Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 51 references

Twenty correlations pin down the CCZ 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 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:55 UTC pith:6ST3SFIZ

load-bearing objection Solid, genuinely new self-tests for the CCZ state; the SOS certificate is the load-bearing artifact to verify, and the missing robustness bound is a clear limitation, not a fatal one.

arxiv 2607.21288 v1 pith:6ST3SFIZ submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Device-Independent Self-Testing of the Three-Qubit CCZ Hypergraph State

Yunguang Han , Xin Kuang , Xingyuan Bu , Yukun Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P15
keywords self-testingdevice-independentCCZ statehypergraph stateBell inequalitysum-of-squaresquantum correlationsmagic state
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 the three-qubit CCZ hypergraph state, the smallest state with a rank-three hyperedge and a cubic phase, can be certified device-independently from black-box correlations. Twenty correlators drawn from five of the eight measurement contexts suffice to identify the state and the Pauli X/Z measurements up to local isometries. It also proves an obstruction: the canonical Pauli X/Z measurements can never maximally violate a Bell inequality with a strict local–quantum gap. Adding an independent third measurement per party removes this obstruction and yields an explicit Bell inequality whose maximal violation self-tests the state and all three local measurements. These results separate two forms of certification—correlator-equality self-testing and maximal-violation self-testing—and provide the first dedicated device-independent self-test for the CCZ state.

Core claim

The paper proves that twenty correlators determined by the state CCZ|+++⟩, taken from the five global contexts ZZZ, XZZ, ZXZ, ZZX, and XXX, uniquely pin down the state and the action of the Pauli X and Z measurements up to local isometries. The proof fixes eight equally weighted computational branches and propagates conditional X-flip relations across a branch cube, recovering the minus sign of the 111 amplitude. The paper further shows that the canonical X/Z realization, although nonlocal, cannot attain the largest quantum value of any Bell inequality it violates: whenever it maximizes a Bell expression, the local bound equals that value. Introducing a third independent reflection D per par

What carries the argument

The branch-cube argument: eight computational branches arise from projecting onto the Z-eigenstates at each site. Vanishing Z-moments make the branch norms equal, saturated generalized stabilizers (like X_A CZ_BC) become state-dependent relations, and a one-square identity forces the three negative flips incident on the 111 branch. Cross-party commutation and equal branch norms propagate these conditional X-flip relations around the cube, recovering the cubic sign (−1)^{abc}. For the Bell inequality, a finite noncommutative sum-of-squares certificate over Q(√2) proves the quantum bound; equality forces degree-two relations that yield the same branch flips and the SWAP isometry.

Load-bearing premise

The self-tests require the observed correlators to equal their target values exactly; if any correlator deviates even slightly, the extraction theorems do not apply, and the paper only provides partial robustness estimates rather than a full fidelity bound.

What would settle it

For Theorem 5, independently exhaustively enumerate all 512 deterministic local assignments and check that none exceeds 258−36√2; any counterexample would disprove the claimed local bound. For Theorem 1, search for a quantum realization (state and measurements) satisfying all twenty target correlators but not locally isometric to CCZ with Pauli X/Z; such a counterexample would invalidate the self-test.

