Detecting entanglement in any measurement using quantum networks

Shubhayan Sarkar

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Detecting entanglement in any measurement using quantum networks

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Any entangled measurement can be detected without trusting the measurement device, and every rank-one projective entangled measurement with no trust at all.

desk verdict A genuinely useful transfer of state witnesses to measurement witnesses, with two specific proof gaps that are repairable; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06986 v1 pith:U3QDJYUR submitted 2025-02-10 quant-ph

Shubhayan Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords entangledmeasurementsmeasuremententanglementwitnessesswapsteeringone-sideddevice-independentdetectionstarnetworknonlocalityswapping

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 seeks to put entanglement in composite quantum measurements on the same footing as entanglement in quantum states: a measurement is entangled if at least one of its elements is non-separable, and a witness is an operator that returns negative on the entangled element and non-negative on every separable element. The paper claims that such witnesses always exist and can be evaluated using only trusted states and untrusted measurement statistics. It then shows that every entangled measurement produces an advantage in swap steering, a network scenario with no inputs, which makes the witnessing one-sided device-independent: the measurement itself need not be trusted. For rank-one projective measurements, it shows that every entangled example produces network nonlocality in a star network, so the detection can be fully device-independent. If these claims hold, entanglement in measurements is not just a theoretical classification but a certified resource in quantum networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two network functionals built from a measurement witness. A measurement entanglement witness is an operator $W$ satisfying $\min_i \operatorname{Tr}(W E_i) < 0$ for an entangled measurement and $\min_i \operatorname{Tr}(W M_i) \ge 0$ for every separable measurement; by Hahn-Banach it exists for every entangled measurement. In swap steering, this witness is rewritten as $W = -\sum \beta_{i_1\ldots i_N} \tau_{i_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \tau_{i_N}$ and the functional $S = \max_b \sum \beta_{i_1\ldots i_N} p(0,b|i_1\ldots i_N)$ is shown to be at most zero under separable-outcome hidden-state models; using maximally entangled sources, Bob's measurement element is swapped to Alice, making the quantum value positive when the element is entangled. In the star network, any Bell inequality $B \le \beta_{\mathrm{LHV}}$ is converted into $\mathcal{E} = \max_b [\sum c_{a,x} p(a,b|x) - \beta_{\mathrm{LHV}} p(b)] \le 0$ for local correlations; since the post-measurement state at the outer parties is the rank-one projector $E_b$, every entangled such projector violates some Bell inequality, yielding the device-independent detection.

What would settle it

For a concrete check, take the Bell-basis measurement and the witness $W'_{\mathrm{BM}}$ of Eq. (5), compute the swap-steering value with the actual post-measurement state $E_b^T$ rather than $E_b$, and see whether it is positive. If there is any entangled $E_b$ for which this value is non-positive while $\operatorname{Tr}(W'_{\mathrm{BM}}E_b) < 0$, the proof's Eq. (9) does not certify that measurement as written; more generally, testing every entangled measurement element against the witness used in the construction would settle whether the claimed one-sided device-independent detection holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that entanglement of a joint measurement can be detected without trusting the measurement device. Using the Hahn-Banach theorem, the paper defines a measurement witness $W$ with $\min_i \operatorname{Tr}(W E_i) < 0$ for an entangled measurement and $\min_i \operatorname{Tr}(W M_i) \ge 0$ for every separable measurement, and shows how to decompose $W$ into local trusted-state preparations. In the swap-steering scenario, with $N$ independent maximally entangled sources and tomographically complete measurements on the trusted side, the functional $S = \max_b \sum \beta_{i_1\ldots i_N} p(0,b|i_1\ldots i_N)$ has separable-outcome hidden-state bound zero, while the quantum value is positive exactly when the measurement element $E_b$ is entangled, giving one-sided device-independent detection. The star-network argument takes any Bell inequality $B \le \beta_{\mathrm{LHV}}$ and builds $\mathcal{E} = \max_b [\sum c_{a,x} p(a,b|x) - \beta_{\mathrm{LHV}} p(b)] \le 0$ for local correlations; when the swapped state $E_b$ is entangled, the same state violates the original Bell inequality, so $\mathcal{E} > 0$, giving device-independent detection for every rank-one projective entangled measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the state Alice ends up with after entanglement swapping is the measurement element $E_b$ itself, when the calculation gives its transpose $E_b^T$; the proof needs the true but unstated fact that transposing a measurement element does not change whether it is entangled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any entangled measurement can be certified one-sided device-independently: the measurement is untrusted, while the sources and one party's measurements are trusted.
Every rank-one projective entangled measurement can be certified fully device-independently in the star network, where no device is trusted.
The construction turns every measurement witness and every Bell inequality into a network functional, so improved witnesses or Bell inequalities directly improve the certification.
The Bell-basis witness in the paper requires only four local product-state preparations, which makes the witness practical with simple state rotations.
The result identifies entangled measurements as the resource behind input-free network steering, connecting two previously separate notions of nonclassicality.

