Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 cited by

Faking entanglement with imperceptible measurement deviations

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Arbitrarily small measurement errors can falsely certify high-dimensional entanglement in separable systems.

desk verdict Small adversarial measurement deviations can fake high-dimensional entanglement witnesses even for separable states, shown in a classical 61-mode experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.20396 v1 pith:TIFT37T7 submitted 2026-06-18 quant-ph

Jaime Moreno , Elna Svegborn , Simon Morelli , Markus Hiekkamäaki , Lea Kopf , Robert Fickler , Armin Tavakoli This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumentanglementmeasurementerrorshigh-dimensionalwitnessesphotonicstatesseparabilityhacking
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 establishes that by deliberately embedding tiny adversarial errors into the measurement apparatus, standard tests for high-dimensional entanglement can report a violation even when the physical state is fully separable. This is shown through explicit constructions of measurement hacks on entanglement witnesses, followed by an experiment that uses classical light in spatial modes to produce apparent entanglement up to 61 dimensions with fidelity errors of only 0.23 percent. A sympathetic reader would care because entanglement certification underpins many quantum technologies, so undetected measurement deviations could lead to incorrect claims about the presence of a key resource.

What carries the argument

Adversarially encoded measurement deviations applied to entanglement witness tests, which shift the observed statistics enough for separable states to exceed the separability bound.

What would settle it

Repeating the spatial-mode experiment with the same introduced deviations but independently confirming that the measured statistics match the separable prediction exactly would show the claim does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Arbitrarily small measurement errors, when adversarially encoded in the measurement apparatus, can lead to the false certification of high-dimensional entanglement in systems that are, in fact, separable. This is achieved by introducing explicit hacking attacks to measurement devices in well-established entanglement verification tests and experimentally demonstrated using classical photonic states encoded in the spatial degree of freedom spanning up to 61 dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The photonic states remain strictly separable with the witness violation caused only by the introduced measurement deviation and no other hidden correlations or imperfections.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that arbitrarily small adversarial deviations in measurement devices can produce false positives for high-dimensional entanglement witnesses even when the underlying state is separable. It supports this with an explicit attack construction on standard verification protocols and an experimental demonstration using classical photonic states encoded in up to 61 spatial modes, achieving apparent entanglement certification with measurement fidelity errors as low as 0.23%.

Significance. If the central construction holds, the result identifies a concrete and previously under-appreciated vulnerability in high-dimensional entanglement certification that scales with system size. The explicit, parameter-free attack and the direct experimental mapping from classical separable states to apparent quantum correlations constitute a clear, falsifiable demonstration that strengthens the practical relevance of the claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental demonstration] The experimental section provides no independent separability witness or tomography performed with the original (unhacked) measurement operators on the 61-mode classical states. Without such a control, residual partial coherence, diffraction, or cross-talk could itself produce the observed witness violation, undermining the attribution of the effect solely to the 0.23% adversarial deviation.
  2. [Experimental demonstration] The manuscript supplies no error bars, repeated trials, or exclusion criteria for the classical-light data. This omission is load-bearing for the claim that the violation is produced exclusively by the introduced measurement hack rather than by uncontrolled experimental imperfections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments on the experimental demonstration.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The experimental section provides no independent separability witness or tomography performed with the original (unhacked) measurement operators on the 61-mode classical states. Without such a control, residual partial coherence, diffraction, or cross-talk could itself produce the observed witness violation, undermining the attribution of the effect solely to the 0.23% adversarial deviation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit control with the original measurement operators would strengthen attribution. Although the states are classical photonic fields (provably separable by classical electromagnetism), we will add in revision the witness values obtained on the same 61-mode states using the unhacked operators, confirming no violation occurs. This control will be included as supplementary data or an additional panel. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript supplies no error bars, repeated trials, or exclusion criteria for the classical-light data. This omission is load-bearing for the claim that the violation is produced exclusively by the introduced measurement hack rather than by uncontrolled experimental imperfections.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised manuscript will report error bars on all witness values, specify the number of repeated trials performed for each dimension, and detail the data exclusion criteria applied. These additions will be placed in the experimental methods and results sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; explicit attack construction and experimental demo are self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs explicit adversarial measurement deviations and demonstrates their effect on witness violation using classical photonic states claimed to be separable. No equation or result is defined in terms of a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation chain bears the central claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The derivation chain consists of direct construction plus laboratory realization rather than reduction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that classical photonic states are separable and that the only deviation from ideal measurements is the adversarially chosen error; no free parameters are introduced beyond the reported experimental fidelity value.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Classical light in the spatial degree of freedom is separable and cannot exhibit quantum entanglement.
    Invoked to guarantee that any apparent entanglement signal must originate from the measurement deviation rather than the input state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faking entanglement with imperceptible measurement deviations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIFT37T7

