- rity and composability of randomness expansion from bell inequalities

    Serge Fehr, Ran Gelles, and Christian Schaffner. Secu- rity and composability of randomness expansion from bell inequalities. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Physics , 87(1):012335, 2013. doi: 10.1103/physreva.87.012335. URL http://arxiv.org/ pdf/1111.6052v3.pdf

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    Mutually unbiased bases and symmetric informationally complete measurements in bell experiments

    Armin Tavakoli, Máté Farkas, Denis Rosset, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Jedrzej Kaniewski. Mutually unbiased bases and symmetric informationally complete measurements in bell experiments. Science advances, 7(7):eabc3847,

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Bell nonlocality

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Va- lerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlocality. Reviews of modern physics, 86(2):419–478, 2014. doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.86.419. URL http://arxiv.org/ pdf/1303.2849v3.pdf

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Quantum generalizations of bell’s inequality

    Boris S Cirel’son. Quantum generalizations of bell’s inequality. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 4:93–100,

  3. [11]

    A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs char- acterizing the set of quantum correlations

    Miguel Navascués, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Acín. A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs char- acterizing the set of quantum correlations. New Jour- nal of Physics, 10(7):073013, 2008. doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/10/7/073013. URL https://iopscience.iop.o rg/article/10.1...

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    the other side

    and in many cases providing an efficient method of 2 objective bound from NPA bound from seesaw true solution Figure 1. Diagram showing how the seesaw method and the NPA hierarchy create lower and upper bounds on the maxi- mum violation of a Bell inequality. Note that since th...

    2020

  5. [13]

    A successive sdp-nsdp approach to a robust optimization problem in finance

    Friedemann Leibfritz and Jan H Maruhn. A successive sdp-nsdp approach to a robust optimization problem in finance. Computational Optimization and Applications, 44:443–466, 2009. doi:10.1007/s10589-007-9163-4. URL https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s1 0589-007-9163-4.pdf

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    Semi-definite programming for topology optimization of trusses under multiple eigenvalue constraints.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 180(1- 2):203–217, 1999

    M Ohsaki, Katsuki Fujisawa, N Katoh, and Y Kanno. Semi-definite programming for topology optimization of trusses under multiple eigenvalue constraints.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 180(1- 2):203–217, 1999. doi:10.1016/s0045-7825(99)00056-0. URL https:/...

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    An optimal sdp algo- rithm for max-cut, and equally optimal long code tests

    Ryan O’Donnell and Yi Wu. An optimal sdp algo- rithm for max-cut, and equally optimal long code tests. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing , pages 335–344, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1374376.1374425

    2008

  8. [16]

    Sdp-based robust formation-containment coor- dination of swarm robotic systems with input satura- tion

    Kefan Wu, Junyan Hu, Barry Lennox, and Farshad Arvin. Sdp-based robust formation-containment coor- dination of swarm robotic systems with input satura- tion. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(1): 12, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10846-021-01368-4. URL https: //link.springer....

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self-dual embedding.Journal of Opti- mization Theory and Applications, 169:1042–1068, 2016

    Brendan O’donoghue, Eric Chu, Neal Parikh, and Stephen Boyd. Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self-dual embedding.Journal of Opti- mization Theory and Applications, 169:1042–1068, 2016. doi:10.1007/s10957-016-0892-3. URL https://link.spr inger.com/arti...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Deploying sdp for machine learning

    Tijl De Bie. Deploying sdp for machine learning. In ESANN, pages 205–210. Citeseer, 2007. URLhttps:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=p df&doi=44e67d10a33a11930c40813e034679ea8d7feb6c

    2007

  11. [19]

    The mosek interior point optimizer for linear programming: an im- plementation of the homogeneous algorithm

    Erling D Andersen and Knud D Andersen. The mosek interior point optimizer for linear programming: an im- plementation of the homogeneous algorithm. InHigh per- formance optimization, pages 197–232. Springer, 2000. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3216-0_8. URL https://www. researchgate....