Reading between the lines

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

A rigorous rewrite of the swap-steering proof would replace $E_b$ by $E_b^T$ in Eq. (9); since transposition preserves separability, the same conclusion should follow from the transposed witness, so the stated theorem likely survives this correction.
Because the star-network construction starts from any Bell inequality, it suggests a practical certification pipeline: pick a Bell inequality violated by the transposed or original measurement element, build the network functional, and certify the measurement from observed correlations alone.
An immediate experimental target would be the four-correlation witness for the Bell-basis measurement, which needs only product states in the computational and conjugate bases; a photonic swap-steering experiment could demonstrate the one-sided device-independent detection.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core is a clean idea: export state-entanglement machinery to measurements via swap steering. That reduction is new as far as I know, and it is presented so an experimentalist can use it. The explicit local-state witness for the Bell measurement in Eq. (5) is a nice touch, and the paper is honest about the optimality conjecture there. I also like the star-network construction: it turns any Bell inequality into a measurement witness, and the claim that every rank-one projective entangled measurement is detectable is the kind of universal statement that makes the paper worth reading.

The main problem is a real but fixable transposition error. After Bob obtains outcome b, the unnormalized state on Alice's side is E_b^T / d^N, not E_b / d^N. So Eq. (9) evaluates Tr(-W E_b), while the experiment gives Tr(-W E_b^T). The fix is straightforward: E_b is entangled iff E_b^T is, so apply Fact 1 to the transposed element (or use W^T). The same slip appears in the DI section, where the post-swap state is the complex conjugate of the measurement element. Since complex conjugation preserves entanglement, Gisin's theorem still applies, but the text needs to say so.

There is a second, subtler gap in the DI proof. Fact 3 bounds the functional E only for correlations admitting the local model (11). To certify measurement entanglement, you need the stronger statement that any separable measurement, even with entangled independent sources, gives E <= 0. This is true: a separable POVM element is a convex mixture of product operators, so for each b the normalized conditional distribution is a mixture of product distributions across the Alices, hence Bell-local. But that argument is missing. A referee should ask for it.

Minor issues: Eq. (7) could be clearer about the SOHS convention, and the proof of Fact 2 quietly assumes the source hidden states are product across A and B, which is fine but should be stated.

Overall the construction is conceptually sound and the gaps are repairable. This deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. I would send it back for major revision with clear requests: fix the transpose in both places and add the separable-measurement bound in the DI section.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript classifies composite quantum measurements into separable and entangled measurements, introduces a notion of entanglement witness for measurements via the Hahn-Banach theorem, and gives explicit witnesses for the Bell-basis measurement. It then claims that every entangled measurement can be witnessed in a one-sided device-independent way using the swap-steering scenario: for any entangled measurement element, a suitable witness yields a positive value of the functional S, while SOHS models give at most zero. Finally, it argues that every rank-one projective entangled measurement can be detected device-independently in a star network, using Gisin's theorem for bipartite measurements and generic nonlocality for multipartite ones. The main technical proofs are deferred to an appendix.