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

If this is right

  • The CCZ state and its Pauli X/Z measurements can be certified with only two binary inputs per party and five global contexts, avoiding the need for trusted measurements.
  • The canonical X/Z realization cannot serve as a maximally violating strategy for any Bell inequality; a third measurement input is required for maximal-violation self-testing in this scenario.
  • The branch-cube mechanism provides a new way to recover non-Pauli phases from black-box correlations, which may extend to other phase-polynomial states.
  • The explicit Bell inequality gives a concrete protocol for device-independent certification of a magic-state resource, with a documented white-noise violation threshold around 97.8%.
  • The distinction between correlator-equality self-testing and maximal-violation self-testing is demonstrated concretely in a three-qubit example, clarifying the relation between these certification tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The high white-noise threshold suggests the constructed Bell inequality was not noise-optimized; the same SOS construction might yield more noise-tolerant inequalities for CCZ and other hypergraph states.
  • If the branch-cube propagation generalizes to higher-degree phase polynomials with uniform branches and a connected flip graph, the theorem could provide a route to self-testing larger hypergraph resource states.
  • The lack of a joint robustness bound means practical device-independent applications would require a stability analysis; until then, the exact-equality self-tests are proof-of-principle rather than directly usable in noisy experiments.
  • Theorem 4's obstruction likely reflects the algebraic structure of Pauli X/Z measurements; extending it to other two-setting measurement pairs might clarify why a third input is generically needed for maximal-violation self-tests of non-stabilizer states.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies device-independent certification of the three-qubit CCZ hypergraph state. It contains two main positive results and one structural no-go result. Theorem 1 gives an analytic self-test from twenty X/Z correlators drawn from five of the eight two-input contexts, using equal branch weights, saturated generalized stabilizers, and a branch-cube propagation argument that recovers the cubic phase. Proposition 3 shows these correlations are nonlocal. Theorem 4 shows that the canonical CCZ-X/Z realization cannot achieve the quantum maximum of any two-setting Bell expression with a positive local-quantum gap. Theorem 5 constructs a three-measurement Bell expression B* whose maximal quantum violation 42+120√2 self-tests the CCZ state and the X, Z, and D measurements; the upper bound is proved by an exact noncommutative SOS certificate over Q(√2), and the equality conditions are converted analytically into a SWAP extraction. Section 6 gives partial robustness estimates and explicitly states that a joint noisy-data fidelity bound is not derived.

