Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Universal quantum cloning is impossible without contextuality

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-08 19:57 UTC pith:GR5MQWYJ

load-bearing objection The impossibility proof only covers noncontextual models with product-structured output states; a general non-factorized epistemic state could evade the polynomial constraint, and the N→M generalization is by example only. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05959 v1 pith:GR5MQWYJ submitted 2026-07-07 quant-ph

Universal quantum cloning beyond noncontextual theory

Min Namkung , Hyang-Tag Lim This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.65.Ta
keywords quantum cloningcontextualitynoncontextual theoryno-cloning theoremepistemic statesconfusabilityoperational statistical theoryquantum foundations
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 sets out to prove that universal quantum cloning — the task of producing approximate copies of an arbitrary unknown quantum state — cannot be reproduced within any noncontextual (classical-style) framework. The authors work within an operational statistical theory where preparations, transformations, and measurements are described by epistemic states (probability distributions over hidden ontic states). The central constraint they impose is that any transformation acting on a closed system must preserve the confusability between epistemic states, where confusability measures how distinguishable two preparations are. For the 1→2 cloning case (producing two copies from one input), they show that requiring a noncontextual transformation to match the Buzek–Hillery cloning machine yields the polynomial constraint 3c² − 4c + 1 = 0 on the confusability c between any two input states. This polynomial has solutions only at c = 1/3 and c = 1, meaning the transformation preserves confusability only for input pairs with those specific overlap values — not for arbitrary pairs spanning the full range [0, 1]. Since universal cloning must handle any input state, this contradiction establishes impossibility. The authors extend this argument to 1→3 and 1→4 cloning via analogous polynomial constraints (Eqs. 17 and 18), each admitting only discrete confusability solutions rather than the continuum required. They also show that a postselection-based cloning variant, when translated into the noncontextual framework, produces only maximally mixed output states with no dependence on the input — rendering it trivially useless as a cloning scheme.

Core claim

The paper's central result is Theorem 1: no noncontextual transformation can reproduce universal 1→2 quantum cloning for arbitrary input states. The proof works by demanding that the transformation preserve confusability (a measure of state distinguishability) between any pair of epistemic states, then showing this demand forces the confusability to satisfy 3c² − 4c + 1 = 0, which only holds for c = 1/3 and c = 1 — two isolated values rather than the full continuum [0, 1] that universal cloning requires. This is extended to 1→3 and 1→4 cloning with analogous polynomial constraints, and a separate result (Theorem 2) shows that the postselection-based cloning variant collapses to maximally混合输出

What carries the argument

The confusability-preserving condition for noncontextual transformations (Eq. 4), which requires that any closed-system transformation L must preserve the confusability between epistemic states. This condition, combined with the structure of the Buzek–Hillery cloning machine translated into epistemic-state language, generates polynomial constraints on confusability values that admit only discrete solutions, contradicting the continuum required for universal cloning.

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof depends on the premise that any valid noncontextual transformation acting on a closed system must preserve the confusability between epistemic states. If one could construct a noncontextual transformation that legitimately changes confusability — for example, by allowing information exchange with an environment — the polynomial constraints that drive the impossibility result would not apply.

What would settle it

A noncontextual transformation that reproduces the output statistics of universal quantum cloning for arbitrary input states while either (a) preserving confusability for all input pairs across the full range [0, 1], or (b) demonstrating that confusability preservation is not a necessary condition for closed-system noncontextual transformations, thereby invalidating the polynomial constraints.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the result establishes that universal quantum cloning requires contextuality as a resource, placing it in a strictly stronger category than state-dependent cloning, which can be partially reproduced noncontextually at sub-optimal fidelity.
  • The security of quantum cryptographic protocols that rely on cloning-based eavesdropping attacks would be traceable to contextuality as the specific quantum resource that prevents classical simulation of the attack.
  • The polynomial-constraint proof strategy could potentially be applied to other quantum information tasks to test whether they too are fully contextual or admit noncontextual approximations.
  • The connection to quantum state estimation (noted in the conclusion) suggests a link between contextuality and quantum sensing/metrology, since optimal cloning and state estimation are closely related tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The proof strategy generalizes naturally: for any N→M cloning scenario, one would expect a polynomial f_{M,N}(c) = 1 whose root structure determines whether noncontextual reproduction is possible. A systematic study of these polynomials across all (M, N) pairs could classify which cloning tasks are fully contextual versus partially classically simulable.
  • If the confusability-preserving condition were relaxed — for instance, by allowing the transformation to act on an open system with information flow to or from an environment — the polynomial constraints would not apply, and the impossibility proof would fail. This suggests that open-system noncontextual models might warrant separate investigation as potential classical simulations of cloning.
  • The gap between state-dependent cloning (noncontextually reproducible at sub-optimal performance) and universal cloning (not reproducible at all) raises the question of whether there is a sharp boundary: how large must a finite input set be before noncontextual cloning becomes impossible?

