Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested up to complex conjugation

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 Every pure multipartite state of qubits can be self-tested from correlations alone, up to complex conjugation, using a finite explicit protocol for each n.

desk verdict New result of real importance; proof has a repairable gap in basis selection, plus fixable typos; deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13266 v1 pith:WMYWB4EJ submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph

Maria Balanzó-Juandó , Andrea Coladangelo , Remigiusz Augusiak , Antonio Acín , Ivan Šupić This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P6881P15 PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ud
keywords self-testingmultipartiteentanglementqubitscomplexconjugationBellnonlocalitydevice-independentcertificationtiltedCHSHSWAPisometry
topics The Measurement Problem
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 aims to close the multipartite self-testing question for qubits: it claims that every pure entangled state of any number of qubits can be certified from Bell correlations alone in the standard Bell scenario, with the only residual freedom being complex conjugation of the target state. Complete characterizations existed for two parties and for special multipartite families, but not for all pure multipartite qubit states. The proposed recipe is modular: project all but two parties in self-tested bases, self-test each resulting partially entangled two-qubit state, and stitch the pieces together with a SWAP isometry. If the claim holds, any pure multi-qubit entangled state admits a device-independent certificate with at most $9\cdot 2^{n-2}-4$ two-outcome measurements per party, and the certificate does not assume purity or projective measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a modular projection-and-stitching scheme. In each sub-test, all but two parties measure their self-tested diamond observables, projecting the state onto a partially entangled pair; that pair is self-tested with the tilted CHSH inequalities of Lemma 1, which also certify three Pauli observables on one side. Lemma 2 (the measurement lemma) then certifies the projecting observables themselves from their correlations with the already-certified ones. A SWAP isometry built from the certified observables extracts the physical state into auxiliary qubits, and the sub-tests are designed so that the extracted pieces coalesce into exactly two orthogonal vectors, attached to $|\Psi\rangle$ and $|\Psi^{*}\rangle$.

