pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18750 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🪐 quant-ph

Operational Discriminability: From Noncontextuality Bounds to Bell Correlations

Seyed Arash Ghoreishi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords operational discriminabilityBell correlationsCHSH inequalitypreparation contextualitySWAP measurementsnoncontextual modelsquantum correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-copy SWAP comparison game shows that the operational discriminability of conditional states imposes an upper bound on CHSH values in Bell scenarios.

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

The paper develops an operational notion of discriminability from a two-copy comparison game using SWAP-type measurements, producing an accessible score D_op that does not require minimum-error tasks. Within preparation-noncontextual ontological models, this score is bounded above and saturates for qubits, so the game by itself does not witness contextuality. When the same measurements are applied to Bob's conditional states in a Bell experiment, the resulting distinguishability parameters yield a state-dependent upper bound on the CHSH value. This creates a direct quantitative relation in which higher operational discriminability permits stronger nonclassical correlations. Readers care because the construction turns a concrete experimental procedure for telling states apart into a concrete limit on observable Bell violation.

Core claim

We investigate discriminability from an operational and contextuality-oriented perspective using a two-copy comparison game based on SWAP-type measurements. The resulting score D_op provides an experimentally accessible notion of distinguishability. Within a preparation-noncontextual ontological model we derive a direct upper bound on the game score under a SWAP-like comparison rule and a sharp single-copy test, saturated in the natural qubit realization. In a Bell-coupled scenario in which two-copy comparison measurements are applied to Bob's conditional preparations, this yields a state-dependent upper bound on the CHSH value in terms of operational separation parameters and hence in terms

What carries the argument

The operational discriminability score D_op obtained from the SWAP-type two-copy comparison game, which supplies experimentally measurable separation parameters that directly bound the CHSH value.

If this is right

  • The maximum achievable CHSH violation is limited by the distinguishability of Bob's conditional preparations.
  • Operational discriminability functions as a resource that quantitatively constrains the strength of Bell-type nonclassical correlations.
  • The bound is saturated for qubits under the preparation-noncontextual assumption and the chosen comparison rule.
  • Experiments can use the measured game score to predict or upper-limit the expected Bell violation without separate minimum-error discrimination tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same construction could be applied to other Bell inequalities or to steering and entanglement witnesses to obtain analogous bounds.
  • Dropping the noncontextuality assumption might allow stronger correlations for the same level of discriminability.
  • The link suggests designing experiments that tune state distinguishability as a direct control on certified nonlocality.

Load-bearing premise

The upper bound on the game score and the resulting bound on CHSH assume a preparation-noncontextual ontological model together with the SWAP-like comparison rule and sharp single-copy test.

What would settle it

Measure the operational score D_op in the Bell-coupled setup and then observe a CHSH value exceeding the state-dependent upper bound computed from those D_op values.

read the original abstract

We investigate discriminability from an operational and contextuality-oriented perspective using a two-copy comparison game based on SWAP-type measurements. The resulting score $D_{\mathrm{op}}$ provides an experimentally accessible notion of distinguishability that does not rely on a minimum-error discrimination task. We first examine whether this discriminability game can directly witness preparation contextuality. Within a preparation-noncontextual ontological model, we derive a direct upper bound on the game score under a SWAP-like comparison rule and a sharp single-copy test, and show that this bound is saturated in the natural qubit realization. Thus, the direct game alone does not provide a contextuality witness in that regime. We then consider a Bell-coupled scenario in which two-copy comparison measurements are applied to Bob's conditional preparations. This yields a state-dependent upper bound on the CHSH value in terms of operational separation parameters, and hence in terms of the distinguishability of the conditional states. Our results establish a quantitative link between operational discriminability and the strength of nonclassical correlations, showing that discriminability can act as an operational resource constraining Bell-type nonclassical correlations.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an operational discriminability score D_op from a two-copy comparison game based on SWAP-type measurements. It derives an upper bound on this score in preparation-noncontextual ontological models (under SWAP-like comparison and sharp single-copy test), shows saturation in the qubit case (hence no direct contextuality witness), and extends the framework to a Bell scenario by applying the game to Bob's conditional preparations, yielding a state-dependent upper bound on CHSH in terms of operational separation parameters and thereby linking discriminability to the strength of Bell nonclassical correlations.