Significance. If the proof gaps are repaired, the paper's results are significant: they provide a unified reduction from witness-based detection of entangled measurements to state witnesses, and they show that swap steering detects any entangled measurement rather than only special families. The 1SDI and DI constructions are conceptually clean, and the explicit local decomposition of the Bell-basis witness is practically useful. The proofs of the SOHS and local bounds (Fact 2 and Fact 3) are standard but correctly identify the relevant bounds. The main caveat, which is in line with the state-witness literature, is that the witness inequalities are tailored to the target measurement, so the results establish existence of a detection scheme rather than a single universal inequality.

major comments (2)

[One-sided device-independent witness, Eq. (9)] The unnormalized operator on Alice's systems after Bob's outcome b is E_b^T/d^N, not E_b/d^N: for maximally entangled sources, Tr_B[(I_A ⊗ E_b)|φ_d^+><φ_d^+|^⊗N] = E_b^T/d^N. Therefore the quantity computed from the correlations is max_b (Tr E_b/d^N) Tr(-W E_b^T), whereas Eq. (9) evaluates Tr(-W E_b). A witness W constructed from E_b via Fact 1 need not satisfy Tr(-W E_b^T)>0. The proof must be repaired by applying Fact 1 to E_b^T, or equivalently by using W^T, which is valid because E_b^T is entangled iff E_b is; without this step the conclusion S>0 does not follow from the stated assumptions.
[Device-independent witness, paragraph before Fact 3] For a rank-one projective element E_b=|ψ_b><ψ_b|, the state on the external parties after the swap is |ψ_b^*><ψ_b^*|, the complex conjugate in the standard basis, not |ψ_b><ψ_b|. Thus Gisin's theorem and the generic-nonlocality results of [30,31] must be applied to |ψ_b^*>; the conclusion still holds because |ψ_b^*> is entangled iff |ψ_b> is, but the text should say this explicitly.

minor comments (6)

[Witnesses, Eq. (4)] The phrase 'we do not have a prove' should be 'we do not have a proof'.
[Introduction] The term 'unextentible product bases' should be 'unextendible product bases'.
[Quantum measurement tomography] The phrase 'informational complete' should be 'informationally complete'.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A3)] In the definition of Γ, the second argument is written as ρ_λn but should be ρ_λN.
[Witnesses, Eq. (3)] The decomposition of W should state explicitly that the coefficients c_ij... are real and that the local projectors are drawn from a tomographically complete set, so that the decomposition is without loss of generality.
[Device-independent witness] The sentence citing [30,31] for any rank-one projective entangled measurement should spell out that for N>2 the relevant inequality is a multipartite Bell inequality from generic nonlocality, not CHSH.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the central reductions rest on external theorems (Hahn-Banach, Gisin, CHSH); the author's self-cited swap-steering framework is used as a container but is not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Definition 2 defines entangled measurements, and Fact 1 transfers the Hahn-Banach witness theorem from states to measurements, an external result. Fact 2 proves the SOHS bound S≤0 directly from the SOHS model, and the quantum violation rests on the witness inequality Tr(W E_b)<0, which is exactly the external witness property. Fact 3 is a direct network-functionalization of an arbitrary Bell inequality; its local bound is proved in the appendix, and the quantum value relies on Gisin's theorem that every pure bipartite entangled state violates CHSH. No step reduces the conclusion to a fitted parameter or to an assumed version of the target result. The paper does cite the author's own prior swap-steering work [16,25] for the scenario and SOHS vocabulary, but the linear functional S and its bounds are proven in the present text, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. One non-circular technical gap exists: in Eq. (9) the witness is evaluated on E_b, whereas the post-swap state is E_b^T; the argument is repairable because E_b^T is entangled iff E_b is entangled, so Fact 1 applied to the transposed element supplies a valid witness. This is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not change the verdict. Score 2 reflects only the minor self-citation, not any circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard separation theorems and known nonlocality theorems; no free parameters are fitted. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hahn-Banach theorem and existence of entanglement witnesses for every entangled state
Invoked in Fact 1 to guarantee a witness for any entangled measurement element.
domain assumption Gisin's theorem: every pure bipartite entangled state violates CHSH
Used to show any rank-one bipartite projective entangled measurement yields DI violation in the star network with N=2.
domain assumption Generic quantum nonlocality: every pure multipartite entangled state violates some Bell inequality
Used to extend DI detection to any rank-one projective entangled measurement on N subsystems.
domain assumption SOHS model for swap steering from Ref. [16]
Defines the classical bound in Fact 2; borrowed from the author's prior work.
domain assumption Star-network local model (11) from Branciard et al. [26]
Defines the local bound in Fact 3.
domain assumption Independence of sources in network scenarios
Needed for the product structure rho_lambda1 otimes ... otimes rho_lambdaN used in the SOHS proof and for the lifting argument in Fact 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting entanglement in any measurement using quantum networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3QDJYUR