What would settle it

Search for a genuinely multipartite entangled three-qubit state for which no choice of local bases satisfies all of the following at once: the projected two-qubit states are entangled and $\lambda_{000},\lambda_{001},\lambda_{100},\lambda_{101}$ are all nonzero with $\phi_{000}\neq\phi_{001}$ and $\phi_{100}\neq\phi_{101}$. If such a state exists, the SWAP stitching step in Appendix C.4 has no basis to start from and Theorem 3 would not follow from the presented argument for that state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that self-testing is complete for pure multipartite qubit states. For any $n$-qubit pure state $|\Psi\rangle$ there is a correlation, built from at most $9\cdot 2^{n-2}-4$ two-outcome measurements per party, such that every physical realization reproducing the correlation is, up to local unitaries, a flag superposition $\sqrt{p}|\Psi\rangle|0\rangle + \sqrt{1-p}|\Psi^{*}\rangle|1\rangle$ with orthogonal flag states $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$. When the target state is locally equivalent to its complex conjugate, self-testing is exact. The proof treats non-genuinely-multipartite-entangled states through known bipartite self-tests and develops the genuinely-multipartite case by a sequence of sub-tests; the final output of the SWAP isometry is forced to the form $|\xi_0\rangle|\Psi\rangle + |\xi_1\rangle|\Psi^{*}\rangle$, which is exactly the flag form of Definition 1.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is the asserted existence, for every genuinely multipartite entangled three-qubit state, of local computational bases in which the two-qubit projections used in the sub-tests are entangled and the four amplitudes $\lambda_{000},\lambda_{001},\lambda_{100},\lambda_{101}$ are nonzero with unequal phases; the paper cites a previous result for the entangled-projection part but does not prove that the nonvanishing and phase conditions can be forced simultaneously.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every pure $n$-qubit state, the protocol certifies either the state itself up to local unitaries when it is locally equivalent to its complex conjugate, or the two-dimensional flag subspace spanned by $|\Psi\rangle$ and $|\Psi^{*}\rangle$.
  • The protocol is fully device-independent: it assumes neither purity of the physical state nor projective measurements, and the support-preserving condition is derived from the correlations rather than imposed.
  • The number of measurement settings per party is explicit and finite for every fixed $n$: at most $9\cdot 2^{n-2}-4$ binary-outcome settings, with party 1 using $3+9(2^{n-2}-1)$ of them.
  • Any non-genuinely-multipartite-entangled $n$-qubit state inherits a self-test from the bipartite case, so the characterization covers all pure $n$-qubit states, entangled or not.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential growth in measurements is a property of this universal construction, not a proven lower bound; families with symmetry or algebraic structure plausibly admit polynomial or constant-size protocols, as already happens for W and graph states in the literature the paper cites.
  • The flag formulation gives a device-independent way to probe the complex-conjugation class of a state: estimating $p$ from the extracted flag states would tell whether the physical state is locally equivalent to $|\Psi\rangle$ or to $|\Psi^{*}\rangle$.
  • A numerical search over three-qubit genuinely multipartite entangled states could test the unproved basis-selection premise directly; if violations of the phase and nonvanishing conditions are found, the stitching argument would need a modified extraction step, while the conclusion might still hold.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper claims that every pure multipartite entangled state of n qubits can be self-tested in the standard Bell scenario up to complex conjugation. The protocol is modular: it uses tilted-CHSH self-tests of two-qubit projected states, a measurement lemma for post-hoc certification of observables, and a SWAP isometry. The tripartite case (Theorem 3) is built from three sub-tests that certify the bipartite projections after Alice's and Bob's computational-basis measurements; the general case (Theorem 4) is obtained by induction and is claimed to require at most 9·2^{n−2}−4 two-outcome measurements per party. Detailed proofs of the bipartite self-testing lemma and the measurement lemma are provided in Appendices A and B.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this is a major result: it would settle the open problem of self-testing all pure qubit multipartite entangled states in the standard Bell scenario, with an explicit measurement count. The paper is unusually concrete about the correlations needed for each sub-test, and it re-proves its central bipartite ingredients rather than merely citing them. The up-to-complex-conjugation certification is the right target given that some multipartite states are not locally unitarily equivalent to their conjugates. The modular construction is a natural and potentially influential framework for subsequent device-independent certification results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 and Appendix C.4] The proof of Theorem 3 relies on an asserted but unproved basis-existence step. The derivation of Eq. (34) requires, for every GME three-qubit state, local computational bases in which the three projected states |ψa+>, |ψa−>, and |ψb+> are all entangled, the four coefficients λ000, λ001, λ100, and λ101 are all nonzero, and the phase differences satisfy sin(φ001−φ000) ≠ 0 and sin(φ101−φ100) ≠ 0. Section 3 cites [44] only for the existence of an entangled projection, and the subsequent diagonal-phase-plus-Hadamard sketch is not shown to preserve the simultaneous entanglement of all three projections while enforcing the required phase inequalities. Appendix C.4 divides by these sine factors to identify the flag states, and Appendix D invokes the analogous coefficient conditions for every sub-vector in Eq. (D15) without proof. This is a load-bearing gap: if any GME three-qubit state fails to admit such a basis, the stitching argument after Eq. (C70) and hence Eq. (34) do not follow from the presented argument. The authors should supply a proof or an explicit construction of such a basis, or state and prove a dedicated lemma.
  2. [Appendix C.4, Eqs. (C69c)–(C69d)] The stitching step that identifies |ξ′0> with |ξ″0> and |ξ′1> with |ξ″1> is also obscured by apparent sign and index errors at the exact point where the third sub-test is combined with the first two. Eq. (C69c) writes the coefficient of |ξ″1> as λ*001, but consistency with line (C60e) requires λ*100. Immediately after Eq. (C69d) the text states that the equations are used 'under the assumption ϕ100 = ϕ101'; the derivation actually requires ϕ100 ≠ ϕ101, since it subtracts the two equations and divides by sin(ϕ101−ϕ100). These are likely typographical errors, but because they occur in the most delicate part of the proof, the corrected equations and the resulting division should be written out explicitly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'we select a basis in which the complex phases of λ000 and λ001 differ, as do those of λ100 and λ101' should specify that the phase differences are nonzero modulo π, since the later proof divides by the corresponding sines.
  2. [Appendix A] The notation |0*0*> and |0*1*> used in Eqs. (C21), (C40), and (C59) for the complex-conjugated basis kets is never formally defined; a sentence explaining that the star denotes the complex-conjugate basis vectors would improve readability.
  3. [Appendix D] The proof of Theorem 4 states that the local computational bases are chosen so that for every vector a2 the coefficients λ^{a2}_{00} and λ^{a2}_{10} are nonzero and have different phases, but no justification is given for the simultaneous existence of these bases beyond the tripartite discussion; this should at least be linked to the missing lemma flagged in the major comment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained up to one non-circular proof gap in the basis-existence step.