Significance. The paper is significant if the results are correct. It provides the first tailored device-independent self-test of the CCZ hypergraph state, gives a concrete mechanism for recovering a non-Pauli cubic phase from black-box correlators, and cleanly separates self-testing from a set of correlator equalities from self-testing at the maximum of a single Bell inequality. The computer-assisted part is supported by an exact rational-arithmetic certificate, and the code repository is provided, which is a strength. The main caveat is that Theorem 5's bound depends on an external certificate that I could not independently check from the manuscript, and the extraction theorems are non-robust in the sense that exact equality is required. These caveats are acknowledged in the paper and do not, in my assessment, undermine the exact claims, which are the stated scope.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 2] The 'Total' row reads '3242 + 120√2'; from the column contributions and Eq. (41) the correct value is 42 + 120√2. Please correct this typo.
  2. [Appendices D and F] Theorem 5's quantum bound and equality conditions rest on the external SOS certificate (the matrices R,S and the 784-coefficient identity). The manuscript describes the certificate precisely and the repository is available, but the certificate itself is not part of the published text. For a load-bearing computer-assisted proof, please also deposit the certificate and exact verification script (or a verifier log) as permanent supplementary material or an archived DOI, so the published record is self-contained.
  3. [Appendix A.6, Eq. (80)] The notation 'Z_t^C' is confusing: the superscript t appears to be an exponent on Z_C. Please write Z_C^t or explicitly define the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the CCZ self-tests are genuine extraction theorems backed by an independent SOS certificate.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. Theorem 1 takes twenty correlator values as hypotheses and derives, through an analytic branch-cube argument, that the local isometry (11) maps the unknown state to |H3> and the X/Z actions to Pauli operators; the target values are not fitted outputs but assumed inputs, and the proof's key condition T = 1/2 is shown non-redundant by an explicit classical model satisfying the other nineteen equations with T = 0 (Appendix A.6). Theorem 4 is an independent convex-geometric argument that no Bell expression maximized by the canonical strategy has a strict local-quantum gap. Theorem 5 is the only computer-assisted step: the Bell operator is deliberately tailored so the target relations lie in the SOS kernel, but the quantum bound is not assumed—Eq. (46) is a certified exact identity with S > 0 proved by rational congruence and Gershgorin, and the local bound is by exact enumeration of 512 deterministic assignments. Saturation of that certificate forces the degree-two relations, and the SWAP extraction from them is analytic. The external repository certificate is a reproducibility concern, not circularity. Self-citations [10,11] are contextual and not load-bearing. Stated limitations (partial robustness bounds, absent joint fidelity bound, open minimal-correlator question) are acknowledged gaps in robustness, not reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests only on the standard Bell model, the self-testing definition, and trust in the exact computer-assisted certificate. No free parameters are fitted to data; the Bell-inequality coefficients are explicit protocol design choices, not physical parameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the third input D_p is just an extra black-box measurement setting.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Measurements can be modeled as Hermitian reflections on a tensor-product Hilbert space, with cross-party commutation and a purified pure shared state (Eq. 3).
    Standard device-independent Bell model; invoked in Section 2 and used by both main proofs.
  • domain assumption Self-testing is certified by existence of a local isometry mapping the unknown realization to the target state and measurements, up to an auxiliary junk state (Definition 1).
    This is the accepted formal criterion for state-and-measurement self-testing.
  • domain assumption The quotient algebra in which the SOS identity is stated correctly represents arbitrary-dimensional reflection realizations without assuming same-party commutation.
    Used in Appendices C-D; it is the standard black-box algebraic model for DI Bell proofs.
  • ad hoc to paper The supplied GitHub code and certificates are authentic and the exact rational arithmetic checks are bug-free.
    The computer-assisted part of Theorem 5 is not independently verified in this review; reproducibility relies on the linked repository.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17956 in / 28495 out tokens · 256107 ms · 2026-08-01T07:55:10.331881+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The three-qubit CCZ state is the smallest rank-three hypergraph state and an elementary entangled magic resource. Its cubic phase is governed by generalized stabilizers that are not Pauli strings, so standard graph-state self-testing arguments do not apply directly. We show that twenty correlators, all obtainable from five of the eight global input triples in the tripartite two-input, two-output scenario, determine this state and the action of the Pauli $X/Z$ measurements up to local isometries. The proof fixes eight equally weighted computational branches and propagates conditional $X$-flip relations across the branch cube, recovering the minus sign of the $111$ amplitude. These five-context correlations are nonlocal, but the canonical Pauli measurements cannot attain the largest quantum value of any Bell inequality that they violate: whenever they maximize a Bell expression, its local bound has the same value. Introducing an independent third measurement makes self-testing from maximal Bell violation possible. We construct an explicit Bell inequality whose maximal quantum violation self-tests the CCZ state and all three local measurements. An exact sum-of-squares decomposition proves the quantum bound, and its equality conditions yield an analytic SWAP extraction. Together, these results give two explicit device-independent self-tests of the CCZ state and demonstrate that determining a state and its measurements from several correlator equalities is distinct from identifying them through the maximal violation of a single Bell inequality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21288 by Xingyuan Bu, Xin Kuang, Yukun Wang, Yunguang Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hypergraph representation of |H3⟩. The shaded region denotes the single rank-three hyperedge e = {A, B, C}; no pairwise graph edges are present. The gate CCZABC changes the sign of only the 111 computational amplitude and gives generalized stabilizers such as KA = XA CZBC , together with cyclic permutations. into a local extraction map. Sum-of-squares decompositions expose the same relations through a Bell… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The eight Z branches form a cube. The one-square identity gives the three negative flips incident on 111 (violet dashed edges); commutation and equal branch norms determine the remaining flips. The target value T = 1/2 therefore forces anticommutation on the branch adjacent to 111. Cycling the middle party gives the three top-edge flips. Cross-party commutation and the equal branch norms then propagate tho… view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Self testing quantum apparatus

    Dominic Mayers and Andrew Yao. “Self testing quantum apparatus”. Quantum Infor- mation and Computation4, 273–286 (2004). arXiv:quant-ph/0307205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Self-testing of quantum systems: a review

    Ivan Šupić and Joseph Bowles. “Self-testing of quantum systems: a review”. Quantum 4, 337 (2020). arXiv:1904.10042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of CHSH-like inequalities and their application to self-testing

    Cédric Bamps and Stefano Pironio. “Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of CHSH-like inequalities and their application to self-testing”. Physical Review A91, 052111 (2015). arXiv:1504.06960

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Bounding the set of quantum correlations

