Supersinglets can be self-tested with perfect quantum strategies

Ad\'an Cabello; Debashis Saha

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Supersinglets can be self-tested with perfect quantum strategies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every d≥3 there is a d-party, d-dimensional nonlocal game whose only perfect quantum realization is the d-level supersinglet, up to local unitaries.

desk verdict Novel and important result, but the main proof has a repairable gap in Appendix A that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00409 v2 pith:2FJ22Z7R submitted 2024-12-31 quant-ph

Debashis Saha , Adán Cabello This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords self-testingsupersingletsperfectquantumstrategiesKochen-Speckersetsrigiditynonlocalgamespseudo-telepathymultipartiteentanglement

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 claims that every d-particle, d-level supersinglet can be self-tested for d≥3. It builds, for each d, a d-party nonlocal game with a perfect quantum strategy whose statistics uniquely pin down the shared state as the supersinglet, up to local unitaries. No classical strategy can win perfectly, because winning would require a 0/1 assignment on a Kochen-Specker set. The result gives a concrete task achievable only with supersinglets and a maximal d-partite, d-dimensional nonlocal signature, answering the two questions the paper poses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a rigid, complete Kochen-Specker (KS) set in the local Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^d$: a finite set of rank-one projectors admitting no consistent 0/1 assignment, with every orthogonal pair lying inside some basis ('complete') and every realization of the same orthogonality graph unitarily equivalent to the reference set ('rigid'). The paper's game hands the same basis (context) to d-1 parties and a single vector from it to the last party; winning requires the first d-1 outputs to be a permutation of the basis and the last output to be 1 exactly when his vector was the one left out. The supersinglet's invariance under $U^{\otimes d}$ yields a perfect quantum strategy, while rigidity plus the perfect win condition forces local measurements to be the KS projections and the shared state's amplitudes to have the alternating signs of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{d!}}\sum_{\text{perm}} \epsilon_{a_0\ldots a_{d-1}}|a_0\ldots a_{d-1}\rangle$.

What would settle it

Search the d=3 game built from the 31-vector rigid KS set for a perfect strategy that uses a non-projective POVM and is not unitarily equivalent to the KS projectors; even one such example would break Theorem 1 and Theorem 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is Theorem 2: for every finite d≥3, there exists a Kochen-Specker set in H=C^d such that the corresponding perfect quantum strategy self-tests the d-party d-level supersinglet. That is, any unknown state and measurements producing the perfect input-output statistics of the constructed game must be related, by local unitaries, to the supersinglet shared among d parties and the projectors of the rigid KS set. Because a classical perfect strategy would have to assign 0/1 values to the KS set in a way that the KS theorem forbids, the same construction gives a d-partite, d-dimensional perfect quantum strategy and a task achievable only with supersinglets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, used in Appendix A, is that a perfect win rate forces each local measurement to be a projective measurement on orthogonal vectors rather than an arbitrary positive-operator-valued measure; without projectivity, Kochen-Specker rigidity does not immediately imply self-testing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The observed perfect statistics of these games certify the supersinglet without trusting the measurement devices, for every d≥3.
These games are d-partite, d-dimensional perfect quantum strategies, so supersinglets yield a pseudo-telepathy phenomenon in arbitrary local dimension.
Since any perfect classical strategy would assign 0/1 values to the KS set, no classical strategy wins every round, making the quantum advantage maximal.
Question 1 and Question 2 both receive affirmative answers: there is a task achievable only with supersinglets, and this task gives a unique d-partite d-dimensional nonlocal signature.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Going beyond the paper, the same rigid-KS-to-self-testing transfer may apply to any multipartite high-dimensional state for which all but one party can predict all KS-set observables from perfect statistics; that would give a whole family of self-tests, not just supersinglets.
A natural extension the paper leaves open is a noise-tolerant version of these games; if found, it would turn experimental preparations of 3- and 4-level supersinglets into device-independent certificates.
One could also use the certified states' genuine high-dimensional, genuinely multipartite entanglement to probe whether supersinglets are the maximally entangled states in their class; the paper does not settle that question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hey,

Bottom line: this is a genuinely new result—the first self-test for supersinglets and the first family of d-partite d-dimensional perfect quantum strategies for every d≥3—but the proof of the central theorem has a hole in Appendix A that needs to be patched before the result is fully rigorous.