@misc{pith2026250206986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting entanglement in any measurement using quantum networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3QDJYUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06986}
}

read the original abstract

Entanglement is a key resource to demonstrate quantum advantage over classical strategies. Entanglement in quantum states is one of the most well-explored areas in quantum physics. However, a rigorous approach to understanding and detecting entanglement in composite quantum measurements is lacking. In this work, we focus on composite quantum measurements and classify them into two classes: entangled and separable measurements. As done for quantum states, we define analogously a notion of witness that can be used to detect entanglement in composite quantum measurements. Here, one does not need to trust the measurement to witness its entanglement but must trust the quantum states. We then further extend this approach to show that any entangled measurement provides an advantage in network quantum steering without inputs, also known as swap steering. Consequently, this provides a way to witness entanglement in any quantum measurement in a one-sided device-independent way. Finally, we consider the star network scenario and show that any rank-one projective entangled quantum measurement gives a quantum advantage. Thus, one can detect the entanglement in any rank-one projective measurement in a device-independent way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06986 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Swap-steering scenario. Alice and Bob are spatially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Star network scenario. There are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[2]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009
[3]

Gühne and G

O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1–75 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Del Santo, J

F. Del Santo, J. Czartowski, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and N. Gisin, Iso-entangled bases and joint measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023085 (2024)

2024
[5]

event-ready-detectors

M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ek- ert, “event-ready-detectors” bell experiment via entangle- ment swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993)

work page 1993
[6]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen chan- nels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993
[7]

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

1992
[8]

C. H. Bennett, D. P . DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P . W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 31 references

[9]

Weilenmann and R

M. Weilenmann and R. Colbeck, Self-testing of physical theories, or, is quantum theory optimal with respect to some information-processing task?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 060406 (2020)

2020
[10]

E. G. Cavalcanti, R. Chaves, F. Giacomini, and Y.-C. Liang, Fresh perspectives on the foundations of quantum physics, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 323 (2023)

2023
[11]

Briegel, W

H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P . Zoller, Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

1998
[12]

Renou, E

M.-O. Renou, E. Bäumer, S. Boreiri, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, and S. Beigi, Genuine quantum nonlocality in the triangle network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140401 (2019)

2019
[13]

Pozas-Kerstjens, N

A. Pozas-Kerstjens, N. Gisin, and M.-O. Renou, Proofs of network quantum nonlocality in continuous families of distributions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 090201 (2023)

2023
[14]

Tavakoli, P

A. Tavakoli, P . Skrzypczyk, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Acín, Nonlocal correlations in the star-network configura- tion, Physical Review A 90, 10.1103/physreva.90.062109 (2014)

2014 doi
[15]

B. D. M. Jones, I. Šupi´ c, R. Uola, N. Brunner, and P . Skrzypczyk, Network quantum steering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 170405 (2021)

2021
[16]

Sarkar, Network quantum steering enables random- ness certification without seed randomness, Quantum 8, 1419 (2024)