    Miguel Navascués, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Acín. “Bounding the set of quantum correlations”. Physical Review Letters98, 010401 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations

    Miguel Navascués, Stefano Pironio, and Antonio Acín. “A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations”. New Journal of Physics10, 073013 (2008). arXiv:0803.4290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Physical characterization of quantum devices from nonlocal corre- lations

    Jean-Daniel Bancal, Miguel Navascués, Valerio Scarani, Tamás Vértesi, and Tzyh Haur Yang. “Physical characterization of quantum devices from nonlocal corre- lations”. Physical Review A91, 022115 (2015). arXiv:1307.7053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt and Mermin inequalities

    Jędrzej Kaniewski. “Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt and Mermin inequalities”. Physical Review Letters117, 070402 (2016). arXiv:1604.08176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Robust self-testing of the three-qubit W state

    Xingyao Wu, Yu Cai, Tzyh Haur Yang, Huy Nguyen Le, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Valerio Scarani. “Robust self-testing of the three-qubit W state”. Physical Review A 90, 042339 (2014). arXiv:1407.5769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Device-independent to- mography of multipartite quantum states

    Károly F. Pál, Tamás Vértesi, and Miguel Navascués. “Device-independent to- mography of multipartite quantum states”. Physical Review A 90, 042340 (2014). arXiv:1407.5911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Self- testing using only marginal information

    Xinhui Li, Yu Cai, Yunguang Han, Qiaoyan Wen, and Valerio Scarani. “Self- testing using only marginal information”. Physical Review A 98, 052331 (2018). arXiv:1808.02223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Self-testing of symmetric three-qubit states

    Xinhui Li, Yukun Wang, Yunguang Han, Su-Juan Qin, Fei Gao, and Qiaoyan Wen. “Self-testing of symmetric three-qubit states”. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications38, 589–597 (2020). arXiv:1907.06397. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Self-testing graph states

    Matthew McKague. “Self-testing graph states”. In Theory of Quantum Computa- tion, Communication, and Cryptography. Volume 6745 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104–120. Springer (2011). arXiv:1010.1989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Scal- able Bell inequalities for qubit graph states and robust self-testing

    Flavio Baccari, Remigiusz Augusiak, Ivan Šupić, Jordi Tura, and Antonio Acín. “Scal- able Bell inequalities for qubit graph states and robust self-testing”. Physical Review Letters124, 020402 (2020). arXiv:1812.10428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Local entanglability and multipartite en- tanglement

    Caroline Kruszynska and Barbara Kraus. “Local entanglability and multipartite en- tanglement”. Physical Review A79, 052304 (2009). arXiv:0808.3862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Encoding hypergraphs into quantum states

    Ri Qu, Juan Wang, Zong-shang Li, and Yan-ru Bao. “Encoding hypergraphs into quantum states”. Physical Review A87, 022311 (2013). arXiv:1211.3911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Quantum hypergraph states

    Matteo Rossi, Marcus Huber, Dagmar Bruß, and Chiara Macchiavello. “Quantum hypergraph states”. New Journal of Physics15, 113022 (2013). arXiv:1211.5554

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Entanglement and non- classical properties of hypergraph states

    Otfried Gühne, Martí Cuquet, Frank E. S. Steinhoff, Tobias Moroder, Matteo Rossi, Dagmar Bruß, Barbara Kraus, and Chiara Macchiavello. “Entanglement and non- classical properties of hypergraph states”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 335303 (2014). arXiv:1404.6492

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Local unitary symmetries of hypergraph states

    David W. Lyons, Daniel J. Upchurch, Scott N. Walck, and Chase D. Yetter. “Local unitary symmetries of hypergraph states”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 095301 (2015). arXiv:1410.3904

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Local Pauli stabilizers of symmetric hypergraph states

    David W. Lyons, Nathaniel P. Gibbons, Mark A. Peters, Daniel J. Upchurch, Scott N. Walck, and Ezekiel W. Wertz. “Local Pauli stabilizers of symmetric hypergraph states”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 245303 (2017). arXiv:1609.01306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Multipartite entanglement and hypergraph states of three qubits