What's good: the idea of using rigid Kochen-Specker sets as the measurement skeleton is clever and likely to be reused. The d=3 and d=4 computations are explicit and checkable; I verified the structure of the 31-vector and Peres-24 arguments and they are sound. The construction in Appendix B for general d, while terse, is plausible and follows the same pattern. The two open questions are both answered yes, assuming the proof holds. The citations to the rigid KS sets are appropriate—those are independent results with their own proofs, so the self-referential nature isn't a problem.

Where it's soft: the stress-test note is right. In Appendix A, the paper claims that because the outcome sets P(C_x\{y}) and P(C_x\{y'}) are disjoint, the subspaces S_{x,y} and S_{x,y'} are orthogonal. That inference is false in general for POVMs: disjoint sets of outcome labels don't force the supports of the corresponding conditional reduced states apart. The authors use this to get B_y B_{y'}=O, which is the bridge to projectivity and then to KS rigidity. The good news is that the conclusion is repairable by a nearby argument: S_{x,y'} is actually contained in \tilde S_{x,y}, and B_y was already shown to vanish on \tilde S_{x,y}, so B_y B_{y'}=O follows without orthogonality. But that repair is not in the text. As written, Theorem 1 doesn't follow. The rest of the proof for the first d-1 parties uses a similar but valid containment argument, so the patch is local. Minor issues: the classical success probabilities (35/36 and 59/60) are stated without derivation, and the notation tr_{[d-2]} in Appendix A is wrong—it should trace out the first d-1 parties, not d-2.

Who's this for: anyone working on self-testing, nonlocal games, or multipartite high-dimensional entanglement. It answers a clean open question and introduces a technique that will likely generalize.

Recommendation: this deserves serious peer review. The gap is real but repairable, and the core contribution is strong enough that the paper should be sent to referees rather than desk-rejected. I'd ask for a revision that fixes Appendix A and adds derivations for the classical bounds.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a family of d-partite, d-outcome nonlocal games, one for each d≥3, built from complete Kochen–Specker (KS) sets in C^d. It claims that these games are won perfectly by the d-party d-level supersinglet and, moreover, that any perfect quantum strategy for them must be locally isometric to the reference strategy consisting of the supersinglet and rank-one projective measurements given by a rigid KS set. The proof strategy is to show from the perfect winning condition that all uncharacterized local measurements must be projective and form a rigid KS set, and then to use rigidity together with the antisymmetric structure of the state to fix the state coefficients. Explicit coefficient computations are given for d=3 and d=4, and a recursive argument is given for all d≥4. If the proof of Theorem 1 is valid, the paper answers Questions 1 and 2 from the introduction affirmatively.

Significance. If the central proof gap is repaired, this would be a significant contribution: it would provide a self-test for a family of multipartite high-dimensional states and would simultaneously produce d-partite d-dimensional perfect quantum strategies with a unique quantum realization. The construction is explicit and parameter-free, the state is certified from the correlations rather than assumed, and the d=3 and d=4 coefficient systems are written out in enough detail to be checked. The use of existing rigid-KS-set results [35,52] is appropriate rather than circular, and the paper clearly identifies the open questions it addresses. The main caveat is that the proof of Theorem 1 relies on an invalid inference from disjoint outcome labels to orthogonal supports for uncharacterized POVMs; until that step is repaired, the central claim is not established.

