Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum network can self-test any unitary gate from observed statistics alone, without trusting the hardware.

desk verdict A natural but incomplete reduction: the gate self-testing idea is new and plausible, but the proof leans on unproved imported results and an asserted equivalence, so the paper needs more work before the claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20185 v1 pith:OGLZKOC5 submitted 2025-08-27 quant-ph

Shubhayan Sarkar This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords device-independentcertificationself-testingquantumnetworksunitarygatesBellnonlocalitycomputationGHZstatesrepeaters
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

This paper proves that any unitary quantum operation can be certified device-independently: from the observed input–output statistics of a Bell-type network experiment, without trusting the construction of the devices. The proof uses a star network with N independent sources, N external measurement parties, a central operation box, and a final joint measurement. The scheme works in two stages. In the almost-DI stage, the operation is certified under the assumption that it preserves the local support of the states; in the full-DI stage, each output of the operation is teleported through a Bell measurement, removing that assumption. The central identity is U = sum_l |φ_l⟩⟨δ_l|, where the GHZ-like states |φ_l⟩ and measurements are self-tested when the operation is switched off, and condition (15) then forces the operation to be U up to local isometries and complex conjugation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-input 'gate box' at the central party E, embedded in a network whose e=0 statistics are used to self-test a reference set of states and measurements. The reference states are the GHZ-like vectors |φ_l⟩, and the target unitary is expressed as U=Σ_l |φ_l⟩⟨δ_l|, with {|δ_l⟩} an arbitrary orthonormal basis. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (12)/(15): a weighted sum of observable expectation values involving the projectors |δ_l⟩⟨δ_l|, expanded in Pauli operators. Because the e=0 step fixes the states, the A_i observables, and L's joint measurement, the e=1 condition becomes a matrix equation that pins the map V†M_lV to |δ_l⟩⟨δ_l|; a short algebraic argument then shows V mus

What would settle it

Find a quantum realisation—for instance, via numerical semidefinite programming—that reaches the step-one Bell violations and satisfies condition (12) or (15) while V is not unitarily equivalent to the reference U (or is a non-unitary CPTP map). Any such realisation would falsify the claim that arbitrary unitaries are exactly self-tested by those statistics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that an arbitrary unitary U acting on (C^2)^{⊗N} can be self-tested in a quantum network. The experiment has N+2 parties: N external parties A_i, a central operation box E that either passes the incoming N-partite state (e=0) or applies the unitary V (e=1), and a final party L performing a joint measurement. When e=0, saturating a family of Bell inequalities self-tests all sources and measurements—including the GHZ-like states |φ_l⟩, the local observables, and L's joint measurement—up to local isometries and complex conjugation. When e=1, the observed statistics are required to satisfy condition (12) (almost DI) or (15) (full DI), a linear combination of expectation valu

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the imported universal self-testing scheme for states and measurements used as Fact 1 and Fact 2 is wrong; it also only applies to devices whose operation is exactly a unitary, not an arbitrary noisy process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any unitary gate in a quantum circuit can, in principle, be certified from measurement statistics alone, without trusting the hardware vendor.
  • Self-testing is extended from states and measurements to operations, filling a gap that had limited device-independent certification to static resources.
  • Because any quantum operation can be dilated to a unitary on an extended Hilbert space, the scheme offers a route toward device-independent certification of general interactions, not just states.
  • Practical use requires robustness against noise and finite statistics; the paper's exact, ideal-statistics proof is a proof of principle, and the paper itself flags robustness and resource overhead as open.
  • In the full-DI scheme the support-change problem is removed by teleporting each output through a Bell measurement, so the certification does not require the unitary to preserve the incoming local support.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a robust version of this scheme were found, it would likely become a building block for verifying quantum processors gate-by-gate in a fully untrusted setting; the paper does not develop that step.
  • The imported universal state/measurement self-tester is the load-bearing pillar: any strengthening or flaw in that prior scheme directly upgrades or threatens the gate-certification result.
  • The proof only treats unitary V; extending to general CPTP maps would require a dilation argument and would probably replace exact self-testing by approximate or tomographic certification—a natural next problem.
  • One could test the method numerically by searching for a non-unitary CPTP map that satisfies the step-one Bell violations and condition (15); existence of such a map would narrow the claim to unitaries only.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a device-independent certification scheme for arbitrary N-qubit unitary gates in a quantum network. The almost-DI scheme (Fig. 1) uses N independent sources, a central party E with two possible operations (identity and V), and a joint measurement at L. Step 1 uses the e=0 statistics to certify the sources, the A_i measurements, and L's measurement, following Ref. [23]. Step 2 then imposes condition (12) on the e=1 statistics and claims that this certifies V, up to local isometries and possibly complex conjugation. The full DI scheme (Fig. 2) adds N Bell-measurement repeaters and N additional sources, removing the support-invariance assumption on V, and culminates in Theorem 2 with condition (15). Formal statements and proofs are given in Appendices A and B; both proofs reduce to Theorem 2 of Ref. [23].