    Ri Qu, Zong-shang Li, Juan Wang, and Yan-ru Bao. “Multipartite entanglement and hypergraph states of three qubits”. Physical Review A 87, 032329 (2013). arXiv:1301.3576

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Multipartite entanglement detection for hypergraph states

    Maddalena Ghio, Daniele Malpetti, Matteo Rossi, Dagmar Bruß, and Chiara Mac- chiavello. “Multipartite entanglement detection for hypergraph states”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 045302 (2018). arXiv:1703.00429

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Hierarchy of universal entanglement in 2D measurement-based quantum computation

    Jacob Miller and Akimasa Miyake. “Hierarchy of universal entanglement in 2D measurement-based quantum computation”. npj Quantum Information 2, 16036 (2016). arXiv:1508.02695

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Latent computational complexity of symmetry- protected topological order with fractional symmetry

    Jacob Miller and Akimasa Miyake. “Latent computational complexity of symmetry- protected topological order with fractional symmetry”. Physical Review Letters120, 170503 (2018). arXiv:1612.08135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Quantum supremacy in constant-time measurement-based computation: A unified architecture for sampling and verification

    Jacob Miller, Stephen Sanders, and Akimasa Miyake. “Quantum supremacy in constant-time measurement-based computation: A unified architecture for sampling and verification”. Physical Review A96, 062320 (2017). arXiv:1703.11002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Changing the circuit- depth complexity of measurement-based quantum computation with hypergraph states

    Mariami Gachechiladze, Otfried Gühne, and Akimasa Miyake. “Changing the circuit- depth complexity of measurement-based quantum computation with hypergraph states”. Physical Review A99, 052304 (2019). arXiv:1805.12093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Quantum computational universality of hypergraph states with Pauli-X and Z-basis measurements

    Yuki Takeuchi, Tomoyuki Morimae, and Masahito Hayashi. “Quantum computational universality of hypergraph states with Pauli-X and Z-basis measurements”. Scientific Reports9, 13585 (2019). arXiv:1809.07552

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clif- ford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. “Universal quantum computation with ideal Clif- ford gates and noisy ancillas”. Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005). arXiv:quant- ph/0403025

    arXiv 2005

  28. [28]

    Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant Toffoli gate

    Cody Jones. “Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant Toffoli gate”. Physical Review A87, 022328 (2013). arXiv:1212.5069. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Distilling one-qubit magic states into Toffoli states

    Bryan Eastin. “Distilling one-qubit magic states into Toffoli states”. Physical Review A87, 032321 (2013). arXiv:1212.4872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Codes and protocols for distillingT, controlled-S, and Toffoli gates

    Jeongwan Haah and Matthew B. Hastings. “Codes and protocols for distillingT, controlled-S, and Toffoli gates”. Quantum2, 71 (2018). arXiv:1709.02832

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing

    Mark Howard and Earl Campbell. “Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing”. Physical Review Letters118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  32. [32]

    Magic of quantum hypergraph states

    Junjie Chen, Yuxuan Yan, and You Zhou. “Magic of quantum hypergraph states”. Quantum8, 1351 (2024). arXiv:2308.01886

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Demonstrationofhypergraph- state quantum information processing

    Jieshan Huang, Xudong Li, Xiaojiong Chen, Chonghao Zhai, Yun Zheng, Yulin Chi, YanLi, QiongyiHe, QihuangGong, andJianweiWang. “Demonstrationofhypergraph- state quantum information processing”. Nature Communications15, 2601 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Verifiable measurement-only blind quan- tum computing with stabilizer testing

    Masahito Hayashi and Tomoyuki Morimae. “Verifiable measurement-only blind quan- tum computing with stabilizer testing”. Physical Review Letters115, 220502 (2015). arXiv:1505.07535

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Verified measurement- based quantum computing with hypergraph states

    Tomoyuki Morimae, Yuki Takeuchi, and Masahito Hayashi. “Verified measurement- based quantum computing with hypergraph states”. Physical Review A 96, 062321 (2017). arXiv:1701.05688