major comments (2)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The bridge from the perfect winning condition to projectivity is invalid. The text asserts that because P(C_x\setminus\{y'\}) and P(C_x\setminus\{y\}) are disjoint outcome sets, the subspaces S_{x,y'} and S_{x,y} are orthogonal. For uncharacterized POVMs this does not follow: distinct outcome labels can have overlapping supports, and the conditional reduced states ρ_{a|x} for different a need not have orthogonal ranges. This is not a minor gap: the orthogonality claim is used to derive B_yB_{y'}=O, and together with the completeness relation (A9) it is what makes {B_y} a projective KS realization. Without that, the rigidity assumption cannot be invoked, so Theorem 1, and with it Theorem 2, do not follow from the proof as written. A repair would need to replace this step with a support-based argument, for example using S_{x,y'}\subseteq \tilde S_{x,y} together with B_y=0 on \tilde S_{x,y} and a separate justification that B_{y'} is the projection onto S_{x,y'}; that argument is not present in the text.
[Appendix A, Eqs. (A14)–(A19)] The same disjoint-outcome-to-orthogonality issue appears for the first d-1 parties. From Eq. (A14) the trace identities give only A_{x,y}=1 on the support of σ_y and \tilde A_{x,y}=1 on the support of \tilde σ_y. The additional assertions A_{x,y}|_{\tilde σ_y}=O (Eq. (A16)) and the decomposition A_{x,y}+\tilde A_{x,y}=1^{[d-1]} (Eq. (A19)) require that A_{x,y} and \tilde A_{x,y} have orthogonal or complementary supports; this is not implied by disjointness of the outcome sets in Eqs. (A12)–(A13). Consequently the conclusion that each A_{a_i|x_i} is a projective element of a KS realization is not established, and the subsequent application of rigidity is unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix B, Eq. (B21)] The displayed chain of equalities contains coefficients such as α_{2134}, α_{2143}, α_{2314}, α_{2341}, α_{2413}, and α_{2431}, none of which appear in the variable ordering in Eq. (B20) and which involve an index 4 outside {0,1,2,3}. This is presumably a typesetting error, but as printed the relation is undefined and should be corrected.
[Theorem 1, converse direction] The contrapositive proof considers two complete KS sets associated with the same orthogonality graph G, but the rigidity notion for a non-complete graph G compares realizations of G that need not be complete, while the game is defined by an extension G_c. As written, the 'only if' direction is not demonstrated. Since the forward direction is what is used for Theorem 2, this does not block the main result, but the statement should be proved or weakened to an 'if' statement.
[Conclusions] The claimed classical success probabilities 35/36 for the 18-vector set and 59/60 for the 24-vector set are stated without proof or reference; please provide a derivation or citation.
[Throughout] There are several language issues that should be corrected in a revision, including 'none any of these applications' in the abstract, 'impossible any assignment satisfying' in the caption of Fig. 1, and 'The named-qudit-supersinglets follows' in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the supersinglet is derived from the perfect-correlation conditions via external rigid-KS-set theorems, and the only serious concern is a non-circular proof gap in Appendix A.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Proposition 1 constructs a d-partite d-level game from any complete KS set and shows that the d-party d-level supersinglet wins it perfectly, using the U^{\otimes d} invariance of the supersinglet; this is a constructive existence proof and is not imported as an assumption into the self-testing direction. Theorem 2's self-testing direction then proceeds in two steps: Theorem 1 (Appendix A) certifies the local measurements from the perfect statistics, and Appendix B uses those certified measurements to impose zero-probability constraints on the unknown state, solving them to obtain the Levi-Civita coefficient structure of the supersinglet. No parameter is fitted, and the target state is not assumed. The external inputs are the existence and rigidity of KS sets in every dimension, cited to Refs. [35] and [52]; although those works are co-authored by the present authors, they are independent, peer-reviewed theorems whose stated assumptions (orthogonality graph, completeness, rigidity) do not include the supersinglet or the target self-testing claim, so under the review rules they are real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. The one substantive caveat is in Appendix A: the sentence 'the possible sets of outcomes ... are disjoint, implying that the subspaces S_{x,y'} and S_{x,y} are orthogonal' is not generally valid for uncharacterized POVMs, and this is a load-bearing step for Theorem 1 and hence Theorem 2. This is a correctness gap, not a circular step: it does not reduce the theorem to its conclusion by definition; it is an unjustified mathematical inference, and the skeptic's proposed repair (using S_{x,y'} subseteq \tilde S_{x,y} together with B_y = 0 on \tilde S_{x,y}) would preserve the non-circular character of the derivation. If that gap cannot be repaired, the proofs as written would be invalid, but the failure would be one of validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the framework of quantum mechanics, on external results about rigid Kochen-Specker sets (some co-authored by the authors), and on a derivation inside the paper that perfect strategies force local measurements to be projective and orthogonal. There are no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Axioms of quantum mechanics: states are vectors in a tensor product Hilbert space, measurements are POVMs, probabilities follow the Born rule.
Used throughout; the self-testing framework assumes this.
domain assumption There exist complete rigid KS sets in C^d for every d ≥ 3, and they can be constructed to include the canonical basis.
Theorem 2's proof cites [35] for d ≥ 4 and [52] for d=3; these are external results, two co-authored by the present authors.
domain assumption The Conway-Kochen 31-vector set is rigid (cited [52]); the Peres-24 set is rigid (cited [35]).
Used in the d=3 and d=4 case analyses.
domain assumption Any KS set can be completed to a complete KS set while preserving the relevant rigid subset structure.
Used in framing Theorem 1; cited to [35].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supersinglets can be self-tested with perfect quantum strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FJ22Z7R