Significance. If the reduction is valid, this is a notable proof-of-principle result: it extends self-testing from states and measurements to arbitrary unitary operations in a network setting, which is directly relevant to device-independent verification of quantum gates. The construction is explicit: Eq. (11) gives a concrete Pauli expansion of the projectors |δ_l⟩⟨δ_l|, and the algebraic core in Appendix A is coherent. The main caveats are that the result is conditional on the unproved universal self-testing theorem of Ref. [23], that the DI proof contains a support/projection step that is not written rigorously, and that the target unitary is defined inconsistently in Eq. (10). With those points fixed, the result would be a meaningful conceptual advance. No robustness analysis is claimed, which is acceptable for an ideal proof-of-principle but should be stated prominently.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A6)-(A8); Fact 1] The proof of Theorem 1 reduces condition (A7) to "the exact condition as Theorem 2 of [23]" and immediately concludes Eq. (A8), i.e. U_L(V^† M_l V)U_L^† = |δ_l⟩⟨δ_l| ⊗ 1_{L''}. However, Fact 1 certifies only the e=0 measurement M_l; it does not certify the composite operator V^† M_l V. To apply Theorem 2 of Ref. [23] to R_l = V^† M_l V, one must verify that R_l satisfies that theorem's hypotheses (support, extremality, auxiliary-state structure) under the certified state and measurements. Since V is unknown and may act non-trivially on the auxiliary L'' as well as on the certified qubits, R_l is a composite operator on the full Hilbert space, not simply a local measurement on the certified subspace. This is the load-bearing step: without a proof that R_l meets the hypotheses of the imported theorem, Theorem 1 -- and therefore Theorem 2 -- does not follow. Please include a complete statem
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B10)-(B16)] The main calculation in the DI proof is difficult to verify as written. Eq. (B10) places V^†_{R1} immediately before ⟨ψ_{R2A}| with no tensor product, so the expression mixes operators on different subsystems and is not a well-formed expectation value. More substantively, the passage from (B10) to (B13) replaces V by V_{R1} = P_{R1} V P_{R1} without proving that matrix elements of V outside the support of the certified local state never contribute to the observed statistics. This is precisely the point that justifies "projected onto the support" in Theorem 2. Eq. (B14) also states the result of the partial trace over R2,A without derivation. Please rewrite (B10)-(B16) with explicit tensor products and partial traces, and justify the projection step.
  3. [Main text, Step 2, Eq. (10)] The target unitary is defined inconsistently. The text states that U|φ_l⟩ = |δ_l⟩, but then writes U = Σ_l |φ_l⟩⟨δ_l|. Under the stated convention the correct expansion would be U = Σ_l |δ_l⟩⟨φ_l|, or the definition of δ_l must be changed. Since the final certification identifies V with U or U^* (Appendix A, Eq. (A5)), this ambiguity affects which unitary is actually being certified. The claim that every unitary can be represented as in Eq. (10) is true for some choice of basis δ_l, but the relation between that representation and the action U|φ_l⟩ = |δ_l⟩ should be stated precisely.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 1 and Eq. (1)] The notation for the two subsystems of each source is confusing: ρ_{A_i A_i} and A := A_1...A_N vs L := A_1...A_N are missing the bar on one subsystem. Please use e.g. \bar A_i or R_i consistently.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) uses U both for the local isometries and for the target unitary: U V U^† = U ⊗ 1_aux. This is bound to confuse. Please denote the local unitaries by, say, W_A, W_L.
  3. [Main text, after Eq. (12)] It is stated that the condition can be realized with V = U^*, but no derivation is given. Given the ambiguity in Eq. (10), it should be shown explicitly which of V = U, V = U^*, or V = U^† realizes Eq. (12) under the corrected convention.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A10)] The introduction of an additional auxiliary Hilbert space H_{L''} uses the same symbol L'' as the existing auxiliary space. Please use a separate label (e.g. L''') and define the maximally entangled state |φ_D^+⟩ clearly.
  5. [References and phrasing] Facts 1 and 2 are stated with proofs deferred to Ref. [23], which is an arXiv preprint. Since the main result is entirely conditional on that theorem, please give precise theorem pointers into [23] and state the exact assumptions used. Also, the sentence in Fact 2, Part 1: "the Bell functional... similar to ⟨I_l⟩ Eq. (6) when N=2" should be self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No fitted-parameter or definitional circularity; the gate-certification argument is genuine, but it relies on the author's own Ref. [23] for the underlying state/measurement self-tests, and that import is load-bearing.