@misc{pith2026260620396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faking entanglement with imperceptible measurement deviations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIFT37T7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.20396}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum entanglement is a central resource underpinning emerging quantum technologies, enabling capabilities beyond those of classical systems. Accurate verification of entanglement is therefore crucial. However, experimental schemes usually rely on the assumption that quantum measurements can be realized exactly. As the complexity of a quantum system grows, this assumption typically becomes increasingly unrealistic, therefore leading to a widening mismatch between theoretical models and experimental implementations. Here we demonstrate that arbitrarily small measurement errors, when adversarially encoded in the measurement apparatus, can lead to the false certification of high-dimensional entanglement in systems that are, in fact, separable. This is achieved by introducing explicit hacking attacks to measurement devices in well-established entanglement verification tests. We further experimentally demonstrate this effect using classical photonic states encoded in the spatial degree of freedom, spanning up to 61 dimensions with measurement fidelity errors as low as 0.23%. Our results uncover a fundamental vulnerability in current methods for high-dimensional entanglement detection, highlighting the susceptibility of complex quantum devices to small adversarial perturbations. The findings underscore the need for developing secure verification of quantum information that is robust to bounded discrepancies between theory and experiment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Detecting high-dimensional entanglement with simple measurements

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A witness method detects high-dimensional Schmidt numbers using only strings of single-qubit Pauli measurements, demonstrated up to 16-dimensional photonic entanglement.

  2. Stable Qubit Readout and the Identifiability of Population Change

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Derives closed-form intervals for compatible population changes from calibrated qubit readouts and identifies cases where stable data permit multiple population interpretations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Physics Reports474(1–6), 1–75 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004

    G¨ uhne O, T´ oth G. Entanglement detection. Physics Reports. 2009 Apr;474(1–6):1–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004 2009

  2. [2]

    Friis , author G

    Friis N, Vitagliano G, Malik M, Huber M. Entanglement certification from theory to experiment. Nature Reviews Physics. 2019 Jan;1(1):72–87. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s42254-018-0003-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-018-0003-5 2019

  3. [3]

    Advances in high-dimensional quantum entan- glement

    Erhard M, Krenn M, Zeilinger A. Advances in high-dimensional quantum entan- glement. Nature Reviews Physics. 2020 Jul;2(7):365–381. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s42254-020-0193-5

    2020

  4. [4]

    Herrera Valencia , author V

    Valencia NH, Srivastav V, Pivoluska M, Huber M, Friis N, McCutcheon W, et al. High-dimensional pixel entanglement: efficient generation and certification. Quan- tum. 2020;4:376. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-12-24-376

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-12-24-376 2020

  5. [5]

    Entanglement-based quantum information technology: a tutorial

    Zhang Z, You C, Maga˜ na-Loaiza OS, Fickler R, Le´ on-Montiel RdJ, Torres JP, et al. Entanglement-based quantum information technology: a tutorial. Advances in Optics and Photonics. 2024;16(1):60–162. https://doi.org/10.1364/ AOP.497143

    2024

  6. [6]

    High-Dimensional Quantum Photonics: Roadmap

    Malik M, Kues M, Ikuta T, Takesue H, Bajoni D, Moss DJ, et al.: High- Dimensional Quantum Photonics: Roadmap. Available from: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2604.06528

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    Cozzolino, B

    Cozzolino D, Da Lio B, Bacco D, Oxenløwe LK. High-Dimensional Quantum Communication: Benefits, Progress, and Future Challenges. Advanced Quantum Technologies. 2019;2(12):1900038. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/qute. 201900038

    work page doi:10.1002/qute 2019

  8. [8]

    High-dimensional quantum communication with scalable photonic entanglement in time and frequency

    Chang KC, Sarihan MC, Li NKH, Kanitschar F, Akyuz KE, Chen Y, et al.: High-dimensional quantum communication with scalable photonic entanglement in time and frequency. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18212

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    High-dimensional one-way quantum processing implemented on d-level clus- ter states