Significance. If the extension to conditional states is valid, the work establishes a quantitative operational resource perspective connecting distinguishability to the magnitude of Bell-type nonclassicality, which could be useful for resource theories of contextuality and Bell correlations. The saturation result for qubits is a clear positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bell-coupled scenario] The central quantitative link between D_op and Bell nonclassical correlations (abstract, final paragraph) is obtained by applying the two-copy SWAP-like discriminability game and its noncontextual bound to Bob's conditional preparations. This step inherits the preparation-noncontextual ontological model, SWAP comparison rule, and sharp single-copy test derived for independent preparations, but conditional states are post-selected on Alice's measurement outcomes. No explicit justification is given for why the ontological representation or comparison rule remains valid under this conditioning; if the model does not transfer, the claimed upper bound on CHSH and the resource interpretation do not hold.
  2. [Preparation-noncontextual bound] The derivation of the upper bound on the game score (abstract, second paragraph) assumes a preparation-noncontextual model together with the SWAP-like rule and sharp test. The manuscript states that this bound is saturated in the natural qubit realization, but without the explicit equations, steps, or verification that the saturation is achieved without additional parameter tuning or self-referential definitions, it is unclear whether the bound is robust or whether the saturation claim is load-bearing for the subsequent Bell extension.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from stating the explicit functional form of the state-dependent upper bound on CHSH (e.g., in terms of the operational separation parameters) rather than describing it only qualitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The feedback has prompted us to strengthen the justification for the Bell extension and to expand the explicit derivations, improving the overall clarity and rigor. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Bell-coupled scenario] The central quantitative link between D_op and Bell nonclassical correlations (abstract, final paragraph) is obtained by applying the two-copy SWAP-like discriminability game and its noncontextual bound to Bob's conditional preparations. This step inherits the preparation-noncontextual ontological model, SWAP comparison rule, and sharp single-copy test derived for independent preparations, but conditional states are post-selected on Alice's measurement outcomes. No explicit justification is given for why the ontological representation or comparison rule remains valid under this conditioning; if the model does not transfer, the claimed upper bound on CHSH and the resource interpretation do not hold.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not supply an explicit justification for the transfer of the preparation-noncontextual model to conditional preparations. In the revised version we have inserted a new subsection (Section 4.1) that provides the required argument: the joint system is described by a single preparation-noncontextual ontological model; Alice's measurements are compatible with this model and satisfy no-signaling, so the post-selected ensembles on Bob's side remain preparation-noncontextual preparations within the same model. The SWAP-like comparison and sharp single-copy test are purely operational procedures applied directly to the conditional states and therefore inherit the same validity. We have added the intermediate equations showing how the noncontextual bound on D_op for these conditional states yields the stated state-dependent upper bound on the CHSH value. This revision removes the gap and supports the resource-theoretic interpretation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Preparation-noncontextual bound] The derivation of the upper bound on the game score (abstract, second paragraph) assumes a preparation-noncontextual model together with the SWAP-like rule and sharp test. The manuscript states that this bound is saturated in the natural qubit realization, but without the explicit equations, steps, or verification that the saturation is achieved without additional parameter tuning or self-referential definitions, it is unclear whether the bound is robust or whether the saturation claim is load-bearing for the subsequent Bell extension.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation of the bound derivation and qubit saturation was insufficiently explicit. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section 3 with a complete step-by-step derivation: starting from the ontological representation of the two preparations, applying the SWAP-like comparison rule to the joint probability, and invoking preparation noncontextuality to obtain the upper bound on D_op. We have also added an appendix containing the explicit verification for the qubit case (standard states |0⟩ and |+⟩), showing that the bound is attained exactly with no free parameters or self-referential definitions. These additions confirm that the bound is tight and robust, thereby supporting its use in the Bell extension. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bounds derived from independent ontological assumptions

full rationale

The derivation begins from preparation-noncontextual ontological models plus explicit SWAP-like comparison rules and sharp single-copy tests to obtain an upper bound on the two-copy game score D_op. This bound is then applied to Bob's conditional states in the Bell scenario to constrain CHSH. Both steps rest on stated model assumptions that are external to the target correlation value; the saturation in qubits is a verification step, not a fit. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear. The quantitative link between discriminability and Bell nonclassicality is a consequence of the model, not a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption of preparation noncontextuality for the first bound and on the operational definitions of the SWAP-type comparison game and sharp single-copy test; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Preparation-noncontextual ontological model
    Invoked to derive the direct upper bound on the discriminability game score and its saturation in qubit realizations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5486 in / 1292 out tokens · 73534 ms · 2026-05-10T04:27:45.967400+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Prepare systemBusingP (p) η , wherepis a fixed labeling (permutation) of the two prior outcomes

    work page

  2. [3]