full rationale

The central claim of Theorem 4 is not obtained by fitting parameters or by renaming an input as a prediction. The Bell expressions in the protocol are computed from the known coefficients of the target state, and the proof is a theorem about the correlations those expressions define. Lemma 1 is re-proven in Appendix A by a saturation analysis of the tilted CHSH inequality; Lemma 2 is proven in Appendix B; the tripartite result is assembled in Appendix C through an explicit SWAP isometry, with the key identifications |xi0> = |xi''0> and |xi1> = |xi''1> derived from Eqs. (C64)-(C70) by subtracting equations. None of these reductions is circular: the equations are independent linear relations imposed by the self-tested correlations, not definitions of the quantities being certified. The cited prior results are either re-proven in the appendices or are external: [44] (Zwerger, Dür, Bancal, Sekatski) has no overlapping authors and is used only for the existence of entangled projected states. The only fragile point is Section 3's assertion that, for every GME three-qubit state, one can choose local computational bases satisfying simultaneously the [44] entanglement condition, nonvanishing of lambda000, lambda001, lambda100, lambda101, and the phase inequalities used in Appendix C.4. That step is sketched rather than fully proved, and if it failed the tripartite theorem would not follow from the presented argument. This is a correctness or completeness gap, not a circularity: the claimed basis choice is a property of the target state and its local unitaries, not an input that is later reported as the theorem's output. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. Overall, the derivation chain is independent and self-contained apart from that non-circular gap.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof uses standard quantum information axioms and the cited self-testing results. The only genuinely unproved structural assumption is the basis-existence claim in Section 3. The protocol parameters (angles, coefficients) are determined by the target state and are not free parameters fitted to data.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption For every GME three-qubit state, there exist local computational bases such that the post-measurement states used in the three sub-tests are entangled two-qubit states and the coefficients λ000, λ001, λ100, λ101 are all non-zero with unequal phases within each pair.
    Stated in Section 3; the entangled-projection part is attributed to [44], but the simultaneous non-vanishing and phase conditions are not proved. Appendix C.4 relies on these phase inequalities to identify the flag states.
  • standard math Jordan's lemma: any two Hermitian observables can be jointly block-diagonalized into blocks of size at most 2×2.
    Used in Appendix A to reduce arbitrary-dimensional POVMs to qubit blocks in the proof of Lemma 1.
  • domain assumption Quantum mechanics as described by density operators and POVMs, with Bell correlations given by Born's rule.
    Standard framework; the paper works within this and explicitly avoids assuming projective measurements or support-preservation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested up to complex conjugation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMYWB4EJ

@misc{pith2026241213266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested up to complex conjugation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMYWB4EJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13266}
}
read the original abstract

