pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07078 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🪐 quant-ph

Postquantum steering in scenarios with multiple characterised parties

Ana Belen Sainz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords postquantum steeringmultiple partiesquantum assemblagesBell nonlocalitysemidefinite programsno-signaling principledevice-independent scenarioscompositional theories
0
0 comments X

The pith

Postquantum steering extends to scenarios with multiple characterised quantum parties and decouples from Bell nonlocality.

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

This paper defines postquantum steering for cases with several parties whose systems are described by quantum theory, moving beyond the prior restriction to only one such party. The extension matters because it fills the gap for studying stronger-than-quantum effects in mixed networks that combine characterised and uncharacterised parties. A sympathetic reader would care since the work supplies concrete tools for certification and shows that postquantum steering can appear inside compositional theories that go beyond quantum mechanics itself. It also establishes that steering's theory-independent description blocks any direct tie to Bell nonlocality, so nonclassical Bell correlations need not produce nonclassical steering.

Core claim

The authors articulate the concept of postquantum steering for scenarios with multiple quantum parties. They supply an algorithm that certifies postquantumness (and sometimes quantumness) of observed assemblages, together with a hierarchy of semidefinite programs that bounds the set of quantum assemblages from the outside. The framework demonstrates that postquantum steering is not merely permitted by the no-signaling principle but can arise within compositional theories beyond quantum theory. The work further reveals that the theory-independent description of steering prevents a direct connection with Bell nonlocality, for example that nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclasssif

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-party steering assemblage defined under no-signaling constraints, with characterised parties restricted to quantum descriptions; this object supports both the certification algorithm and the outer-bounding semidefinite-program hierarchy.

If this is right

  • An algorithm now exists to certify postquantumness of assemblages in scenarios with several quantum parties.
  • A hierarchy of semidefinite programs supplies outer bounds on the set of quantum multi-party assemblages.
  • Postquantum steering can arise inside compositional theories that extend beyond quantum mechanics.
  • Nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclassical steering, owing to the independent description of steering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Resource theories of steering will likely require generalisation to handle multiple characterised parties.
  • The certification tools could be used to design experiments with several trusted quantum devices and one untrusted source.
  • The observed separation suggests that steering and Bell nonlocality should be quantified as distinct resources in hybrid networks.
  • Activation protocols relating steering to Bell correlations may need fresh examination in the multi-party setting.

Load-bearing premise

Characterised parties are assumed to describe their local systems through the quantum formalism, which allows a theory-independent treatment of the uncharacterised parties.

