Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 53 references

For every unital qubit channel, projective measurements determine the exact POVM-incompatibility threshold.

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 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-01 01:54 UTC pith:O7PXHSYR

load-bearing objection The stress-test flag on Lemma 1 doesn't hold up — the h-coefficient algebra works out because α2 is a convex combination — and the main theorem looks correct and is a genuine advance.

arxiv 2607.27757 v1 pith:O7PXHSYR submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Exact Incompatibility-Breaking Criterion for Unital Qubit Channels

Yujie Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581P45 PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.Ud03.67.-a
keywords quantum measurement incompatibilityjoint measurabilityPOVMunital qubit channelquantum steeringWerner stateBloch spheredepolarizing channel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper establishes that for every unital qubit channel, projective measurements already determine the exact boundary for all generalized measurements: the channel destroys the incompatibility of every POVM precisely when 2∫‖D n̂‖dμ ≤ 1, where D is the channel's Bloch matrix. This closes the gap between known PVM criteria and sufficient conditions for POVMs, unifying the two notions of incompatibility breaking for the entire unital qubit class. Through the steering–joint-measurability correspondence, the same condition gives the exact POVM-steering boundary for all two-qubit states with maximally mixed marginals, with Werner states as a special case. For nonunital channels and arbitrary two-qubit states, the paper contributes an explicit sufficient condition and a generally asymmetric parent POVM.

Core claim

The central claim is an exact criterion: a unital qubit channel N_D is incompatibility breaking for arbitrary POVMs if and only if 2∫_{S²} ‖D n̂‖ dμ(n̂) ≤ 1. The proof constructs an explicit parent POVM Π_D(n̂) = 2[(‖D n̂‖+δ_D)1 + (D n̂)·σ]dμ(n̂), uses a support-function dual characterization to reduce universal simulability to a dual witness inequality, and then invokes a spherical-average inequality (Lemma 1) to show the witness can never beat the parent. Necessity follows because PVMs are a subclass of POVMs. Consequently PVM- and POVM-incompatibility breaking coincide for all unital qubit channels; via the steering–joint-measurability correspondence this yields the exact POVM-steering th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Lemma 1, a spherical integral inequality. For any even nonnegative h:S²→[0,∞) with spherical average 1/2, any finite set of unit vectors {u_i} whose convex hull contains the origin, and any positive weights α_i, the integral over the sphere of max_i α_i(u_i·n̂ − h(n̂)) is nonnegative. In Theorem 1 the noise function h_D(n̂)=‖D n̂‖+δ_D has exactly the right average, and the orthogonality condition P_a Q_a=0 forces the active directions u_a to form a set with 0 in their convex hull; Carathéodory's theorem reduces the verification to 2, 3, and 4 directions.