Self-testing refers to the certification of quantum states and measurements based entirely on the correlations exhibited by measurements on separate subsystems. In the bipartite case, self-testing of states has been completely characterized, up to local isometries, as there exist protocols that self-test arbitrary pure states of any local dimension. Much less is known in the multipartite case, where an important difference with respect to the bipartite case appears: there exist multipartite states that are not equivalent, up to local isometries, to their complex conjugate. Thus, any self-testing characterization must in general be complete up to not only local unitaries, but also complex conjugation. Under these premises, in this work, we give a complete characterization of self-testing in the multipartite qubit case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SWAP isometry for self-testing the tripartite states. It takes as input the physical state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic representation of the self-testing scenario for five-partite states. In each sub-test, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Supersinglets can be self-tested with perfect quantum strategies

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For every d ≥ 3, d-party d-level supersinglet states are self-tested by d-partite d-dimensional perfect quantum strategies based on rigid Kochen-Specker sets.

  2. Device-Independent Self-Testing of the Three-Qubit CCZ Hypergraph State

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The CCZ hypergraph state and its Pauli measurements can be device-independently self-tested from twenty correlators, and also from maximal violation of a specially constructed Bell inequality.

  3. Symmetric quantum states: a review of recent progress

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review of symmetric multipartite quantum states, covering their mathematical structure, entanglement and nonlocality, verification, metrology uses, quantum error correction, and experimental generation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [44]

    Device-independent detection of genuine mul- tipartite entanglement for all pure states

    M Zwerger, W Dür, J-D Bancal, and P Sekatski. Device-independent detection of genuine mul- tipartite entanglement for all pure states. Physical review letters, 122(6):060502, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.060502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.060502 2019

  2. [1]

    J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.Physics Physique Fizika, 1:195–200, Nov 1964. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

  3. [2]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Ver- meulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, and et al. Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres.Nature, 526(7575):682–686, 2015. doi:10.1038/nature15759

    doi:10.1038/nature15759 2015

  4. [3]

    Marissa Giustina, Marijn A. M. Versteegh, Sören Wengerowsky, Johannes Handsteiner, Armin Hochrainer, Kevin Phelan, Fabian Steinlechner, Johannes Kofler, Jan-Åke Larsson, Carlos Abellán, Waldimar Amaya, Valerio Pruneri, Morgan W. Mitchell, Jörn Beyer, Thomas Gerrits, Adriana E. Lita, Lynden K. Shalm, Sae Woo Nam, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Bernhard Witt...

    2015

  5. [4]

    Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G

    Lynden K. Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G. Christensen, Peter Bierhorst, Michael A. Wayne, Martin J. Stevens, Thomas Gerrits, Scott Glancy, Deny R. Hamel, Michael S. Allman, Kevin J. Coakley, Shellee D. Dyer, Carson Hodge, Adriana E. Lita, Varun B. Verma, Camilla Lambrocco, Edward Tortorici, Alan L. Migdall, Yanbao Zhang, Daniel R. Kumor, William H. Fa...

    2015

  6. [5]

    No signaling and quantum key distribution

    Jonathan Barrett, Lucien Hardy, and Adrian Kent. No signaling and quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:010503, Jun 2005.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.010503. 10

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.010503 2005

  7. [6]

    From bell’s theorem to secure quantum key distri- bution

    Antonio Acín, Nicolas Gisin, and Lluis Masanes. From bell’s theorem to secure quantum key distri- bution. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:120405, Sep 2006.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.120405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.120405 2006

  8. [7]

    Secrecy extraction from no-signaling correlations

    Valerio Scarani, Nicolas Gisin, Nicolas Brunner, Lluis Masanes, Sergi Pino, and Antonio Acín. Secrecy extraction from no-signaling correlations. Phys. Rev. A, 74:042339, Oct 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.042339

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.042339 2006

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks.Phys

    Antonio Acín, Nicolas Brunner, Nicolas Gisin, Serge Massar, Stefano Pironio, and Valerio Scarani. Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:230501, Jun 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.230501

    2007 doi

  2. [9]

    Quantum And Relativistic Protocols For Secure Multi-Party Computation

    Roger Colbeck. Quantum And Relativistic Protocols For Secure Multi-Party Computation. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2006. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3814