full rationale

The gate self-testing claim does not reduce to a fitted quantity. The f coefficients in Eq. (11) are fixed by the chosen reference unitary U, and condition (12)/(15) is a genuine constraint on observed statistics, not a parameter fitted to data. The proof of Theorem 1 (Appendix A) derives V from the certified form of V†MlV via linear algebra (Eqs. A8–A16), and Theorem 2 (Appendix B) repeats the argument after teleportation. The only self-referential element is that Facts 1 and 2, which certify the sources, the Ai observables, E's Bell measurement, and L's measurement, are imported from the author's own Ref. [23] with proof deferred ("Proof. The proof of the above fact can be found in [23]"). This is load-bearing, but it is a citation of a parameter-free theorem with stated assumptions, so it is a correctness risk (if [23] has a flaw, or if its hypotheses are not verified for the composite measurement V†MlV) rather than a circular reduction of the present result to its own inputs. A separate formal gap is that Eq. (B10) writes V†_{R1} adjacent to ⟨ψ_{R2A}| without explicit tensor products, so the step from (B10) to (B16) is not literally derivable as printed; this is a proof-presentation concern, not circularity. Overall score 2: one minor self-citation, no fit-to-data circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is clean: no fitted constants or invented physical entities. The free parameters are zero because the f coefficients defining the gate-specific witness are set by the chosen reference unitary rather than by data. The axioms are the independence of network sources, unitarity of the device operation, the deferred self-testing results of [23], and the standard support-argument assumption for ignoring uncharacterized measurement components.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Independence of the N (or 2N) sources in the network
    Assumed throughout; needed to factor the joint state into product states and to use Bell nonlocality. Introduced in the setup of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The central device E implements a unitary V with V0 = I and V1 = V (so V† is well-defined and appears in Eq. (1)).
    The probability expression (1) and conditions (12), (15) involve V† M_l V; this assumes the operation is a unitary/isometry on the incoming space, not a general CPTP map.
  • ad hoc to paper The state/measurement self-testing theorems of Ref. [23] (quoted as Fact 1 and Fact 2) are correct.
    Fact 1 and Fact 2 in the Appendix are stated without proof, deferred to [23]; the gate proofs then rely on 'the exact condition as Theorem 2 of [23]'. This is an unproved background result on which the central claim rests.
  • standard math Measurements can be taken full-rank and states pure without loss of generality.
    Stated in the setup: 'dimension unrestricted... we take the measurements to be full-rank' and the states pure; standard in self-testing.
  • domain assumption In the DI scheme, the uncharacterized parts of the measurement (operators J_i,r in Eq. B12) can be ignored because only the projection onto the certified support contributes to teleportation.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix B, after Eq. B12) to restrict V to the support; requires the teleportation argument to be valid for the certified components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGLZKOC5

@misc{pith2026250820185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGLZKOC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20185}
}
read the original abstract

Device-independent (DI) certification allows the verification of quantum systems based solely on observed statistics, without assumptions about their internal structure. While self-testing, the strongest DI certification, of a wide range of quantum states and measurements is done, the self-testing of quantum operations remains underdeveloped. Here, we show in a proof-of-principle way that any quantum unitary can be self-tested within the DI paradigm. For our purpose, we utilise the framework of quantum networks with multiple independent sources. Our work provides a fundamental step toward certifying quantum interactions directly from data, without detailed modelling assumptions. Moreover, the result also serves as a crucial ingredient for quantum computation, where verifying that quantum gates perform as intended is essential for building secure and reliable quantum processors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Semi-device-independent self-testing of unitary operations

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new semi-device-independent self-testing protocol certifies Alice's unitary operations and Bob's measurements via the optimal quantum advantage in a variant 3-bit PMRAC communication game.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    Zhou, X.-Y

    Q. Zhou, X.-Y. Xu, S. Zhao, Y.-Z. Zhen, L. Li, N.- L. Liu, and K. Chen, Robust self-testing of multipar- tite Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-state measurements in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042608 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    (9) and {|δl⟩} are an arbitrary orthonormal set of vectors that span the Hilbert space (C2)⊗N