    Let p(p) mix :=p(pass|P T , P(p) η ;M swap) (19) denote the observedpassprobability

    ApplyM swap to the pair (A, B) and record whether the outcome ispass. Let p(p) mix :=p(pass|P T , P(p) η ;M swap) (19) denote the observedpassprobability. In the second experiment, denotedG pur, each run pro- ceeds as follows:

    work page

  3. [4]

    Prepare systemAusingP T

    work page

  4. [5]

    Prepare systemBindependently usingP T

    work page

  5. [6]

    Let ppur :=p(pass|P T , PT ;M swap) (20) denote the observedpassprobability

    ApplyM swap to the pair (A, B) and recordpass. Let ppur :=p(pass|P T , PT ;M swap) (20) denote the observedpassprobability. Now assume that the prior probabilities (η 1, η2) are known a priori. (For the two-outcome case, there are two possible labelings p∈S 2.) We define theoperational discriminabilityas a scored game whose score is a function of the expe...

    work page

  6. [7]

    Consequently,p pur need not equal 1, and the square-root term inD op can re- main nonzero

    For larger ontic state spaces, the sharp single-copy test does not forceP T andP ˜T to be represented by point distributions, but only implies that their epistemic states have disjoint supports. Consequently,p pur need not equal 1, and the square-root term inD op can re- main nonzero. Thus, Theorem 1 should be interpreted as a minimal-model bound rather t...

    work page

  7. [8]

    Let πa|x :=p(a|x) denote Alice’s conditional-outcome probabilities

    Conditional states and Bob’s observables Assume that Bob’s conditional preparations admit a qubit realization ρa|x = 1 2 I+s a|x ·σ , a∈ {±1}, x∈ {0,1},(A1) wheres a|x ∈R 3 are Bloch vectors with∥s a|x∥ ≤1. Let πa|x :=p(a|x) denote Alice’s conditional-outcome probabilities. Bob’s binary projective measurement for settingy∈ {0,1}is written as By =b y ·σ,∥b...

    work page

  8. [9]

    (A3), Exy =π +|x s+|x ·b y −π −|x s−|x ·b y =r x ·b y,(A6) where we define the weighted steering vector rx :=π +|xs+|x −π −|xs−|x.(A7) 10

    Correlators in terms of weighted steering vectors The correlators are Exy = X a,b=±1 ab p(a, b|x, y).(A4) Usingp(a, b|x, y) =p(a|x)p(b|a, x, y) gives Exy = X a=±1 a p(a|x) X b=±1 b p(b|a, x, y) = X a=±1 a πa|x Tr(ρa|xBy).(A5) By Eq. (A3), Exy =π +|x s+|x ·b y −π −|x s−|x ·b y =r x ·b y,(A6) where we define the weighted steering vector rx :=π +|xs+|x −π −|...

    work page

  9. [10]

    (A6), SCHSH =r 0 ·b 0 +r 0 ·b 1 +r 1 ·b 0 −r 1 ·b 1 =r 0 ·(b 0 +b 1) +r 1 ·(b 0 −b 1).(A9) Define u:=b 0 +b 1,v:=b 0 −b 1

    Bounding the CHSH value The CHSH value is SCHSH =E 00 +E 01 +E 10 −E 11.(A8) Using Eq. (A6), SCHSH =r 0 ·b 0 +r 0 ·b 1 +r 1 ·b 0 −r 1 ·b 1 =r 0 ·(b 0 +b 1) +r 1 ·(b 0 −b 1).(A9) Define u:=b 0 +b 1,v:=b 0 −b 1. Then SCHSH =r 0 ·u+r 1 ·v. Applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives the fol- lowing. |r0 ·u+r 1 ·v| ≤ p ∥r0∥2 +∥r 1∥2 p ∥u∥2 +∥v∥ 2.(A10) Since...

    work page

  10. [11]