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem.Nature, 464(7291):1021–1024, 2010

    Stefano Pironio, Antonio Acín, Serge Massar, A Boyer de La Giroday, Dzimitry N Matsukevich, Peter Maunz, Steven Olmschenk, David Hayes, Le Luo, T Andrew Manning, et al. Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem.Nature, 464(7291):1021–1024, 2010. doi:10.1038/nature09008

    2010 doi

  4. [11]

    Private randomness expansion with untrusted devices.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44(9):095305, 2011

    Roger Colbeck and Adrian Kent. Private randomness expansion with untrusted devices.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44(9):095305, 2011. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/9/ 095305

    2011 doi

  5. [12]

    Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani

    Ben W. Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani. Classical command of quantum systems. Nature, 496:456, 2013. doi:10.1038/nature12035

    2013 doi

  6. [13]

    Verifier-on-a-leash: new schemes for verifiable delegated quantum computation, with quasilinear resources

    Andrea Coladangelo, Alex B Grilo, Stacey Jeffery, and Thomas Vidick. Verifier-on-a-leash: new schemes for verifiable delegated quantum computation, with quasilinear resources. InAnnual Inter- national Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages...

    2019 doi

  7. [14]

    Bounding the quantum value of compiled nonlocal games: from CHSH to BQP verification

    Anand Natarajan and Tina Zhang. Bounding the quantum value of compiled nonlocal games: from CHSH to BQP verification. In 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1342–1348. IEEE, 2023.doi:10.1109/FOCS57990.2023.00081

    2023

  8. [15]

    B. S. Tsirelson. Quantum analogues of the Bell inequalities. The case of two spatially separated domains. Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 36(4):557–570, Feb 1987.doi:10.1007/BF01663472

    1987 doi

  9. [16]

    S. J. Summers and R. F. Werner. Maximal violation of Bell’s inequalities is generic in quantum field theory.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 110(2):247–259, 1987.doi:10.1007/BF01207366

    1987 doi

  10. [17]

    Which states violate Bell’s inequality maximally? Physics Letters A, 169(6):411 – 414, 1992.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(92)90819-8

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. Which states violate Bell’s inequality maximally? Physics Letters A, 169(6):411 – 414, 1992.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(92)90819-8

    1992 doi

  11. [18]

    Braunstein, A

    Samuel L. Braunstein, A. Mann, and M. Revzen. Maximal violation of Bell inequalities for mixed states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68:3259–3261, Jun 1992.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3259

    1992 doi

  12. [19]

    Mayers and A

    D. Mayers and A. Yao. Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus.Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280), 1998. doi:10.1109/sfcs. 1998.743501

    1998

  13. [20]

    Mayers and A

    D. Mayers and A. Yao. Self testing quantum apparatus.Quantum Info. Comput., 4:273, 2004. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307205

    2004 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Certifying the build- ing blocks of quantum computers from Bell’s theorem

    Pavel Sekatski, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Sebastian Wagner, and Nicolas Sangouard. Certifying the build- ing blocks of quantum computers from Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:180505, Nov 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.180505

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    All real projective measurements can be self- tested

    Ranyiliu Chen, Laura Mančinska, and Jurij Volčič. All real projective measurements can be self- tested. Nature Physics, 20(10):1642–1647, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02584-z

    2024 doi

  16. [23]

    Self-testing of quantum systems: a review.Quantum, 4:337, Septem- ber 2020

    Ivan Šupić and Joseph Bowles. Self-testing of quantum systems: a review.Quantum, 4:337, Septem- ber 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-30-337

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested

    Andrea Coladangelo, Koon Tong Goh, and Valerio Scarani. All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested. Nature Communications, 8:15485, may 2017.doi:10.1038/ncomms15485. 11

    2017 doi

  18. [25]