    Here |ϕl⟩ are the GHZ-like vectors stated in Eq. (9) and {|δl⟩} are an arbitrary orthonormal set of vectors that span the Hilbert space (C2)⊗N. Consequently, any unitary that maps vectors from (C2)⊗N to (C2)⊗N can be represented as U = 2N ∑ l=1 |ϕl⟩ ⟨δl|. (10) Taking N to be arbitrarily large, we obtain any pos- sible unitary transformation that maps vect...

    work page

  3. [2]

    ,N Kri,i = (−1)ri,1 Ai,1 ˜Bi,1 + (−1)ri,2 Ai,0 ˜Bi,0 (14) where ˜Bi,0 = (Bi,0−Bi,1)√ 2 , ˜B1,1 = (Bi,0+Bi,1)√ 2

    where Kr1,1 = (−1)ri,1 ˜A1,1B1,1 + (−1)ri,2 ˜A1,0B1,0 (13) where ˜A1,0 = (A1,0−A1,1)√ 2 , ˜A1,1 = (A1,0+A1,1)√ 2 and for i = 5 2, . . . ,N Kri,i = (−1)ri,1 Ai,1 ˜Bi,1 + (−1)ri,2 Ai,0 ˜Bi,0 (14) where ˜Bi,0 = (Bi,0−Bi,1)√ 2 , ˜B1,1 = (Bi,0+Bi,1)√ 2 . Here, Bi,j are the observables of the measurements at L defined sim- ilarly as Ai,j. Notice that they are i...

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [4]

    J. S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966)

    work page 1966

  6. [5]

    Mayers and A

    D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quantum cryptography with im- perfect apparatus, in Proceedings 39th Annual Sympo- sium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 98CB36280) (IEEE, 1998) pp. 503–509

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    Mayers and A

    D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    McKague, T

    M. McKague, T. H. Yang, and V . Scarani, Robust self- testing of the singlet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 455304 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Reichardt, F

    B. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Classical com- mand of quantum systems, Nature 496, 456 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    McKague, Self-testing graph states, in Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptog- raphy, edited by D

    M. McKague, Self-testing graph states, in Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptog- raphy, edited by D. Bacon, M. Martin-Delgado, and M. Roetteler (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2014) pp. 104–120

    2014

  3. [10]

    X. Wu, Y. Cai, T. H. Yang, H. N. Le, J.-D. Bancal, and V . Scarani, Robust self-testing of the three-qubit W state, 6 Phys. Rev. A 90, 042339 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Bamps and S

    C. Bamps and S. Pironio, Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt-like inequal- ities and their application to self-testing, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052111 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Y. Wang, X. Wu, and V . Scarani, All the self-testings of the singlet for two binary measurements, New J. Phys.18, 025021 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Šupi´ c, R

    I. Šupi´ c, R. Augusiak, A. Salavrakos, and A. Acín, Self- testing protocols based on the chained Bell inequalities, New J. Phys. 18, 035013 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Coladangelo, K

    A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V . Scarani, All pure bipar- tite entangled states can be self-tested, Nature Communi- cations 8, 15485 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Kaniewski, I

    J. Kaniewski, I. Šupi´ c, J. Tura, F. Baccari, A. Salavrakos, and R. Augusiak, Maximal nonlocality from maximal en- tanglement and mutually unbiased bases, and self-testing of two-qutrit quantum systems, Quantum 3, 198 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Sarkar, D

    S. Sarkar, D. Saha, J. Kaniewski, and R. Augusiak, Self- testing quantum systems of arbitrary local dimension with minimal number of measurements, npj Quantum In- formation 7, 151 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Sarkar and R

    S. Sarkar and R. Augusiak, Self-testing of multipartite greenberger-horne-zeilinger states of arbitrary local di- mension with arbitrary number of measurements per party, Phys. Rev. A105, 032416 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Šupi´ c, J

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

    2023

  12. [19]

    Sarkar, C

    S. Sarkar, C. Datta, S. Halder, and R. Augusiak, Self- testing composite measurements and bound entangled state in a single quantum network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 190203 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Woodhead, J

    E. Woodhead, J. Kaniewski, B. Bourdoncle, A. Salavrakos, J. Bowles, A. Acín, and R. Augusiak, Maximal random- ness from partially entangled states, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 042028 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    R. Chen, J. Volˇ ciˇ c, and L. Manˇ cinska, All projective mea- surements can be self-tested, arXiv:2302.00974 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Renou, J