Load-bearing premise

The sufficiency proof rests entirely on Lemma 1, the geometric inequality that for every even h with average 1/2 and every centered direction set, ∫ max_i α_i(u_i·n̂ − h(n̂)) dμ ≥ 0; if that inequality failed for some h and directions, the explicit parent POVM would not simulate all POVMs.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Lemma 1 integral for h(n̂)=3/8(1+n̂_z²) — which is even and averages to 1/2 — and for the four vertices of a regular tetrahedron as {u_i}, with arbitrary positive α_i; the theorem predicts the integral is nonnegative, so a negative numerical value would refute it. Alternatively, for a unital qubit channel with D=diag(0.9,0.9,0.1), compute 2∫‖D n̂‖dμ; if the value exceeds 1, the theorem predicts some noisy POVM family is incompatible, which can be checked by an SDP search for an incompatible family.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Testing whether a unital qubit channel is POVM-incompatibility breaking reduces to evaluating one integral over the Bloch sphere; no search over measurement families or parent POVMs is needed.
  • For every two-qubit state with maximally mixed marginals, the POVM-steering boundary is now known exactly, closing the gap between the old PVM criterion and earlier sufficient conditions.
  • The Werner-state threshold — POVM steering fails exactly at visibility 1/2 — is recovered as the isotropic case D=(1/2)I from the same inequality.
  • Any two-qubit state whose canonical parameters satisfy 2∫‖T n̂‖dμ + ‖a‖ ≤ 1 is certified unsteerable under all POVMs, even when it is entangled and outside the convex hull of known unsteerable and separable states.
  • In higher dimensions, proving the explicit positive-operator inequality in Corollary 2 would extend the exact PVM–POVM equivalence to depolarizing channels in all dimensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the exact equivalence for unital qubit channels suggests that for this class of noise, nonprojective measurements offer no extra robustness against decoherence; if the pattern holds in higher dimensions, the operational gap between sharp and unsharp measurements would vanish for isotropic noise.
  • Beyond the paper: Lemma 1 is stated purely geometrically, so it may be possible to prove it by more general tools (e.g., rearrangement inequalities or convex geometry), which could be the key to the open higher-dimensional depolarizing problem.
  • Beyond the paper: the nonunital condition is only sufficient; a plausible next step is to search for a matching necessary condition by constructing explicit witnesses or a better parent POVM, which would complete the classification for all qubit channels.
  • Beyond the paper: the example in Eq. (31) shows the unsteerable set extends beyond the convex hull of Bell-diagonal unsteerable states and separable states, hinting that positive-map preimages may be the right way to characterize larger unsteerable regions.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a support-function/SDP-duality framework (Prop. 1) for deciding whether a prescribed parent POVM simulates all POVMs depolarized by a quantum channel. For unital qubit channels it constructs an explicit spherical parent POVM and proves that this parent simulates all noisy POVMs exactly when the known PVM-incompatibility-breaking criterion 2∫_{S^2}∥D n∥dμ(n)≤1 holds (Thm. 1), establishing that PVM- and POVM-incompatibility-breaking coincide for every unital qubit channel. The sufficiency proof reduces to a geometric Lemma 1; the nonunital case is treated by a sufficient condition (Prop. 2) and the steering correspondence gives exact POVM-steering boundaries for states with maximally mixed marginals and a sufficient criterion otherwise (Thm. 2). I specifically checked the |J|=3 case of Lemma 1 that a stress-test flagged: the h-coefficient in Eq. (B36) is correct, since t(α1+α2)+(1−t)(α3+α2)=α1+α3 follows from α2=(1−t)α1+tα3. I found no load-bearing gap.