    Robust self-testing of the three-qubit W–state.Phys

    Xingyao Wu, Yu Cai, Tzyh Haur Yang, Huy Nguyen Le, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Valerio Scarani. Robust self-testing of the three-qubit W–state.Phys. Rev. A, 90:042339, Oct 2014.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.90.042339

    2014

  19. [26]

    Self-testing multipartite entangled states through projections onto two systems

    I Šupić, A Coladangelo, R Augusiak, and A Acín. Self-testing multipartite entangled states through projections onto two systems. New Journal of Physics, 20(8):083041, aug 2018. doi:10.1088/ 1367-2630/aad89b

    2018

  20. [27]

    Self-testing Dicke states, 2017

    Matteo Fadel. Self-testing Dicke states, 2017. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01215

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Self-testing using only marginal information

    Xinhui Li, Yu Cai, Yunguang Han, Qiaoyan Wen, and Valerio Scarani. Self-testing using only marginal information. Phys. Rev. A, 98:052331, Nov 2018.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052331

    2018 doi

  22. [29]

    Pál, Tamás Vértesi, and Miguel Navascués

    Károly F. Pál, Tamás Vértesi, and Miguel Navascués. Device-independent tomography of multipar- tite quantum states.Phys. Rev. A, 90:042340, Oct 2014.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.042340

    2014 doi

  23. [30]

    Self-testing graph states

    Mathew McKague. Self-testing graph states. In D. Bacon, M. Martin-Delgado, and M. Roetteler, editors, Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography ,, volume 6745 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104–120. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014.doi:https...

    2014 doi

  24. [31]

    Simple Bell inequal- ities for graph states and self-testing, 2018

    Flavio Baccari, Remigiusz Augusiak, Ivan Šupić, Jordi Tura, and Antonio Acín. Simple Bell inequal- ities for graph states and self-testing, 2018. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10428

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Self-testing of genuine multipartite entangled states without network assistance.Phys

    Ranendu Adhikary, Abhishek Mishra, and Ramij Rahaman. Self-testing of genuine multipartite entangled states without network assistance.Phys. Rev. A, 110:L010401, Jul 2024. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.110.L010401

    2024

  26. [33]

    Self-testing of genuine multipartite non-local and non-maximally entangled states

    Ranendu Adhikary. Self-testing of genuine multipartite non-local and non-maximally entangled states. Physics Letters A, 520:129731, 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2024. 129731

    2024 doi

  27. [34]

    Ivan Šupić, Joseph Bowles, Marc-Olivier Renou, Antonio Acín, and Matty J. Hoban. Quan- tum networks self-test all entangled states. Nature Physics, 19(5):670–675, 2023. doi:10.1038/ s41567-023-01945-4

    2023

  28. [35]

    Three-qubit pure-state canonical forms.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):6725–6739, aug 2001

    A Acín, A Andrianov, E Jané, and R Tarrach. Three-qubit pure-state canonical forms.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):6725–6739, aug 2001. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/34/ 35/301

    2001 doi

  29. [36]

    B. Kraus. Local unitary equivalence and entanglement of multipartite pure states.Phys. Rev. A, 82:032121, Sep 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032121

    2010 doi

  30. [37]

    Device-independent certifi- cation of genuinely entangled subspaces

    Flavio Baccari, Remigiusz Augusiak, Ivan Šupić, and Antonio Acín. Device-independent certifi- cation of genuinely entangled subspaces. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:260507, Dec 2020. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.260507

    2020

  31. [38]

    Quantum Information Processing with Adversarial Devices

    Matthew McKague. Quantum Information Processing with Adversarial Devices. PhD thesis, Uni- versity of Waterloo, 2010. URL:http://hdl.handle.net/10012/5259

    2010

  32. [39]

    Self-testing of binary observables based on commutation

    Jędrzej Kaniewski. Self-testing of binary observables based on commutation. Phys. Rev. A, 95:062323, Jun 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.95.062323

    2017 doi

  33. [40]

    A mathematical foundation for self-testing: Lift- ing common assumptions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12662, 2023