    M.-O. Renou, J. Kaniewski, and N. Brunner, Self-testing entangled measurements in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 250507 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Šupi´ c and N

    I. Šupi´ c and N. Brunner, Self-testing nonlocality without entanglement, arXiv:2203.13171 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sarkar, J

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

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dall’Arno, S

    M. Dall’Arno, S. Brandsen, and F. Buscemi, Device- independent tests of quantum channels, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 473, 20160721 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P . Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, S. Wagner, and N. Sangouard, Certifying the building blocks of quantum computers from bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 180505 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Sarkar, Model-independent inference of quantum interaction from statistics, Physical Review A 110, 10.1103/physreva.110.l020402 (2024)

    S. Sarkar, Model-independent inference of quantum interaction from statistics, Physical Review A 110, 10.1103/physreva.110.l020402 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Classical com- mand of quantum systems, Nature 496, 456 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. F. Fitzsimons, M. Hajdušek, and T. Morimae, Post hoc verification of quantum computation, Physical Review Letters 120, 10.1103/physrevlett.120.040501 (2018)

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Sarkar, J

    S. Sarkar, J. J. Borkała, C. Jebarathinam, O. Makuta, D. Saha, and R. Augusiak, Self-testing of any pure entan- gled state with the minimal number of measurements and optimal randomness certification in a one-sided device- independent scenario, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034038 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sarkar, J

    S. Sarkar, J. Alexandre C. Orthey, G. Sharma, and R. Augusiak, Almost device-independent certification of gme states with minimal measurements (2024), arXiv:2402.18522 [quant-ph]. Supplementary Material: Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently Appe...

    2024

  25. [33]

    The Hilbert spaces of all the parties decompose as HAi = HA′ i ⊗ HA′′ i and HAi = HA′ i ⊗ HA′′ i , where HA′ i and HA′ i are qubit Hilbert spaces, whereas HA′′ i and HA′′ i are some finite-dimensional but unknown auxiliary Hilbert spaces

  26. [34]

    There exist local unitary transformations U Ai : HAi → (C2)A′ ⊗ HA′′ i and UAi : HAi → (C2)A′ ⊗ HL′′ i such that the states are given by UAi ⊗ UAi |ψAi Ai ⟩ = |ϕ+ A′ i A′ i ⟩ ⊗ |ξA′′ i A′′ i ⟩. (A1) 7

  27. [35]

    ⊗ UAN and |ϕl⟩ are given in Eq

    The measurement of L is ULMlU† L = |ϕl⟩ ⟨ϕl|L′ ⊗ 1 L′′ ∀l, (A2) where UL = UA1 ⊗ . . .⊗ UAN and |ϕl⟩ are given in Eq. (9). The measurements of all the other parties are given by UA1 A1,0 U† A1 = X + Z√ 2 A′ 1 ⊗ 1 A′′ 1 , UA1 A1,1 U† A1 = X − Z√ 2 A′ 1 ⊗ 1 A′′ 1 , UAi Ai,0 U† A...

  28. [36]

    The Hilbert spaces of all the parties decompose as HAi = HA′ i ⊗ HA′′ i , HRi,j = HR′ i,j ⊗ HR′′ i,j (j = 1, 2), and HAi = HA′ i ⊗ HA′′ i , where HA′ i , HR′ i,j and HA′ i are qubit Hilbert spaces, whereas HA′′ i , HR′′ i,j and HA′′ i are some finite- dimensional but unknown a...

  29. [37]

    There exist local unitary transformations U Ai : HAi → (C2)A′ ⊗ HA′′ i , U Ai : HRi,j → (C2)R′ i,j ⊗ HR′′ i,j , and U Ai : HAi → (C2)A′ i ⊗ HA′′ i such that the states are given by UAi ⊗ URi,1 |ψAiRi,1 ⟩ = |ϕ+ A′ iR′ i,1 ⟩ ⊗ |ξ A′′ i R′′ i,1 ⟩, URi,2 ⊗ UAi |ψRi,2 Ai ⟩ = |ϕ+ R′...

  30. [38]

    The measurement at E is certified on the support of the space N j=1,2(C2)R′ i,j ⊗ HR′′ i,j as URi,1 ⊗ URi,2 Ri,riU† Ri,1 ⊗ U† Ri,2 = |ϕ(2) ri ⟩ ⟨ϕ(2) ri |R′ 1,iR′ 2,i ⊗ 1 R′′ 1,iR′′ 2,i , (B4) where |ϕ(2) ri ⟩ are the orthonormal vectors stated in (9) for N = 2. The measuremen...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.