What would settle it

An explicit no-signaling assemblage involving two quantum parties and one uncharacterised party that the certification algorithm labels postquantum, yet yields only classical Bell correlations under all measurement choices, would confirm the decoupling; the opposite result that every postquantum assemblage forces a Bell violation would refute it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07078 by Ana Belen Sainz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different EPR setups: (a) traditional scenario: Alice makes a measurement, steering the state of Bob; (b) multipartite EPR scenario with one Bob: two parties make independent measurements on their share of a system and steer the state of Bob (c) Bob-with-input (BWI) scenario: Bob has an input, and influences his state preparation, by performing some operation on it. Alice x a Bob2 σ (2) a|x Bob1 σ (1) a|x … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: EPR setup of interest: EPR steering scenario where one uncharacterised party (Alice) steers the states of the subsystems held by two characterised parties (Bobs). ‘assemblages’ in EPR scenarios with only one characterised party. Then, we illustrate ways in which EPR steering may defy a quantum explanation in our scenario of interest. We develop techniques to certify postquantum steering, which we implement… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Local-Hidden-State model for an assemblage. Steering scenario with n uncharacterised partes (Alices) and N characterised parties (Bobs): A source produces the classical system on state λ with probability p(λ) and sends it to the n + N parties. The uncharacterised parties produce their outcomes via the response functions pj (aj |xj , λ), whereas the characterised ones locally prepare quantum systems on stat… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The study of stronger-than-quantum phenomena (i.e., postquantum) has enabled a deeper understanding of the scope of quantum theory. Much is known about the case of correlations in Bell scenarios, where the device-independent framework allowed us to explore its possibilities independently of the formalism of quantum theory. However, less is known about the phenomenon of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering. Here, the `characterised parties' are assumed to describe their systems locally through the quantum formalism, which inconveniences a theory-independent description. In addition, a theorem by Gisin and Hughston, Josza and Wootters further hindered the discovery of the phenomenon. The study of postquantum steering, initiated about a decade ago, has been quite fruitful, including: the development of mathematical formalisms that frame the effect, resource theories that quantify it as a resource, and activation protocols that relate it to Bell correlations. However, all these results have a limitation in common: they apply to scenarios with only one quantum party. Here we articulate the concept of postquantum steering for scenarios with multiple quantum parties, bringing in the missing piece to the puzzle. We provide an algorithm to certify postquantumness, which in some cases also certifies quantumness. We also define a hierarchy of semidefinite programs that bounds the set of quantum assemblages from the outside. Moreover, we show that the study of postquantum steering is fundamentally relevant since it is not just a mere mathematical curiosity allowed by the no-signalling principle, but it may arise within compositional theories beyond quantum theory. Our work further discovers a peculiarity of steering: its theory-independent description fundamentally prevents a direct connection with Bell nonlocality -- e.g., nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclassical steering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the study of postquantum steering to scenarios with multiple characterized (quantum) parties. It introduces an algorithm for certifying postquantum steering (which in some cases also certifies quantumness), defines a hierarchy of semidefinite programs that outer-bounds the set of quantum assemblages, shows that postquantum steering can arise in compositional theories beyond quantum mechanics, and claims that the theory-independent description of steering fundamentally prevents a direct connection to Bell nonlocality, with the example that nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclassical steering.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work is significant for completing the framework of postquantum steering beyond single-party cases, supplying concrete certification tools via the algorithm and SDP hierarchy, and linking the phenomenon to beyond-quantum compositional theories. The highlighted peculiarity of steering relative to Bell nonlocality could be important for distinguishing nonclassical resources, provided the non-implication is shown to be intrinsic rather than an artifact of the hybrid trust structure.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: the claim that the theory-independent description of steering 'fundamentally prevents a direct connection with Bell nonlocality' (e.g., nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclassical steering) is presented as a key discovery. Because the construction relies on multiple characterized quantum parties plus one uncharacterized party, the manuscript must supply a concrete assemblage or correlation set exhibiting Bell nonlocality yet classical steering, together with an argument that the same non-implication survives when all parties are uncharacterized (subject only to no-signaling). Without this, the 'fundamentally prevents' phrasing risks being an artifact of the partial-trust model rather than a general feature of steering.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the reference to 'a theorem by Gisin and Hughston, Josza and Wootters' contains a likely typographical error in the name 'Josza' (should be 'Jozsa'); this should be corrected.
  2. Abstract: the final sentence is long and contains two distinct ideas (the peculiarity and the example); splitting it would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our work extending postquantum steering to multiple characterized parties. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the claim that the theory-independent description of steering 'fundamentally prevents a direct connection with Bell nonlocality' (e.g., nonclassical Bell correlations do not imply nonclassical steering) is presented as a key discovery. Because the construction relies on multiple characterized quantum parties plus one uncharacterized party, the manuscript must supply a concrete assemblage or correlation set exhibiting Bell nonlocality yet classical steering, together with an argument that the same non-implication survives when all parties are uncharacterized (subject only to no-signaling). Without this, the 'fundamentally prevents' phrasing risks being an artifact of the partial-trust model rather than a general feature of steering.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit example strengthens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we add a concrete no-signaling assemblage (new Section 4.1) involving two characterized parties and one uncharacterized party: when all three parties are treated as uncharacterized the resulting correlations violate a Bell inequality, yet the steering assemblage from the uncharacterized party to the two characterized parties admits a local hidden-state model and is therefore classical. This demonstrates the desired non-implication inside the hybrid trust model. We further argue that the theory-independent description of steering is defined precisely by the presence of characterized parties; the fully device-independent (all-uncharacterized) setting therefore lies outside the scope of steering by definition, so the non-implication is intrinsic to the steering framework rather than an artifact of partial trust. A clarifying paragraph has been added to the introduction and conclusion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new definitions, algorithms, and SDPs for multi-party postquantum steering are introduced independently.