Significance. If correct, the main result is a genuine advance: it extends the recently solved Werner-state POVM threshold to all unital qubit channels and gives the exact POVM-steering criterion for all two-qubit states with maximally mixed marginals. The dual framework is clean, the parent POVM is explicit, and the geometric Lemma 1 is nontrivial but appears correct. The paper is careful to rely only on known PVM criteria and the steering correspondence for necessity, and its sufficiency argument is self-contained. The nonunital sufficient condition and the higher-dimensional reduction are natural by-products. This is, in my assessment, a strong and publishable contribution.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (33)] The bound in Eq. (33) should be typeset as a single fraction, (√1811+7)/50. In the present rendering it appears as '√1811 + 7/50', which is not <1 and will confuse readers.
  2. [Higher-dimensions paragraph] The definition of r_d is garbled: 'rd = Hd−1 d−1' should be r_d = (H_d−1)/(d−1). Please correct the typesetting.
  3. [Theorem 2 proof / Appendix B2] The main text refers to 'the Supplemental Material' for the steering correspondence details, but these are in Appendix B2. Unify the cross-reference.
  4. [Eq. (B36)] The notation '±v·n' and '±w·n' is clear but could be made even more explicit by listing the four expressions separately, since the signs are load-bearing in the subsequent max{|v·n|,|w·n|} step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the unital criterion is derived from an independent geometric lemma and a self-contained dual argument; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Proposition 1 through Theorem 1 and Lemma 1. The central criterion (Eq. 11) is not an input: Theorem 1's necessity uses the established PVM criterion of Ref. [38] only because PVMs form a subclass of POVMs, and its sufficiency constructs an explicit parent POVM (Eq. 13) and verifies the universal-simulation inequality (Eq. 15) via Proposition 1. Proposition 1 is proved in Appendix A by SDP duality and complementary slackness; it does not import the target result. The load-bearing step is Lemma 1, an independent statement about even functions on S^2 with average 1/2, proved in Appendix B3 by Carathéodory reduction and the |J|=2,3,4 cases. The paper does not fit a parameter to the claimed boundary and does not call a fitted quantity a prediction. Self-citations (Refs. 18,19,24,32,36) are contextual: Ref. [32] is cited for the known Werner threshold but Corollary 1 is proved from Lemma 1, and Ref. [24] is cited only alongside Ref. [23] for terminology. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work is invoked. A possible algebraic concern in the |J|=3 proof of Lemma 1 (the h-coefficient used in Eq. B37) would be a correctness issue, not circularity, since Lemma 1 does not assume the POVM-breaking statement. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the claimed result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard convex/SDP facts, the imported exact PVM criterion (used as necessity), and the POVM steering correspondence. No free constants are fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated; the only constructed object is a mathematical parent POVM.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Known exact PVM-incompatibility-breaking criterion for unital qubit channels (Ref [38])
    Imported for necessity in Theorem 1; PVMs are a subset of POVMs, so if a channel is POVM-breaking it must be PVM-breaking. Not re-proved in this paper.
  • standard math Support-function characterization of closed convex sets and SDP strong duality (Slater)
    Underpins Proposition 1 and Eq. (7); the SDPs are strictly feasible, so strong duality holds.
  • domain assumption Steering–joint-measurability correspondence for POVMs (Refs [10-14])
    Used in Theorem 2 to translate channel incompatibility-breaking into two-qubit unsteerability under all POVMs.
  • domain assumption Invertible local filter on the trusted party preserves steerability (Ref [42])
    Used to put any full-rank ρ_B into canonical form Eq. (29); rank-one ρ_B case is trivially unsteerable.
  • domain assumption Every continuous-outcome POVM is a classical randomization of finite d²-outcome POVMs (Refs [40,41])
    Limits the universal-simulation condition to finite Hermitian witness families.
  • domain assumption Fujiwara–Algoet complete-positivity conditions for qubit channels (Ref [46])
    Used in Appendix B1a to classify singular unital channels at the boundary.
  • standard math Carathéodory's theorem
    Used in Lemma 1 to reduce an arbitrary finite set of directions to 2, 3, or 4 points.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study when a noisy qubit channel renders all positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs) jointly measurable. For every unital qubit channel, we derive the exact incompatibility-breaking criterion and prove that projective measurements already determine the boundary for arbitrary POVMs. Through the steering--joint-measurability correspondence, this result gives the exact POVM-steering boundary for all two-qubit states with maximally mixed marginals, with the Werner states recovered as a special case. For nonunital qubit channels, we construct a generally asymmetric parent POVM and obtain an explicit sufficient incompatibility-breaking condition, which in turn yields a sufficient unsteerability criterion for arbitrary two-qubit states.

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

53 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, An invita- tion to quantum incompatibility, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 123001 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    G¨ uhne, E

    O. G¨ uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and R. Uola, Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quantum information science, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    M. T. Quintino, T. V´ ertesi, D. Cavalcanti, R. Augusiak, M. Demianowicz, A. Ac ´ ın, and N. Brunner, Inequivalence of entanglement, steering, and bell nonlocality for general measurements, Phys. Rev. A92, 032107 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantitative relations between measurement incompatibility, quantum steering, and nonlocality, Phys. Rev. A93, 052112 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, Quantum measurement incompatibility does not imply bell nonlo- cality, Phys. Rev. A97, 012129 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bene and T

    E. Bene and T. V´ ertesi, Measurement incompatibility does not give rise to bell violation in general, New Jour- nal of Physics20, 013021 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and C. Fernandez, Mea- surements incompatible in quantum theory cannot be measured jointly in any other no-signaling theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 230402 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Pl´ avala, O

    M. Pl´ avala, O. G¨ uhne, and M. T. Quintino, All incom- patible measurements on qubits lead to multiparticle bell nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 200201 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    M. T. Quintino, T. V´ ertesi, and N. Brunner, Joint mea- surability, einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, and bell non- locality, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160402 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    R. Uola, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Joint measurability of generalized measurements implies classicality, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160403 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. G¨ uhne, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, One-to-one mapping between steering and joint measur- ability problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230402 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 024001 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Kiukas, C

    J. Kiukas, C. Budroni, R. Uola, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Continuous-variable steering and incompatibility via state-channel duality, Phys. Rev. A96, 042331 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, trans- formations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005)

