REVIEW 1 minor 91 references
For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry reduces verification with local states to checking a single basis state.
Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →
T0 review · grok-4.3
2026-07-02 22:09 UTC pith:YB5ZIZIF
load-bearing objection Symmetry reduces verification of locally transitive irreducible projective measurements to single-state verification, with explicit local protocols and closed forms for several families.
Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry reduces locality constrained quantum measurement verification to quantum state verification of a single basis state, reducing protocol design to the optimization of homogeneous verification operators. Explicit local protocols are derived for generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter measurements on two qubits, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer state induced measurements, along with closed-form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. Homogeneous QMV protocols can also estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.
What carries the argument
The symmetry reduction that maps locality-constrained QMV for such measurements to verification of a single basis state using homogeneous verification operators.
Load-bearing premise
The measurements must satisfy local transitivity and irreducibility as projective measurements.
What would settle it
A counterexample where a locally transitive irreducible projective measurement's QMV cannot be reduced to single basis state verification via symmetry, or where the derived sample complexities do not match experimental observation.
If this is right
- Derivation of explicit local protocols for several classes of entangled measurements including generalized Bell measurements.
- Closed-form expressions for verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities.
- Direct estimation of measurement fidelity from passing frequencies in homogeneous protocols.
- Simplification of protocol design through optimization of homogeneous verification operators.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- This reduction may enable verification in distributed quantum systems where global entangled states are hard to prepare.
- The method could be tested on other symmetric measurements beyond those listed.
- It suggests that fidelity estimation might be possible without full tomography in similar settings.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper develops a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations. For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry is shown to reduce locality-constrained QMV to quantum state verification of a single basis state, reducing protocol design to optimization of homogeneous verification operators. The framework is instantiated on generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter two-qubit measurements, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer-induced measurements, yielding explicit local protocols together with closed-form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. It is further shown that homogeneous QMV protocols estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.
Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a symmetry-based reduction that simplifies verification of a relevant subclass of entangled measurements to a standard state-verification task, together with explicit closed-form protocols for several concrete families. The direct fidelity estimator from passing rates is a practical addition. Explicit constructions and closed-form expressions are shipped, which strengthens usability for quantum device certification.
minor comments (1)
- [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'single-parameter measurements on two qubits' is used without a brief characterizing equation or reference; a parenthetical definition would improve immediate readability.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its significance, and recommendation to accept. We are pleased that the symmetry reduction, explicit protocols, and fidelity estimation were viewed as useful contributions.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity detected
full rationale
The paper scopes its core reduction explicitly to the subclass of locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements and presents the symmetry reduction to single-basis-state verification as a direct mathematical consequence of those group-action properties (not as a definitional equivalence or fitted-parameter renaming). No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem imported from prior author work is visible in the abstract or described framework; the subsequent instantiations on concrete families supply explicit operators and probabilities derived from the reduction rather than presupposing them. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external symmetry assumptions.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
read the original abstract
We develop a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations. For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, we prove that symmetry reduces locality constrained QMV to quantum state verification of a single basis state, thereby reducing protocol design to the optimization of homogeneous verification operators. We apply the framework to generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter measurements on two qubits, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer state induced measurements, and derive explicit local protocols together with closed form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. We further show that homogeneous QMV protocols can estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
For every θ ∈ Θ, Tθ(S) is a valid verification operator for the state |ψθ⟩; namely, 0 ≤ Tθ(S) ≤ 1 , Tθ(S)|ψθ⟩ = |ψθ⟩. ( 17)
-
[2]
The QMV worst-case passing probability is equal to the QSV worst-case passing probability for any fixed outcome θ; namely, for any θ ∈ Θ, P(S, ε) = max σ≥0, Tr[σ]=1: ⟨ψθ |σ|ψθ ⟩≤1−ε Tr[Tθ(S)σ]. ( 18) In particular, the value of the maximization on the right hand side is independent of the choice of θ. 5
-
[3]
Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε
The second largest eigenvalue of Tθ(S) is independent of θ. Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε. ( 19) Equivalently, for every θ ∈ Θ, λ2(Tθ(S)) = λ2(S). ( 20) Theorem 2 is the main reduction result and is shown in Appendix B 2. It turns the original optimization over faulty POVMs in Eq. (8) into the familiar QSV problem ...