full rationale

The paper defines postquantum steering for scenarios with multiple characterized quantum parties, supplies a certification algorithm, constructs an outer-bounding SDP hierarchy, and exhibits its appearance in compositional theories beyond quantum mechanics. The claimed peculiarity (theory-independent steering description blocks direct implication from Bell nonlocality) is derived from the hybrid trust structure and explicit constructions rather than by re-labeling fitted inputs or reducing via self-citation chains. Prior results on single-party steering are cited as background but are not load-bearing for the new multi-party claims; no equation or central statement is shown to equal its own inputs by construction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the quantum description for characterised parties and the no-signaling principle as background assumptions; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Characterised parties describe their systems locally through the quantum formalism
    Explicitly stated as the setup that distinguishes steering from fully device-independent scenarios.
  • standard math No-signalling principle
    Implicit in the definition of valid assemblages and postquantum phenomena.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5611 in / 1172 out tokens · 115613 ms · 2026-05-10T18:14:28.434370+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Discussion of probability relations between separated systems

    Erwin Schr¨ odinger. “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”. Math- ematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society31, 555–563 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Probability relations between separated systems

    E. Schr¨ odinger. “Probability relations between separated systems”. Mathematical Pro- ceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society32, 446–452 (1936)

    work page 1936

  3. [3]

    Steering, entangle- ment, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

    Howard M Wiseman, Steve James Jones, and Andrew C Doherty. “Steering, entangle- ment, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox”. Physical review letters98, 140402 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    One-sided device-independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with steering

    Cyril Branciard, Eric G Cavalcanti, Stephen P Walborn, Valerio Scarani, and Howard M Wiseman. “One-sided device-independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility, and the connection with steering”. Physical Review A85, 010301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Self-testing through EPR-steering

    Ivan ˇSupi´ c and Matty J Hoban. “Self-testing through EPR-steering”. New Journal of Physics18, 075006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Rigidity of quantum steer- ing and one-sided device-independent verifiable quantum computation

    Alexandru Gheorghiu, Petros Wallden, and Elham Kashefi. “Rigidity of quantum steer- ing and one-sided device-independent verifiable quantum computation”. New Journal of Physics19, 023043 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum randomness extraction for various levels of characterization of the devices

    Yun Zhi Law, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Valerio Scarani, et al. “Quantum randomness extraction for various levels of characterization of the devices”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424028 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Optimal random- ness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios

    Elsa Passaro, Daniel Cavalcanti, Paul Skrzypczyk, and Antonio Ac´ ın. “Optimal random- ness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios”. New Jour- nal of Physics17, 113010 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Joint measurability, einstein- podolsky-rosen steering, and bell nonlocality

    Marco T´ ulio Quintino, Tam´ as V´ ertesi, and Nicolas Brunner. “Joint measurability, einstein- podolsky-rosen steering, and bell nonlocality”. Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Joint measurability of generalized measurements implies classicality

    Roope Uola, Tobias Moroder, and Otfried G¨ uhne. “Joint measurability of generalized measurements implies classicality”. Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160403 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Quantitative relations between measurement incom- patibility, quantum steering, and nonlocality

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk. “Quantitative relations between measurement incom- patibility, quantum steering, and nonlocality”. Phys. Rev. A93, 052112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. “Quantum nonlocality as an axiom”. Foundations of Physics24, 379–385 (1994)

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    Bell nonlocality

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. “Bell nonlocality”. Reviews of Modern Physics86, 419 (2014). 17

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Postquantum steering

    Ana Bel´ en Sainz, Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Paul Skrzypczyk, and Tam´ as V´ ertesi. “Postquantum steering”. Physical review letters115, 190403 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity

    Nicolas Gisin. “Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity”. Helvetica Physica Acta62, 363–371 (1989)

    work page 1989

  16. [16]

    A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix

    Lane P Hughston, Richard Jozsa, and William K Wootters. “A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix”. Physics Letters A183, 14–18 (1993)

    work page 1993

  17. [17]

    Bipar- tite postquantum steering in generalized scenarios

    Ana Bel´ en Sainz, Matty J Hoban, Paul Skrzypczyk, and Leandro Aolita. “Bipar- tite postquantum steering in generalized scenarios”. Physical Review Letters125, 050404 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    A formalism for steering with local quantum measurements

    Ana Bel´ en Sainz, Leandro Aolita, Marco Piani, Matty J Hoban, and Paul Skrzypczyk. “A formalism for steering with local quantum measurements”. New Journal of Physics20, 083040 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Post-quantum steering is a stronger-than-quantum resource for information processing

    Paulo J Cavalcanti, John H Selby, Jamie Sikora, Thomas D Galley, and Ana Bel´ en Sainz. “Post-quantum steering is a stronger-than-quantum resource for information processing”. npj Quantum Information8, 1–10 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Activation of post-quantum steering