    (A7), ∥rx∥2 =π 2 +|x∥s+|x∥2 +π 2 −|x∥s−|x∥2 −2π +|xπ−|x s+|x ·s −|x

    Relating eRx to the weighted steering-vector norm Starting from Eq. (A7), ∥rx∥2 =π 2 +|x∥s+|x∥2 +π 2 −|x∥s−|x∥2 −2π +|xπ−|x s+|x ·s −|x. (A13) For qubits, Tr(ρ2) = 1 2(1+∥s∥ 2),Tr(ρρ ′) = 1 2(1+s·s ′).(A14) Hence ∥s+|x∥2 = 2Tr(ρ2 +|x)−1,(A15) ∥s−|x∥2 = 2Tr(ρ2 −|x)−1,(A16) s+|x ·s −|x = 2Tr(ρ+|xρ−|x)−1.(A17) Substituting into Eq. (A13), ∥rx∥2 =π 2 +|x 2Tr(...

    work page

  11. [12]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of statistical physics1, 231 (1969)

    work page 1969

  12. [13]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoreti- cal Computer Science560, 7 (2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [14]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 145 (2002)

    work page 2002

  14. [15]

    RENNER, Security of quantum key distribution, International Journal of Quantum Information06, 1 (2008)

    R. RENNER, Security of quantum key distribution, International Journal of Quantum Information06, 1 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [16]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of Modern 11 Physics81, 1301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [17]

    S. A. Ghoreishi, G. Scala, R. Renner, L. L. Tacca, J. Bouda, S. P. Walborn, and M. Paw lowski, The future of secure communications: Device independence in quan- tum key distribution, Physics Reports1149, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [18]

    M. G. A. PARIS, Quantum estimation for quantum tech- nology, International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [19]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estima- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [20]

    Montenegro, C

    V. Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. Paris, and A. Bayat, Re- view: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Physics Reports1134, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [21]

    Chefles, Quantum state discrimination, Contempo- rary Physics41, 401 (2000)

    A. Chefles, Quantum state discrimination, Contempo- rary Physics41, 401 (2000)

    work page 2000

  21. [22]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, Quantum state discrimina- tion, Advances in Optics and Photonics1, 238 (2009)

    work page 2009

  22. [23]

    Bae and L.-C

    J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, Quantum state discrimination and its applications, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 083001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [24]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, trans- formations, and unsharp measurements, Physical Review A71, 052108 (2005)

    work page 2005

  24. [25]

    Schmid, R

    D. Schmid, R. W. Spekkens, and E. Wolfe, All the noncontextuality inequalities for arbitrary prepare-and- measure experiments with respect to any fixed set of operational equivalences, Physical Review A97, 062103 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [26]

    Lostaglio and G

    M. Lostaglio and G. Senno, Contextual advantage for state-dependent cloning, Quantum4, 258 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [27]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Kochen-specker contextuality, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 045007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Ara´ ujo, M

    M. Ara´ ujo, M. T. Quintino, C. Budroni, M. T. Cunha, and A. Cabello, All noncontextuality inequalities for the n-cycle scenario, Physical Review A88, 022118 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [29]

    Borges, M

    G. Borges, M. Carvalho, P.-L. de Assis, J. Ferraz, M. Ara´ ujo, A. Cabello, M. T. Cunha, and S. P´ adua, Quantum contextuality in a young-type interference ex- periment, Physical Review A89, 052106 (2014)

    work page 2014

  29. [30]

    Schmid and R

    D. Schmid and R. W. Spekkens, Contextual advantage for state discrimination, Physical Review X8, 011015 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [31]

    J. Shin, D. Ha, and Y. Kwon, Quantum contextual ad- vantage depending on nonzero prior probabilities in state discrimination of mixed qubit states, Entropy23, 1583 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [32]

    Flatt, H

    K. Flatt, H. Lee, C. R. I. Carceller, J. B. Brask, and J. Bae, Contextual advantages and certification for maximum-confidence discrimination, PRX Quantum3, 030337 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [33]

    Mukherjee, S

    S. Mukherjee, S. Naonit, and A. K. Pan, Discriminating three mirror-symmetric states with a restricted contex- tual advantage, Physical Review A106, 012216 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [34]

    Roch i Carceller and J

    C. Roch i Carceller and J. B. Brask, Contextuality wit- ness inspired by optimal state discrimination, Physical Review A109, 032202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [35]

    Namkung and H.-T

    M. Namkung and H.-T. Lim, Contextuality-enhanced quantum state discrimination under fixed failure proba- bility, Physical Review A113, 10.1103/zx3b-y3fc (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/zx3b-y3fc 2026

  35. [36]