@misc{pith2026250100409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supersinglets can be self-tested with perfect quantum strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FJ22Z7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00409}
}

abstract

Supersinglets are states of spin-zero of $d \ge 3$ particles of $d$ levels. They are invariant under unitary transformations of the form $U^{\otimes d}$ and have applications in metrology, error protection, and communication. They also violate some specific Bell inequalities. However, none any of these applications {\em require} supersinglets nor do any of these Bell inequality violations capture the unique properties of the supersinglets. This leads to two questions. Question 1 is whether there exists a task that can be solved only with supersinglets. Question 2 is whether supersinglets can produce a unique $d$-partite, $d$-dimensional nonlocal signature. We answer both questions affirmatively by presenting a protocol that self-test all supersinglets by producing $d$-partite, $d$-dimensional {\em perfect} quantum strategies for any $d \ge 3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00409 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Cabello,N-particleN-level singlet states: Some properties and applications, Phys

A. Cabello,N-particleN-level singlet states: Some properties and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 100402 (2002)

2002
[2]

Cabello, Supersinglets, J

A. Cabello, Supersinglets, J. Mod. Opt.50, 1049 (2003)

2003
[3]

Jin, S.-S

G.-S. Jin, S.-S. Li, S.-L. Feng, and H.-Z. Zheng, Generation of a supersinglet of three three-level atoms in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A71, 034307 (2005)

work page 2005
[4]

Qiang, W

W.-C. Qiang, W. Cardoso, A. Avelar, and B. Baseia, Alternative scheme to generate a supersinglet state of three-level atoms, Phys. Lett. A375, 443 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

Chen, Y .-H

Z. Chen, Y .-H. Chen, Y . Xia, J. Song, and B.-H. Huang, Fast generation of three-atom singlet state by transitionless quantum driving, Sci. Rep.6, 10.1038/srep22202 (2016)

work page doi:10.1038/srep22202 2016
[6]

E. O. Ilo-Okeke, Y . Ji, P. Chen, Y . Mao, M. Kondappan, V . Ivannikov, Y . Xiao, and T. Byrnes, Deterministic preparation of supersinglets with collective spin projections, Phys. Rev. A106, 033314 (2022)

2022
[7]

Bourennane, M

M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, S. Gaertner, C. Kurtsiefer, A. Cabello, and H. Weinfurter, Decoherence-free quantum information processing with four-photon entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 107901 (2004)

work page 2004
[8]

Cabello, Six-qubit permutation-based decoherence-free orthogonal basis, Phys

A. Cabello, Six-qubit permutation-based decoherence-free orthogonal basis, Phys. Rev. A75, 020301(R) (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 54 references

[9]

Hillery and V

M. Hillery and V . Buˇzek, Singlet states and the estimation of eigenstates and eigenvalues of an unknown controlled-ugate, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042303 (2001)

2001
[10]

Fitzi, N

M. Fitzi, N. Gisin, and U. Maurer, Quantum solution to the Byzantine agreement problem, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 217901 (2001)

2001
[11]

Mayers and A

D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Info. Comput.4, 273 (2004)

2004
[12]

ˇSupi´c and J

I. ˇSupi´c and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: A review, Quantum4, 337 (2020)

2020
[13]

Coladangelo, K

A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V . Scarani, All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested, Nat. Comm.8, 10.1038/ncomms15485 (2017)

2017 doi
[14]

Balanz ´o-Juand´o, A

M. Balanz ´o-Juand´o, A. Coladangelo, R. Augusiak, A. Ac´ın, and I. ˇSupi´c, All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested up to complex conjugation, arXiv:2412.13266 [quant-ph] (2024)

2024 arXiv
[15]

Grandjean, Y .-C

B. Grandjean, Y .-C. Liang, J.-D. Bancal, N. Brunner, and N. Gisin, Bell inequalities for three systems and arbitrarily many measurement outcomes, Phys. Rev. A85, 052113 (2012)

2012
[16]

Laskowsiki, J

W. Laskowsiki, J. Ryu1, and M. ˙Zukowski, Noise resistance of the violation of local causality for pure three-qutrit entangled states, J. Phys. A47, 424019 (2014)

2014
[17]