    Reimer C, Sciara S, Roztocki P, Islam M, Romero Cort´ es L, Zhang Y, et al. High-dimensional one-way quantum processing implemented on d-level clus- ter states. Nature Physics. 2019 Feb;15(2):148–153. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-018-0347-x

    2019

  2. [10]

    A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions

    Ringbauer M, Meth M, Postler L, Stricker R, Blatt R, Schindler P, et al. A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions. Nature Physics. 2022 Sep;18(9):1053–1057. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01658-0

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Multichip multidimensional quantum networks with entanglement retrievability

    Zheng Y, Zhai C, Liu D, Mao J, Chen X, Dai T, et al. Multichip multidimensional quantum networks with entanglement retrievability. Science. 2023;381(6654):221–

    2023

  4. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg9210. 51

    doi

  5. [13]

    A large-scale reconfigurable multiplexed quantum photonic network

    Valencia NH, Ma A, Goel S, Leedumrongwatthanakun S, Graffitti F, Fedrizzi A, et al. A large-scale reconfigurable multiplexed quantum photonic network. Nature Photonics. 2026;20:202–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41566-025-01806-x

    2026

  6. [14]

    Security of Quantum Key Dis- tribution Usingd-Level Systems

    Cerf NJ, Bourennane M, Karlsson A, Gisin N. Security of Quantum Key Dis- tribution Usingd-Level Systems. Physical Review Letters. 2002 Mar;88:127902. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.127902

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Overcoming Noise in Entanglement Distribution

    Ecker S, Bouchard F, Bulla L, Brandt F, Kohout O, Steinlechner F, et al. Overcoming Noise in Entanglement Distribution. Physical Review X. 2019 Nov;9:041042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.041042

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Sim- ulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer

    Meth M, Zhang J, Haase JF, Edmunds C, Postler L, Jena AJ, et al. Sim- ulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer. Nature Physics. 2025;21(4):570–576. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-025-02797-w

    2025

  9. [17]

    Quick Quantum Steering: Overcoming Loss and Noise with Qudits

    Srivastav V, Valencia NH, McCutcheon W, Leedumrongwatthanakun S, Desig- nolle S, Uola R, et al. Quick Quantum Steering: Overcoming Loss and Noise with Qudits. Physical Review X. 2022 Nov;12:041023. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.12.041023

    2022

  10. [18]

    Experimental high-dimensional two-photon entanglement and violations of generalized Bell inequalities

    Dada AC, Leach J, Buller GS, Padgett MJ, Andersson E. Experimental high-dimensional two-photon entanglement and violations of generalized Bell inequalities. Nature Physics. 2011 Sep;7(9):677–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nphys1996

    2011

  11. [19]

    Bell nonlocality

    Brunner N, Cavalcanti D, Pironio S, Scarani V, Wehner S. Bell nonlocality. Rev Mod Phys. 2014 Apr;86:419–478. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Imperfect mea- surement settings: Implications for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses

    Rosset D, Ferretti-Sch¨ obitz R, Bancal JD, Gisin N, Liang YC. Imperfect mea- surement settings: Implications for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses. Physical Review A. 2012 Dec;86(6). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva. 86.062325

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Genuine Mul- tipartite Entanglement Detection with Imperfect Measurements: Concept and Experiment

    Cao H, Morelli S, Rozema LA, Zhang C, Tavakoli A, Walther P. Genuine Mul- tipartite Entanglement Detection with Imperfect Measurements: Concept and Experiment. Physical Review Letters. 2024 Oct;133(15). https://doi.org/10. 1103/physrevlett.133.150201

    2024

  14. [22]

    Entanglement Detection with Imprecise Measurements

    Morelli S, Yamasaki H, Huber M, Tavakoli A. Entanglement Detection with Imprecise Measurements. Physical Review Letters. 2022 Jun;128(25). https: //doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.128.250501

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Entanglement detection via mutually unbiased bases

    Spengler C, Huber M, Brierley S, Adaktylos T, Hiesmayr BC. Entanglement detection via mutually unbiased bases. Physical Review A. 2012 Aug;86:022311. 52 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022311

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    Schmidt number for density matrices

    Terhal BM, Horodecki P. Schmidt number for density matrices. Physical Review A. 2000 Mar;61(4). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.61.040301

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Schmidt-number witnesses and bound entan- glement

    Sanpera A, Bruß D, Lewenstein M. Schmidt-number witnesses and bound entan- glement. Physical Review A. 2001 Apr;63:050301. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.63.050301