    Ana Bel´ en Sainz, Paul Skrzypczyk, and Matty J Hoban. “Activation of post-quantum steering”. New Journal of Physics27, 124508 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Activation of postquantumness in bipartite generalized einstein-podolsky-rosen scenarios

    Beata Zjawin, Matty J Hoban, Paul Skrzypczyk, and Ana Bel´ en Sainz. “Activation of postquantumness in bipartite generalized einstein-podolsky-rosen scenarios”. Physical Re- view A110, 042212 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    A hierarchy of semidefinite pro- grams for generalised Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen scenarios

    Matty J. Hoban, Tom Drescher, and Ana Bel´ en Sainz. “A hierarchy of semidefinite pro- grams for generalised Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen scenarios”. Quantum9, 1591 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Every nonsignaling channel is common-cause realizable

    Paulo J Cavalcanti, John H Selby, and Ana Bel´ en Sainz. “Every nonsignaling channel is common-cause realizable”. Physical Review A109, 042211 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Detection of entanglement in asymmetric quantum networks and multipartite quan- tum steering

    Daniel Cavalcanti, Paul Skrzypczyk, GH Aguilar, RV Nery, PH Souto Ribeiro, and SP Wal- born. “Detection of entanglement in asymmetric quantum networks and multipartite quan- tum steering”. Nature communications6, 1–6 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Quantum steering

    Roope Uola, Ana CS Costa, H Chau Nguyen, and Otfried G¨ uhne. “Quantum steering”. Reviews of Modern Physics92, 015001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Bounding the set of quantum correlations

    Miguel Navascu´ es, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Ac´ ın. “Bounding the set of quantum correlations”. Physical Review Letters98, 010401 (2007)

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    A convergent hierarchy of semidef- inite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations

    Miguel Navascu´ es, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Ac´ ın. “A convergent hierarchy of semidef- inite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations”. New Journal of Physics 10, 073013 (2008). [28]https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19468921

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19468921 2008

  28. [28]

    Unified framework for correlations in terms of local quantum observables

    A. Ac´ ın, R. Augusiak, D. Cavalcanti, C. Hadley, J. K. Korbicz, M. Lewenstein, Ll. Masanes, and M. Piani. “Unified framework for correlations in terms of local quantum observables”. Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 140404 (2010)

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Matlab R2022b & R2025b

    “Matlab R2022b & R2025b”. url:https://www.mathworks.com/

    work page

  30. [30]

    CVX: MATLAB software for disciplined convex pro- gramming

    Michael Grant and Stephen Boyd. “CVX: MATLAB software for disciplined convex pro- gramming”. url:http://cvxr.com/cvx

    work page

  31. [31]

    SDPT3 — a matlab software package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3

    K. C. Toh, M. J. Todd, and R. H. T¨ ut¨ unc¨ u. “SDPT3 — a matlab software package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3”. Optimization Methods and Software11, 545– 581 (1999). 18

    work page 1999

  32. [32]

    QETLAB: a MATLAB toolbox for quantum entanglement

    Nathaniel Johnston. “QETLAB: a MATLAB toolbox for quantum entanglement”. url:http://qetlab.com

    work page

  33. [33]

    Extended non- local games and monogamy-of-entanglement games

    Nathaniel Johnston, Rajat Mittal, Vincent Russo, and John Watrous. “Extended non- local games and monogamy-of-entanglement games”. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences472, 20160003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Proposed exper- iment to test local hidden-variable theories

    John F Clauser, Michael A Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A Holt. “Proposed exper- iment to test local hidden-variable theories”. Physical review letters23, 880 (1969). A Classical vs. quantum steering In this section we briefly discuss the boundary between classical and quantum steering in our scenarios, and how this differs from the existing literatur...

    work page 1969

  35. [35]

    a classical system 14 Λ,

    work page

  36. [36]

    a probability distributionp(λ)forλ∈Λ,

    work page

  37. [37]

    a response function (normalised conditional probability distribution)p j(aj|xj,λ)for each Alice (j= 1 :n), and

    work page

  38. [38]

    a local (normalised) quantum stateρk λfor each Bob (k= 1 :N) such that: σ(k) a|x= ∑ λ∈Λ p(λ)ρk λ ∏ j=1:n pj(aj|xj,λ),∀k,a,x.(31) This classical model is depicted in Fig. 3. Remark 15.As a first remark, notice that an assemblage in our steering scenario admits of an LHS model if it also admits of an LHS model when described in the traditional framing of Eq...

    work page