  12. [20]

    Accessed: 2024-08-07

    Several sdp-codes on sparse and other sdp problems.ht tps://plato.asu.edu/ftp/sparse_sdp.html. Accessed: 2024-08-07

    2024

  13. [21]

    Implementation and evaluation of sdpa 6.0 (semidefinite programming algorithm 6.0)

    Makoto Yamashita, Katsuki Fujisawa, and Masakazu Kojima. Implementation and evaluation of sdpa 6.0 (semidefinite programming algorithm 6.0). Optimiza- tion Methods and Software, 18(4):491–505, 2003. doi: 10.1080/1055678031000118482

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Karush-kuhn-tucker conditions

    Geoff Gordon and Ryan Tibshirani. Karush-kuhn-tucker conditions. Optimization, 10(725/36):725, 2012. doi: 10.1007/springerreference_5696. URL http://www.cs .cmu.edu/~./ggordon/10725-F12/slides/16-kkt.pdf

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Boosting projective methods for quantum process and detector tomography.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013208, 2025

    Júlia Barberà-Rodríguez, Leonardo Zambrano, Antonio Acín, and Donato Farina. Boosting projective methods for quantum process and detector tomography.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013208, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Convex op- timization

    Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex op- timization. Cambridge university press, 2004. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511804441

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    Projection methods for quantum channel construction

    Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Chi-Kwong Li, Diane Chris- tine Pelejo, Yuen-Lam Voronin, and Henry Wolkowicz. Projection methods for quantum channel construction. Quantum Information Processing, 14:3075–3096, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Dyk- stra’s alternating projection algorithm for two sets.Jour- nal of Approximation Theory, 79(3):418–443, 1994

    Heinz H Bauschke and Jonathan M Borwein. Dyk- stra’s alternating projection algorithm for two sets.Jour- nal of Approximation Theory, 79(3):418–443, 1994. doi: 10.1006/jath.1994.1136

    1994

  19. [27]

    Alternating projections methods for discrete-time stabilization of quantum states

    Francesco Ticozzi, Luca Zuccato, Peter D Johnson, and Lorenza Viola. Alternating projections methods for discrete-time stabilization of quantum states. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(3):819–826, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    A family of root find- ing methods

    Eldon Hansen and Merrell Patrick. A family of root find- ing methods. Numerische mathematik, 27(3):257–269,

  21. [29]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    Roger Fletcher.Practical methods of optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 2000. doi:10.1002/9781118723203

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    Extended aitken acceleration

    Kjell Jørgen Overholt. Extended aitken acceleration. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 5:122–132, 1965. doi: 10.1007/bf01939615. URL https://link.springer. com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01939615.pdf

    1965 doi

  23. [31]

    Optim: A mathematical op- timization package for julia

    P Mogensen and A Riseth. Optim: A mathematical op- timization package for julia. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(24), 2018. doi:10.21105/joss.00615. URL https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:756cdd7e- 1 e4e-4226-96ea-3ab28f23963f/download_file?file_f ormat=pdf&safe_filename=10....

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Eigen v3

    Gaël Guennebaud, Benoît Jacob, et al. Eigen v3. http://eigen.tuxfamily.org, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Bicgstab (l) and other hybrid bi-cg methods, 1994

    Gerard LG Sleijpen, Henk A Van der Vorst, and Diederik R Fokkema. Bicgstab (l) and other hybrid bi-cg methods, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization

    Richard H Byrd, Peihuang Lu, Jorge Nocedal, and Ciyou Zhu. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on scientific computing, 16 (5):1190–1208, 1995. doi:10.2172/204262. URL https: //digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc66631 5/m2/1/high_r...

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    A relevant two qubit bell inequality inequivalent to the chsh inequality.Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 37(5):1775, 2004

    Daniel Collins and Nicolas Gisin. A relevant two qubit bell inequality inequivalent to the chsh inequality.Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 37(5):1775, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Károly F Pál and Tamás Vértesi. Maximal violation of a bipartite three-setting, two-outcome bell inequal- ity using infinite-dimensional quantum systems.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 82 (2):022116, 2010. doi:10.1103/physreva.82.022116. URL https://a...

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Characterizing finite-dimensional quan- tum behavior

    Miguel Navascués, Adrien Feix, Mateus Araújo, and Tamás Vértesi. Characterizing finite-dimensional quan- tum behavior. Physical Review A, 92(4):042117, 2015. doi:10.1103/physreva.92.042117. URL http://arxiv.or g/pdf/1507.07521v1.pdf

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Accessed: 2024-08-07

    Github repo containing the code.https://github.com /Lumorti/iterativeNPA. Accessed: 2024-08-07

    2024

  31. [1976]

    URL https://link.s pringer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01396176.pdf

    doi:10.1007/bf01396176. URL https://link.s pringer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01396176.pdf

    doi

  32. [1980]

    URL https://link.spr inger.com/content/pdf/10.1007/bf00417500.pdf

    doi:10.1007/bf00417500. URL https://link.spr inger.com/content/pdf/10.1007/bf00417500.pdf

    doi

  33. [2021]

    URL http://arxi v.org/pdf/1912.03225v2.pdf

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc3847. URL http://arxi v.org/pdf/1912.03225v2.pdf

    1912 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.