    Flatt and J

    K. Flatt and J. Bae, Contextual advantages across two- state discrimination strategies, New Journal of Physics 28, 044509 (2026)

    work page 2026

  36. [37]

    Bae and W.-Y

    J. Bae and W.-Y. Hwang, Minimum-error discrimination of qubit states: Methods, solutions, and properties, Phys- ical Review A87, 012334 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [38]

    Ha and Y

    D. Ha and Y. Kwon, Complete analysis for three- qubit mixed-state discrimination, Physical Review A87, 062302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  38. [39]

    G. Weir, S. M. Barnett, and S. Croke, Optimal discrim- ination of single-qubit mixed states, Physical Review A 96, 022312 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [40]

    Ha and Y

    D. Ha and Y. Kwon, Complete analysis to minimum-error discrimination of four mixed qubit states with arbitrary prior probabilities, Quantum Information Processing22, 10.1007/s11128-022-03814-0 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03814-0 2023

  40. [41]

    Rouhbakhsh N and S

    M. Rouhbakhsh N and S. A. Ghoreishi, Geometric bloch vector solution to minimum-error discriminations of mixed qubit states, Quantum Information Processing 22, 323 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [42]

    L¨ u and S.-H

    X. L¨ u and S.-H. Dong, Algebraic approach to minimum- error discrimination of qubit states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical59, 105301 (2026)

    work page 2026

  42. [43]

    M. Ban, K. Kurokawa, R. Momose, and O. Hirota, Opti- mum measurements for discrimination among symmetric quantum states and parameter estimation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics36, 1269 (1997)

    work page 1997

  43. [44]

    Andersson, S

    E. Andersson, S. M. Barnett, C. R. Gilson, and K. Hunter, Minimum-error discrimination between three mirror-symmetric states, Physical Review A65, 052308 (2002)

    work page 2002

  44. [45]

    Chou, Minimum-error discrimination among mirror-symmetric mixed quantum states, Physical Re- view A70, 062316 (2004)

    C.-L. Chou, Minimum-error discrimination among mirror-symmetric mixed quantum states, Physical Re- view A70, 062316 (2004)

    work page 2004

  45. [46]

    S. A. Ghoreishi and M. Ziman, Minimum-error discrimi- nation of thermal states, Physical Review A104, 062402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    L¨ u, Optimal discrimination of geometrically uniform qubit and qutrit states, Physical Review A107, 022401 (2023)

    X. L¨ u, Optimal discrimination of geometrically uniform qubit and qutrit states, Physical Review A107, 022401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [48]

    Ivanovic, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A123, 257 (1987)

    I. Ivanovic, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A123, 257 (1987)

    work page 1987

  48. [49]

    Dieks, Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states, Physics Letters A126, 303 (1988)

    D. Dieks, Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states, Physics Letters A126, 303 (1988)

    work page 1988

  49. [50]

    Peres, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A128, 19 (1988)

    A. Peres, How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states, Physics Letters A128, 19 (1988)

    work page 1988

  50. [51]

    Jaeger and A

    G. Jaeger and A. Shimony, Optimal distinction between two non-orthogonal quantum states, Physics Letters A 197, 83 (1995)

    work page 1995

  51. [52]

    Chefles and S

    A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, Optimum unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent symmetric states, Physics Letters A250, 223 (1998)

    work page 1998

  52. [53]

    M. A. Jafarizadeh, M. Rezaei, N. Karimi, and A. R. Amiri, Optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantum states, Physical Review A77, 042314 (2008)

    work page 2008

  53. [54]

    Sugimoto, T

    H. Sugimoto, T. Hashimoto, M. Horibe, and A. Hayashi, Complete solution for unambiguous discrimination of three pure states with real inner products, Physical Re- view A82, 032338 (2010)

    work page 2010

  54. [55]

    J. A. Bergou, U. Futschik, and E. Feldman, Optimal un- ambiguous discrimination of pure quantum states, Phys- ical Review Letters108, 250502 (2012)

    work page 2012

  55. [56]

    Ha and Y

    D. Ha and Y. Kwon, Analysis of optimal unambiguous discrimination of three pure quantum states, Physical Re- view A91, 062312 (2015). 12

    work page 2015

  56. [57]

    S. A. Ghoreishi, S. J. Akhtarshenas, and M. Sarbishaei, Parametrization of quantum states based on the quan- tum state discrimination problem, Quantum Information Processing18, 150 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [58]

    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)

    work page 1969