-
[4]
(37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM is defined as Jκ = {|Φκ j ⟩ ⟨Φκ j | : j = 0, 1, 2, 3}
Define four orthonormal states [ 54]: |Φκ 0⟩ = 1 2 e− iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e− 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37a) |Φκ 1⟩ = 1 2 e iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37b) |Φκ 2⟩ = 1 2 e− 3iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e− iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37c) |Φκ 3⟩ = 1 2 e 3iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e iπ 4 |11⟩ . (37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM ...
work page 2025
-
[5]
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 70, 1895 (1993)
work page 1993
-
[6]
Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)
N. Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)
-
[7]
Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025)
work page 2025
- [8]
- [9]
-
[10]
PsiQuantum team, Nature 641, 876 (2025)
work page 2025
-
[11]
Fiurášek, Physical Review A 64, 024102 (2001)
J. Fiurášek, Physical Review A 64, 024102 (2001)
work page 2001
-
[12]
J. S. Lundeen, A. Feito, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, K. L. Pregnell, C. Silberhorn, T. C. Ralph, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Nature Physics 5, 27 (2008)
work page 2008
-
[13]
M. Hayashi, K. Matsumoto, and Y. Tsuda, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, 14427 (2006)
work page 2006
-
[14]
Discrete realization of group symmetric LOCC-detection of maximally entangled state
M. Hayashi, arXiv: 0810.3381 10 .48550/arXiv.0810.3381 (2008)
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
-
[15]
Hayashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 043028 (2009)
M. Hayashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 043028 (2009)
work page 2009
- [16]
-
[17]
T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, Physical Review A 96, 062321 (2017)
work page 2017
- [18]
-
[19]
S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Physical Review Letters 120, 170502 (2018)
work page 2018
- [20]
- [21]
-
[22]
X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, npj Quantum Informa- tion 5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0226-z (2019)
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26]
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
-
[30]
N. Dangniam, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Physical Review Research 2, 043323 (2020)
work page 2020
- [31]
-
[32]
X. Jiang, K. Wang, K. Qian, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, L. Xia, F. Song, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, npj Quantum Information 6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00317-7 (2020)
-
[33]
W.-H. Zhang, X. Liu, P . Yin, X.-X. Peng, G.-C. Li, X.- Y. Xu, S. Yu, Z.-B. Hou, Y.-J. Han, J.-S. Xu, Z.-Q. Zhou, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, npj Quantum Informa- tion 6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00328-4 (2020)
- [34]
-
[35]
Y.-G. Han, Z. Li, Y. Wang, and H. Zhu, npj Quantum Information 7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00499-8 (2021)
-
[36]
Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, and X. Zhang, Physical Review Re- search 3, L042004 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[37]
Y.-D. Wu, G. Bai, G. Chiribella, and N. Liu, Physical Re- view Letters 126, 240503 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[38]
Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, R. Han, and X. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 126, 090504 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[39]
Y. Li, H. Zhang, Z. Li, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 104, 062439 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[40]
J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, Physical Review Letters 129, 190504 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[41]
Y.-C. Liu, Y. Li, J. Shang, and X. Zhang, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies 6, 2300083 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[42]
H. Zhu, Y. Li, and T. Chen, Quantum 8, 1221 (2024)
work page 2024
-
[43]
T. Chen, Y. Li, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 107, 022616 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[44]
L. Xia, L. Lu, K. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, New Journal of Physics 24, 095002 (2022)
work page 2022
- [45]
-
[46]
Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and X. Zhang, Physical Review A 101, 042315 (2020)
work page 2020
- [47]
-
[48]
P . Zeng, Y. Zhou, and Z. Liu, Physical Review Research 2, 023306 (2020)
work page 2020
-
[49]
M. Luo, X. Zhang, and X. Zhou, Physical Review A 105, 012614 (2022)
work page 2022
- [50]
- [51]
-
[52]
J. Chen, P . Zeng, Q. Zhao, X. Ma, and Y. Zhou, PRX Quantum 6, 040353 (2025)
work page 2025
- [53]
-
[54]
Y. Hu, C. Zheng, X. Yu, and Z. Zhang, Quantum Science and Technology 11, 025014 (2026)
work page 2026
-
[55]
X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, Advanced Quantum Technologies 5, 2100126 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[56]
Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017)
M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017). 10
work page 2017
-
[57]
A. Tavakoli, N. Gisin, and C. Branciard, Physical Review Letters 126, 220401 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[58]
C.-X. Huang, X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, N. Gisin, C. Branciard, and A. Tavakoli, Physical Review Letters 129, 030502 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[59]
S. Wollmann, X. Qiang, A. Montanaro, N. Linden, and J. C. F. Matthews, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2306.01068 10.48550/arXiv.2306.01068 (2023)
-
[60]
Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States
T. DURT, B.-G. ENGLERT, I. BENGTSSON, and K. ˙ZY- CZKOWSKI, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 08, 535 (2010). 11 Supplemental Material for “Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States” This Supplemental Material is organized as follows. Appendix A collects basic properties of the maximal passing probability used in QMV ...