    2005

  16. [16]

    Tavakoli and R

    A. Tavakoli and R. Uola, Measurement incompatibility and steering are necessary and sufficient for operational contextuality, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013011 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    J. H. Selby, D. Schmid, E. Wolfe, A. B. Sainz, R. Kun- jwal, and R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality without incom- patibility, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 230201 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and R. W. Spekkens, Reassessing the boundary between classical and nonclas- sical for individual quantum processes, Phys. Rev. X16, 021050 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and D. Schmid, Quantifiers and wit- nesses for the nonclassicality of measurements and of states (2025), arXiv:2504.02944 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Quantum in- compatibility witnesses, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130402 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Skrzypczyk, I

    P. Skrzypczyk, I. ˇSupi´ c, and D. Cavalcanti, All sets of incompatible measurements give an advantage in quan- tum state discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130403 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Buscemi, E

    F. Buscemi, E. Chitambar, and W. Zhou, Complete re- source theory of quantum incompatibility as quantum programmability, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120401 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Heinosaari, J

    T. Heinosaari, J. Kiukas, D. Reitzner, and J. Schultz, Incompatibility breaking quantum channels, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 435301 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    Zhang and E

    Y. Zhang and E. Chitambar, Destroying and preserv- ing measurement incompatibility over a quantum channel (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    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)

    1988

  26. [26]

    Oszmaniec and T

    M. Oszmaniec and T. Biswas, Operational relevance of resource theories of quantum measurements, Quantum3, 133 (2019), arXiv:1901.08566 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Massar and S

    S. Massar and S. Popescu, Optimal extraction of infor- mation from finite quantum ensembles, Physical Review Letters74, 1259 (1995)

    1995

  28. [28]

    V´ ertesi and E

    T. V´ ertesi and E. Bene, Two-qubit bell inequal- 6 ity for which positive operator-valued measurements are relevant, Physical Review A82, 062115 (2010), arXiv:1007.2578 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    R. F. Werner, Steering, or maybe why einstein did not go all the way to bell’s argument, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 424008 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky- rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  31. [31]

    Barrett, Nonsequential positive-operator-valued mea- surements on entangled mixed states do not always vio- late a bell inequality, Phys

    J. Barrett, Nonsequential positive-operator-valued mea- surements on entangled mixed states do not always vio- late a bell inequality, Phys. Rev. A65, 042302 (2002)

    2002

  32. [32]

    Zhang and E

    Y. Zhang and E. Chitambar, Exact steering bound for two-qubit werner states, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250201 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    M. J. Renner, Compatibility of generalized noisy qubit measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250202 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    H. C. Nguyen, A. Milne, T. Vu, and S. Jevtic, Quantum steering with positive operator valued measures, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 355302 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    H. C. Nguyen, H.-V. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Geometry of einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 240401 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, and E. Chitambar, Cost of simulat- ing entanglement in steering scenarios, Quantum9, 1902 (2025), arXiv:2302.09060 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1902

  37. [37]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. J. W. Hall, M. R. Anderson, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, Einstein–podolsky–rosen steering and the steering ellipsoid, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B32, A40 (2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    H. C. Nguyen and T. Vu, Necessary and sufficient condi- tion for steerability of two-qubit states by the geometry of steering outcomes, EPL (Europhysics Letters)115, 10003 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    H. C. Nguyen and O. G¨ uhne, Quantum steering of bell- diagonal states with generalized measurements, Phys. Rev. A101, 042125 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and D. Schlingemann, How continuous quantum measurements in finite dimen- sions are actually discrete, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 190403 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and P. Perinotti, Clas- sical randomness in quantum measurements, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General38, 5979 (2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. Pusey, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Quan- tum steering ellipsoids, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020402 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  44. [44]

    M. L. Almeida, S. Pironio, J. Barrett, G. T´ oth, and A. Ac ´ ın, Noise robustness of the nonlocality of entangled quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 040403 (2007)

    2007

  45. [45]

    Ioannou, P

    M. Ioannou, P. Sekatski, S. Designolle, B. D. M. Jones, R. Uola, and N. Brunner, Simulability of high- dimensional quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 190401 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Fujiwara and P

    A. Fujiwara and P. Algoet, One-to-one parametrization of quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A59, 3290 (1999)