    Pedro Baptista, Ranyiliu Chen, Jędrzej Kaniewski, David Rasmussen Lolck, Laura Mančinska, Thor Gabelgaard Nielsen, and Simon Schmidt. A mathematical foundation for self-testing: Lift- ing common assumptions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12662, 2023. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2310.12662

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Maximal randomness from partially entangled states

    Erik Woodhead, Jędrzej Kaniewski, Boris Bourdoncle, Alexia Salavrakos, Joseph Bowles, Antonio Acín, and Remigiusz Augusiak. Maximal randomness from partially entangled states. Physical Review Research, 2(4):042028, 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.042028

    2020 doi

  35. [42]

    Randomness versus nonlocality and entanglement

    Antonio Acín, Serge Massar, and Stefano Pironio. Randomness versus nonlocality and entanglement. Physical Review Letters, 108(10), Sep 2012.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.100402. 12

    2012 doi

  36. [43]

    Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of Clauser-Horne- Shimony-Holt-like inequalities and their application to self-testing.Phys

    Cédric Bamps and Stefano Pironio. Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of Clauser-Horne- Shimony-Holt-like inequalities and their application to self-testing.Phys. Rev. A, 91:052111, May

  37. [45]

    Custom Bell inequalities from formal sums of squares

    Victor Barizien, Pavel Sekatski, and Jean-Daniel Bancal. Custom Bell inequalities from formal sums of squares. Quantum, 8:1333, May 2024.doi:10.22331/q-2024-05-02-1333

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Quantum statistics in the minimal scenario, 2024.arXiv: 2406.09350

    Victor Barizien and Jean-Daniel Bancal. Quantum statistics in the minimal scenario, 2024.arXiv: 2406.09350. Appendices A Proof of Lemma 1 In this Appendix, we provide a detailed proof of all steps in Lemma 1, which establishes a method for self-testing partially entangled stat...

    2024

  39. [48]

    In that case, all these operators act as the identity operator,1, on the support ofσ(j′′,k′′) junk

    σ(j′′,k′′) junk = |ψjunk ⟩ ⟨ψjunk |(j′′) ⊗|ψjunk ⟩ ⟨ψjunk |(k′′), and|ψjunk ⟩(k′′) is the common eigenstate ofA(k′′) Z and A(k′′) Y corresponding to the eigenvalue+1, while |ψjunk ⟩(j′′) is the +1 eigenstate of A(j′′) Y . In that case, all these operators act as the identity o...

  40. [49]

    σ(j′′,k′′) junk is entangled, A(k′′) Z = 1 and A(j′′) Y ⊗ A(k′′) Y σ(j′′,k′′) junk = σ(j′′,k′′) junk . Since the second condition is more general, it will be used onward: A(k) 2 = cos µ 2 σ(kq) z ⊗1(k′′)+sin µ 2 σ(kq) y ⊗A(k′′) Y , A (k) 3 = cos µ 2 σ(kq) z ⊗1(k′′)−sin µ 2 σ(k...

  41. [101]

    (C42) where |0b+ ⟩A′ = Tb+ |0⟩A′ , |1b+ ⟩A′ = Tb+ |1⟩A′ and |0b+ ⟩C′ = Wb+ |0⟩C′ , |1b+ ⟩C′ = Wb+ |1⟩C′

    The state |ψb+⟩ has Schmidt decomposition: |Ψb+ ⟩A′C′ = cos ϕb+ |0b+ 0b+ ⟩ + sin ϕb+ |1b+ 1b+ ⟩. (C42) where |0b+ ⟩A′ = Tb+ |0⟩A′ , |1b+ ⟩A′ = Tb+ |1⟩A′ and |0b+ ⟩C′ = Wb+ |0⟩C′ , |1b+ ⟩C′ = Wb+ |1⟩C′ . Unitaries Tb+ and Wb+ are such that T † b+ σzTb+ = τ b+ z σz + τ b+ x σx +...

  42. [2015]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052111

    doi

Pith tools

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