work page 2010
-
[61]
Proof of Proposition 1 15
-
[62]
Preparation of a key lemma 16 b
Proof of Theorem 2 15 a. Preparation of a key lemma 16 b. Reduction to quantum state verification 16 C. Generalized Bell measurement verification 19
-
[63]
Introduction to generalized Bell measurements 19
-
[64]
Symmetries of generalized Bell measurements 20
-
[65]
Proof of Corollary 3 20 a. Verification protocol 20 b. Performance analysis 20 D. Single-parameter measurement on two qubits verification 21
-
[66]
Introduction to single-parameter measurements on two qubits 21
-
[67]
Symmetries of single-parameter measurements on two qubits 21
-
[68]
Proof of Corollary 4 22 a. Verification protocol 22 b. Performance analysis 22 E. Elegant joint measurement verification 23
-
[69]
Introduction to elegant joint measurements 23
-
[70]
Symmetries of elegant joint measurements 24
-
[71]
Proof of Corollary 5 24 a. Verification protocol 24 b. Performance analysis 25 F. Stabilizer state induced measurement verification 26
-
[72]
Introduction to stabilizer state induced measurements 26
-
[73]
Symmetries of stabilizer state induced measurements 26
-
[74]
Proof of Corollary 6 26 a. Verification protocol 27 b. Performance analysis 27 G. Discussion on measurement fidelity estimation 28 Appendix A: Properties of the maximal probability In this section, we collect several basic properties of the maximal passing probability P(S, ε) defined in Eq. (8) of the main text. These properties are used when designing ef...
-
[75]
For any POVM M = {Mθ}θ∈Θ, define the averaged POVM ¯Mθ := 1 |G| ∑ g∈G V†(g)MgθV(g)
Proof of Proposition 1 For any local protocol S = {px, (ρx, P (ρx))}x∈X , its symmetrization ¯S is local because each V(g) is a product unitary. For any POVM M = {Mθ}θ∈Θ, define the averaged POVM ¯Mθ := 1 |G| ∑ g∈G V†(g)MgθV(g). (B 1) Then ¯M := { ¯Mθ}θ∈Θ is a valid POVM and F(P, ¯M) = 1 |Θ| ∑ θ∈Θ ⟨ψθ| ¯Mθ|ψθ⟩ = 1 |G||Θ| ∑ g∈G ∑ θ∈Θ ⟨ψgθ|Mgθ|ψgθ⟩ = F(P, M...
-
[76]
Proof of Theorem 2 This appendix first proves a lifting lemma for stabilizer-twirled states and then uses it to reduce the QMV analysis to QSV for one representative outcome. 16 a. Preparation of a key lemma To prove Theorem 2 from the main text, the following key lemma is needed to lift a stabilizer-twirled state to a POVM. Lemma 12. Let P = {|ψθ⟩ ⟨ψθ|}θ...
-
[77]
For every positive integer d, define the set Zd := {0, · · · , d − 1}
Introduction to generalized Bell measurements We first define the Weyl operators, which generalize the qubit Pauli operators. For every positive integer d, define the set Zd := {0, · · · , d − 1}. Whenever elements of Zd appear in arithmetic expressions, we assume that the operations are to be taken modulo d. The discrete Weyl operators acting on a Hilber...
-
[78]
After quotienting out phases, its action is represented by Wa,b ⊗ Wc,e with (a, b), (c, e) ∈ Z2 d
Symmetries of generalized Bell measurements Let G be the local Weyl group, including phases. After quotienting out phases, its action is represented by Wa,b ⊗ Wc,e with (a, b), (c, e) ∈ Z2 d. This action maps Bell states to Bell states and is transitive on {|Ψx,z⟩ : (x, z) ∈ Z2 d}, so the GBM is locally transitive. The stabilizer of |Ψ⋆⟩ is, up to phases,...
-
[79]
Proof of Corollary 3 We prove Corollary 3 by constructing a local protocol and showing that its representative operator is the optimal separable verification operator for |Ψ⋆⟩. a. Verification protocol Assume that d is prime, so that Zd is the finite field Fd. Introduce the equivalence relation on F2 d \ {(0, 0)} by (x, z) ∼ (x′, z′) if there exists a ∈ F...
-
[80]
Introduction to single-parameter measurements on two qubits The single-parameter measurement on two qubits Pγ is defined in Eq. (32). It interpolates between product basis measurements at γ = 0, π/2 and the Bell measurement at γ = π/4. This appendix presents the local protocol used in Corollary 4 and computes its homogeneous verification operators explicitly
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.