    1999

  47. [47]

    Bowles, F

    J. Bowles, F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brun- ner, Sufficient criterion for guaranteeing that a two-qubit state is unsteerable, Phys. Rev. A93, 022121 (2016)

    2016

  48. [48]

    Villegas-Aguilar, E

    L. Villegas-Aguilar, E. Polino, F. Ghafari, M. T. Quintino, K. T. Laverick, I. R. Berkman, S. Rogge, L. K. Shalm, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. Slussarenko, and G. J. Pryde, Nonlocality activation in a photonic quan- tum network, Nature Communications15, 3112 (2024). Appendix A: Proof of Proposition 1 For a finite Hermitian family{Y a}m a=1, consider ...

    2024

  49. [49]

    Singular qubit unital channels at the boundary We next justify the direct treatment of singular chan- nels at the boundary

    Singular channels a. Singular qubit unital channels at the boundary We next justify the direct treatment of singular chan- nels at the boundary. Up to input and output uni- tary rotations,Dhas diagonal form diag(η 1, η2,0). The Fujiwara–Algoet complete-positivity conditions [46] give |η1 +η 2| ≤1,|η 1 −η 2| ≤1,(B1) and hence |η1|+|η 2|= max{|η 1 +η 2|,|η ...

  50. [50]

    Steering–joint-measurability correspondence and steering criteria Consider a general two-qubit state ρAB = 1 4  1⊗1+⃗ a·⃗ σ⊗1+1⊗ ⃗b·⃗ σ+ 3X j,k=1 Tjk σj ⊗σ k   . (B10) For steering from Alice to Bob, ifρ B is full rank, the invertible local filter eρAB = h 1⊗(2ρ B)−1/2 i ρAB h 1⊗(2ρ B)−1/2 i (B11) preserves steerability and giveseρ B =1/2 [42]. Drop- ...

    2000

  51. [51]

    By Carath´ eodory’s theorem, there existsJ⊆ I, with|J| ≤4, such that ⃗0∈conv{ˆui :i∈J}.(B27) Since every ˆui is a unit vector, necessarily|J| ≥2

    Proof of Lemma 1 Proof.For every nonemptyJ⊆ I, define FJ := Z S2 max i∈J αi (ˆui ·ˆn−h(ˆn))dµ(ˆn).(B26) SinceJ⊆ I, we haveF I ≥F J . By Carath´ eodory’s theorem, there existsJ⊆ I, with|J| ≤4, such that ⃗0∈conv{ˆui :i∈J}.(B27) Since every ˆui is a unit vector, necessarily|J| ≥2. It is therefore sufficient to consider the cases|J|= 2,3,4. Suppose first that...

  52. [52]

    (27),δ D,⃗t ≥0

    Proof of Proposition 2 Proof.Define mD : = Z S2 ∥Dˆn∥dµ(ˆn).(B49a) δD,⃗t : = 1 2 −m D − ⃗t 2 (B49b) Under the assumption in Eq. (27),δ D,⃗t ≥0. We can then introduce the function hD,⃗t(ˆn) :=∥Dˆn∥+ ⃗t·ˆn +δ D,⃗t.(B50) This function is nonnegative and even. Moreover, usingR S2 ⃗t·ˆn dµ(ˆn) =∥⃗t∥ 2 , we obtain Z S2 hD,⃗t(ˆn)dµ(ˆn) =mD + ⃗t 2 +δ D,⃗t = 1 2 ....

  53. [53]

    This proves Corollary 2

    Proof of Corollary 2 For the depolarizing channel ∆r(X) =rX+ (1−r) TrX d 1,(B60) the inverse map is ∆−1 r (X) = 1 r X− 1−r d Tr(X)1 .(B61) The Haar parent is ΠHaar(dψ) =d|ψ⟩⟨ψ|dµ H (ψ).(B62) Applying Proposition 1 atr=r d gives the condition Z max a Tr −∆−1 rd (Pa)d|ψ⟩⟨ψ| dµH (ψ)≥0.(B63) Since Tr −∆−1 rd (Pa)d|ψ⟩⟨ψ| = d rd 1−r d d Tr(Pa)− ⟨ψ|Pa|ψ⟩ , (B64)...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.