Brassard, A

G. Brassard, A. Broadbent, and A. Tapp, Quantum pseudo-telepathy, Found. Phys.35, 1877 (2005)

2005
[18]

D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond Bell’s theorem, inBell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe(Springer, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

1989
[19]

N. D. Mermin, Quantum mysteries revisited, Am. J. Phys.58, 731 (1990)

1990
[20]

G ¨uhne, G

O. G ¨uhne, G. T´oth, P. Hyllus, and H. J. Briegel, Bell inequalities for graph states, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120405 (2005)

2005
[21]

Cabello, O

A. Cabello, O. G ¨uhne, and D. Rodr´ıguez, Mermin inequalities for perfect correlations, Phys. Rev. A77, 062106 (2008)

2008
[22]

Man ˇcinska, inComputing with New Resources, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, V ol

L. Man ˇcinska, inComputing with New Resources, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, V ol. 8808 (Springer, Cham, 2014) pp. 200–207

2014
[23]

Bravyi, D

S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and R. K ¨onig, Quantum advantage with shallow circuits, Science362, 308 (2018)

2018
[24]

Z. Ji, A. Natarajan, T. Vidick, J. Wright, and H. Yuen, MIP*=RE, Comm. ACM64, 131 (2021)

2021
[25]

Vieira, R

C. Vieira, R. Ramanathan, and A. Cabello, Test of the physical significance of Bell nonlocality, Nat. Commun.16, 4390 (2025)

2025
[26]

Y . Liu, H. Y . Chung, E. Z. Cruzeiro, J. R. Gonzales-Ureta, R. Ramanathan, and A. Cabello, Equivalence between face nonsignaling correlations, full nonlocality, all-versus-nothing proofs, and pseudotelepathy, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042035 (2024)

2024
[27]

A. C. Elitzur, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, Quantum nonlocality for each pair in an ensemble, Phys. Lett. A162, 25 (1992)

1992
[28]

Aolita, R

L. Aolita, R. Gallego, A. Ac´ın, A. Chiuri, G. Vallone, P. Mataloni, and A. Cabello, Fully nonlocal quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. A85, 032107 (2012)

2012
[29]

All versus nothing

A. Cabello, “All versus nothing” inseparability for two observers, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 010403 (2001)

2001
[30]

Cabello, Simplest bipartite perfect quantum strategies, Phys

A. Cabello, Simplest bipartite perfect quantum strategies, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 010201 (2025)

2025
[31]

Cobucci and A

G. Cobucci and A. Tavakoli, Detecting the dimensionality of genuine multiparticle entanglement, Sci. Adv.10, eadq4467 (2024)

2024
[32]

Kochen and E

S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Mech.17, 59 (1967)

1967
[33]

Cabello, J

A. Cabello, J. M. Estebaranz, and G. Garc ´ıa-Alcaine, Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: A proof with 18 vectors, Phys. Lett. A212, 183 (1996)

1996
[34]

Xu, J.-L

Z.-P. Xu, J.-L. Chen, and O. G ¨uhne, Proof of the Peres conjecture for contextuality, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 230401 (2020). 12

2020
[35]

Z.-P. Xu, D. Saha, K. Bharti, and A. Cabello, Certifying sets of quantum observables with any full-rank state, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 140201 (2024)

2024
[36]

Peres, Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem, J

A. Peres, Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem, J. Phys. A24, L175 (1991)

1991
[37]

Lison ˇek, P

P. Lison ˇek, P. Badzia‘g, J. R. Portillo, and A. Cabello, Kochen-Specker set with seven contexts, Phys. Rev. A89, 042101 (2014)

2014
[38]

Kernaghan and A

M. Kernaghan and A. Peres, Kochen-Specker theorem for eight-dimensional space, Phys. Lett. A198, 1 (1995)

1995
[39]

Trandafir and A

S. Trandafir and A. Cabello, Optimal conversion of Kochen-Specker sets into bipartite perfect quantum strategies, Phys. Rev. A111, 022408 (2025)

2025
[40]

Cabello and G

A. Cabello and G. Garc ´ıa-Alcaine, Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem for any finite dimensionsn≥3, J. Phys. A29, 1025 (1996)

1996
[41]

Cabello, J

A. Cabello, J. M. Estebaranz, and G. Garc ´ıa-Alcaine, Recursive proof of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem in any dimensionn >3, Phys. Lett. A339, 425 (2005)

2005
[42]