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Verification of many-qubit states

    Yuki Takeuchi and Tomoyuki Morimae. “Verification of many-qubit states”. Physical Review X8, 021060 (2018). arXiv:1709.07575

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Optimalverificationofentangled states with local measurements

    SamPallister, NoahLinden, andAshleyMontanaro. “Optimalverificationofentangled states with local measurements”. Physical Review Letters120, 170502 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Efficient verification of hypergraph states

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. “Efficient verification of hypergraph states”. Physical Review Applied12, 054047 (2019). arXiv:1806.05565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario

    Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. “Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario”. Physical Review Letters 123, 260504 (2019). arXiv:1909.01900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Self-testing of a single quantum device under computational assumptions

    Tony Metger and Thomas Vidick. “Self-testing of a single quantum device under computational assumptions”. Quantum5, 544 (2021). arXiv:2001.09161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Computational self-testing for entangled magic states

    Akihiro Mizutani, Yuki Takeuchi, Ryo Hiromasa, Yusuke Aikawa, and Seiichiro Tani. “Computational self-testing for entangled magic states”. Physical Review A 106, L010601 (2022). arXiv:2111.02700

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Extreme viola- tion of local realism in quantum hypergraph states

    Mariami Gachechiladze, Costantino Budroni, and Otfried Gühne. “Extreme viola- tion of local realism in quantum hypergraph states”. Physical Review Letters116, 070401 (2016). arXiv:1507.03570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Symmetric hypergraph states: entanglement quantification and robust Bell nonlocality

    Jan Nöller, Otfried Gühne, and Mariami Gachechiladze. “Symmetric hypergraph states: entanglement quantification and robust Bell nonlocality”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 375302 (2023). arXiv:2302.01695

    arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested

    Andrea Coladangelo, Koon Tong Goh, and Valerio Scarani. “All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested”. Nature Communications 8, 15485 (2017). arXiv:1611.08062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested

    Maria Balanzó-Juandó, Andrea Coladangelo, Remigiusz Augusiak, Antonio Acín, and Ivan Šupić. “All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested”. Nature Communications17, 4463 (2026). arXiv:2412.13266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Scal- able self-testing of generic multipartite quantum states

    Jinchang Liu, Elias X. Huber, Zhenyu Du, Xingjian Zhang, and Xiongfeng Ma. “Scal- able self-testing of generic multipartite quantum states” (2026). arXiv:2605.15106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Tight and self-testing multipar- tite quantum Bell inequalities from the renormalization group

    Paolo Abiuso, Julian Fischer, and Miguel Navascués. “Tight and self-testing multipar- tite quantum Bell inequalities from the renormalization group”. To appear in Physical Review Letters (2026). arXiv:2503.03878. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Graph-theoretic framework for self-testing in Bell scenarios

    Kishor Bharti, Maharshi Ray, Zhen-Peng Xu, Masahito Hayashi, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Adán Cabello. “Graph-theoretic framework for self-testing in Bell scenarios”. PRX Quantum3, 030344 (2022). arXiv:2104.13035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Custom Bell inequalities from formal sums of squares

    Victor Barizien, Pavel Sekatski, and Jean-Daniel Bancal. “Custom Bell inequalities from formal sums of squares”. Quantum8, 1333 (2024). arXiv:2308.08601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Geometry of the set of quantum correla- tions

    Koon Tong Goh, Jędrzej Kaniewski, Elie Wolfe, Tamás Vértesi, Xingyao Wu, Yu Cai, Yeong-Cherng Liang, and Valerio Scarani. “Geometry of the set of quantum correla- tions”. Physical Review A97, 022104 (2018). arXiv:1710.05892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Quantumcorrelationsontheno-signalingboundary: Self-testing and more

    Kai-Siang Chen, Gelo Noel M. Tabia, Chellasamy Jebarathinam, Shiladitya Mal, Jun- YiWu, andYeong-CherngLiang. “Quantumcorrelationsontheno-signalingboundary: Self-testing and more”. Quantum7, 1054 (2023). arXiv:2207.13850. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023