S. Sarkar, Network quantum steering enables random- ness certification without seed randomness, Quantum 8, 1419 (2024)

2024
[17]

Šupi´ c, J

I. Šupi´ c, J. Bowles, M.-O. Renou, A. Acín, and M. J. 6 Hoban, Quantum networks self-test all entangled states, Nature Physics 19, 670 (2023)

2023
[18]

Sarkar, J

S. Sarkar, J. a. Alexandre C. Orthey, and R. Augusiak, A universal scheme to self-test any quantum state and ex- tremal measurement (2024), arXiv:2312.04405 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[19]

J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement swapping: Entangling photons that never interacted, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891 (1998)

1998
[20]

D. J. Saunders, A. J. Bennet, C. Branciard, and G. J. Pryde, Experimental demonstration of nonbilocal quan- tum correlations, Science Advances 3, e1602743 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.1602743

2017 doi
[21]

Carvacho, E

G. Carvacho, E. Roccia, M. Valeri, F. B. Basset, D. Poderini, C. Pardo, E. Polino, L. Carosini, M. B. Rota, J. Neuwirth, S. F. C. da Silva, A. Rastelli, N. Spagnolo, R. Chaves, R. Trotta, and F. Sciarrino, Quantum violation of local causality in an urban network using hybrid p...

2022
[22]

N.-N. Wang, C. Zhang, H. Cao, K. Xu, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, N. Gisin, T. Kriváchy, and M.- O. Renou, Experimental genuine quantum nonlocality in the triangle network (2024), arXiv:2401.15428 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[23]

X.-M. Gu, L. Huang, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, Y.-F. Jiang, D. Wu, B. Bai, Q.-C. Sun, M.-C. Chen, J. Zhang, S. Yu, Q. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental full net- work nonlocality with independent sources and strict lo- cality constraints, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 190201 (2023)

2023
[24]

Pauwels, A

J. Pauwels, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, F. D. Santo, and N. Gisin, Classification of joint quantum measurements based on entanglement cost of localization (2024), arXiv:2408.00831 [quant-ph]

2024
[25]

Sarkar, Witnessing network steerability of ev- ery bipartite entangled state without inputs (2024), arXiv:2406.11994 [quant-ph]

S. Sarkar, Witnessing network steerability of ev- ery bipartite entangled state without inputs (2024), arXiv:2406.11994 [quant-ph]

2024
[26]

Branciard, N

C. Branciard, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Characterizing the nonlocal correlations created via entanglement swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 170401 (2010)

2010
[27]

Sarkar, Causal links between operationally indepen- dent events in quantum theory, Physical Review A 109, 10.1103/physreva.109.l040202 (2024)

S. Sarkar, Causal links between operationally indepen- dent events in quantum theory, Physical Review A 109, 10.1103/physreva.109.l040202 (2024)

2024 doi
[28]

Gisin, Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states, Physics Letters A 154, 201 (1991)

N. Gisin, Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states, Physics Letters A 154, 201 (1991)

1991
[29]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

1969
[30]

Popescu and D

S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Generic quantum nonlocality, Physics Letters A 166, 293 (1992)

1992
[31]

generic quantum nonlocality

M. Gachechiladze and O. Gühne, Completing the proof of “generic quantum nonlocality”, Physics Letters A 381, 1281–1285 (2017). Appendix A: Proofs of the facts Fact 2. Consider the swap-steering scenario in Fig. 2 and the functional S{Eb} (8). The maximal value attainable of S{...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010

[2] [2]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

2009

[3] [3]

Gühne and G

O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1–75 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Del Santo, J

F. Del Santo, J. Czartowski, K. ˙Zyczkowski, and N. Gisin, Iso-entangled bases and joint measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023085 (2024)

2024

[5] [5]

event-ready-detectors

M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ek- ert, “event-ready-detectors” bell experiment via entangle- ment swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993)

work page 1993

[6] [6]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen chan- nels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993

[7] [7]

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

1992

[8] [8]

C. H. Bennett, D. P . DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P . W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999)

work page 1999