Bamps and S

C. Bamps and S. Pironio, Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt-like inequalities and their appli- cation to self-testing, Phys. Rev. A91, 052111 (2015)

2015
[43]

Sarkar, D

S. Sarkar, D. Saha, J. Kaniewski, and R. Augusiak, Self-testing quantum systems of arbitrary local dimension with minimal number of measurements, npj Quantum Information7, 151 (2019)

2019
[44]

McKague, Self-testing graph states, inTheory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, V ol

M. McKague, Self-testing graph states, inTheory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, V ol. 6745, edited by D. Bacon, M. Mart´ın-Delgado, and M. Roetteler (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014) pp. 104–120

2014
[45]

ˇSupi´c, A

I. ˇSupi´c, A. Coladangelo, R. Augusiak, and A. Ac´ın, Self-testing multipartite entangled states through projections onto two systems, New J. Phys.20, 083041 (2018)

2018
[46]

Baccari, R

F. Baccari, R. Augusiak, I. ˇSupi´c, J. Tura, and A. Ac´ın, Scalable Bell inequalities for qubit graph states and robust self-testing, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 020402 (2020)

2020
[47]

Sarkar and R

S. Sarkar and R. Augusiak, Self-testing of multipartite Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states of arbitrary local dimension with arbitrary number of measurements per party, Phys. Rev. A105, 032416 (2022)

2022
[48]

Santos, D

R. Santos, D. Saha, F. Baccari, and R. Augusiak, Scalable Bell inequalities for graph states of arbitrary prime local dimension and self-testing, New J. Phys.25, 063018 (2023)

2023
[49]

Panwar, P

E. Panwar, P. Pandya, and M. Wie´sniak, An elegant scheme of self-testing for multipartite Bell inequalities, npj Quantum Information9, 71 (2023)

2023
[50]

Adhikary, A

R. Adhikary, A. Mishra, and R. Rahaman, Self-testing of genuine multipartite entangled states without network assistance, Phys. Rev. A 110, L010401 (2024)

2024
[51]

Peres,Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods(Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993)

A. Peres,Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods(Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993)

1993
[52]

Trandafir and A

S. Trandafir and A. Cabello, Two fundamental solutions to the rigid Kochen-Specker set problem and the solution to the minimal Kochen- Specker set problem under one assumption, Phys. Rev. A111, 052204 (2025)

2025
[53]

Wilhelm, L

B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ringbauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quantum processor, Nat. Commun.14, 2242 (2023)

2023
[54]

M.-C. Chen, C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, J.-W. Wang, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, Y . Wu, M. Gong, H. Deng, F.-T. Liang, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, A. Cabello, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Ruling out real-valued standard formalism of quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 040403 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cabello,N-particleN-level singlet states: Some properties and applications, Phys

A. Cabello,N-particleN-level singlet states: Some properties and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 100402 (2002)

2002

[2] [2]

Cabello, Supersinglets, J

A. Cabello, Supersinglets, J. Mod. Opt.50, 1049 (2003)

2003

[3] [3]

Jin, S.-S

G.-S. Jin, S.-S. Li, S.-L. Feng, and H.-Z. Zheng, Generation of a supersinglet of three three-level atoms in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A71, 034307 (2005)

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Qiang, W

W.-C. Qiang, W. Cardoso, A. Avelar, and B. Baseia, Alternative scheme to generate a supersinglet state of three-level atoms, Phys. Lett. A375, 443 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Chen, Y .-H

Z. Chen, Y .-H. Chen, Y . Xia, J. Song, and B.-H. Huang, Fast generation of three-atom singlet state by transitionless quantum driving, Sci. Rep.6, 10.1038/srep22202 (2016)

work page doi:10.1038/srep22202 2016

[6] [6]

E. O. Ilo-Okeke, Y . Ji, P. Chen, Y . Mao, M. Kondappan, V . Ivannikov, Y . Xiao, and T. Byrnes, Deterministic preparation of supersinglets with collective spin projections, Phys. Rev. A106, 033314 (2022)

2022

[7] [7]

Bourennane, M

M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, S. Gaertner, C. Kurtsiefer, A. Cabello, and H. Weinfurter, Decoherence-free quantum information processing with four-photon entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 107901 (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Cabello, Six-qubit permutation-based decoherence-free orthogonal basis, Phys

A. Cabello, Six-qubit permutation-based decoherence-free orthogonal basis, Phys. Rev. A75, 020301(R) (2007)

work page 2007