    2001

  18. [26]

    Entanglement witnesses: construction, analysis and classification

    Chru´ sci´ nski D, Sarbicki G. Entanglement witnesses: construction, analysis and classification. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. 2014 Nov;47(48):483001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/48/483001

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Measurements in two bases are sufficient for certifying high-dimensional entan- glement

    Bavaresco J, Herrera Valencia N, Kl¨ ockl C, Pivoluska M, Erker P, Friis N, et al. Measurements in two bases are sufficient for certifying high-dimensional entan- glement. Nature Physics. 2018 Oct;14(10):1032–1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-018-0203-z

    2018

  20. [28]

    Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements

    Wootters WK, Fields BD. Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements. Annals of Physics. 1989;191(2):363–381. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(89)90322-9

    1989 doi

  21. [29]

    Resource-Efficient High-Dimensional Entan- glement Detection via Symmetric Projections

    Morelli S, Huber M, Tavakoli A. Resource-Efficient High-Dimensional Entan- glement Detection via Symmetric Projections. Physical Review Letters. 2023 Oct;131(17). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.131.170201

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Exact solution to simulta- neous intensity and phase encryption with a single phase-only hologram

    Bolduc E, Bent N, Santamato E, Karimi E, Boyd RW. Exact solution to simulta- neous intensity and phase encryption with a single phase-only hologram. Optics Letters. 2013 Sep;38(18):3546–3549. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.38.003546

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Measuring azimuthal and radial modes of photons

    Bouchard F, Valencia N, Brandt F, Fickler R, Huber M, Malik M. Measuring azimuthal and radial modes of photons. Optics Express. 2018 11;26:31925–31941. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.031925

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Binarization of multioutcome measurements in high-dimensional quantum correlation experiments

    Tavakoli A, Uola R, Pauwels J. Binarization of multioutcome measurements in high-dimensional quantum correlation experiments. Physical Review A. 2025 Apr;111(4). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.111.042433

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution

    Zapatero V, van Leent T, Arnon-Friedman R, Liu WZ, Zhang Q, Weinfurter H, et al. Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution. npj Quantum Information. 2023;9(1):10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41534-023-00684-x

    2023

  26. [34]

    Security proof for quantum key distribution using qudit systems

    Sheridan L, Scarani V. Security proof for quantum key distribution using qudit systems. Physical Review A. 2010 Sep;82:030301. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.82.030301. 53

    2010

  27. [35]

    Quantum Steering with Imprecise Measurements

    Tavakoli A. Quantum Steering with Imprecise Measurements. Physical Review Letters. 2024 Feb;132(7). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.132.070204

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Semidefinite program- ming relaxations for quantum correlations

    Tavakoli A, Pozas-Kerstjens A, Brown P, Ara´ ujo M. Semidefinite program- ming relaxations for quantum correlations. Reviews of Modern Physics. 2024 Dec;96:045006. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.96.045006

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Progress in quantum structured light

    Forbes A, Nothlawala F, Vall´ es A. Progress in quantum structured light. Nature Photonics. 2025 Dec;19(12):1291–1300. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41566-025-01795-x

    2025

  30. [38]

    Adaptive optics in microscopy

    Booth MJ. Adaptive optics in microscopy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences. 2007 09;365(1861):2829–2843. https://doi.org/10. 1098/rsta.2007.0013. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsta/article- pdf/365/1861/28...

    2007

  31. [39]

    Her- alded high-dimensional photon–photon quantum gate

    Liu ZF, Ren ZC, Wan P, Zhu WZ, Cheng ZM, Wang J, et al. Her- alded high-dimensional photon–photon quantum gate. Nature Photonics. 2026 Apr;20(4):460–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-026-01846-x

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    Advancements in super- conducting quantum computing

    Jiang YY, Deng C, Fan H, Li BY, Sun L, Tan XS, et al. Advancements in super- conducting quantum computing. National Science Review. 2025 08;12(8):nwaf246. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaf246. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/12/8/nwaf246/63509341/nwaf246.pdf

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    High- fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer

    Evered SJ, Bluvstein D, Kalinowski M, Ebadi S, Manovitz T, Zhou H, et al. High- fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer. Nature. 2023 Oct;622(7982):268–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06481-y

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box

    Chuang IL, Nielsen MA. Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box. Journal of Modern Optics. 1997;44(11- 12):2455–2467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349708231894. 54

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.