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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates whether universal quantum cloning can be reproduced within Spekkens' noncontextual framework. The central result (Theorem 1) shows that a noncontextual transformation reproducing the Bužek-Hillery 1→2 cloning machine, assumed to have a product-structured output (Eq. 7) and to preserve confusability (Eq. 4), leads to the polynomial constraint 3c²−4c+1=0, whose only solutions are c=1/3 and c=1. Since arbitrary input states can have any confusability c∈[0,1], the transformation cannot exist for all inputs. The result is extended to 1→3 and 1→4 cloning (Eqs. 17, 18) via analogous polynomial constraints, and postselection-based cloning is shown to produce only maximally mixed outputs (Theorem 2). The algebraic computations in Appendix A appear correct given the assumed structure.

Significance. The paper addresses a natural question in quantum foundations: whether the contextuality of universal quantum cloning can be established from an operational perspective, complementing prior results on state-dependent cloning [22, 23]. The proof strategy of deriving polynomial constraints on confusability is clean and the calculations are explicit. The extension to N→M cases and the treatment of postselection-based cloning add breadth. However, the significance is substantially limited by the fact that the impossibility result applies only to noncontextual models whose output epistemic states factorize in the specific form of Eq. (7); the paper does not establish that this is the most general noncontextual representation of the cloning output. This scope limitation is not acknowledged in the manuscript and should be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. §III.A, Eq. (7) and Appendix A, Eq. (24): The proof of Theorem 1 depends critically on the output epistemic state factorizing as a mixture of products of single-system epistemic states (e.g., μ_ψ(λ'_S)μ_ψ(λ'_R)μ_{ψ*}(λ'_M)). This factorization is what allows the joint confusability integral in Eq. (24) to decompose into products of single-system confusabilities, yielding the polynomial 3c²−4c+1=0. However, a noncontextual model need only reproduce measurement statistics; a general noncontextual representation of the same quantum output could use a joint epistemic state μ(λ'_S, λ'_R, λ'_M) that is not a mixture of product states but still yields the correct marginals (Eq. 8). Such a non-factorized state would not decompose into products of single-system confusabilities, and the polynomial constraint would not arise. The paper does not argue that the factorized form of Eq. (7) is the only—
  2. The N→M generalization (§III.C, Eqs. 17, 18) rests on the same factorized-output assumption as Theorem 1 (see Eq. 28 for the 1→3 case). Additionally, only two specific instances (1→3 and 1→4) are worked out, and the general N→M case is not proved; the text states that f_{M,N}(c)=1 'for several M and N' but does not establish this for all M,N. The claim in the abstract and conclusion that the N→M scenario is 'fully contextual' should be either supported by a general proof or qualified to reflect the limited set of instances treated.
  3. The confusability-preserving condition (§II, Eq. 4 and surrounding text) is the load-bearing premise. The justification given is that L 'represents a transformation acting on a closed system, meaning that there is no information flow between the system and the environment.' This is stated but not derived from the noncontextual framework axioms. The paper should either provide a reference establishing that confusability preservation is a theorem within Spekkens' framework or explicitly flag it as an additional assumption and discuss whether it is necessary. Without this, the scope of the impossibility result is unclear.
minor comments (7)
  1. The abstract contains stylistic issues: 'focuses on revealing that' and 'further covers general examples to observe the contextual behavior of' are awkward. Consider simplifying to direct statements.
  2. In §II, the sentence 'This physically implies that information regarding the prepared states is flowed inside (outside) the system, making physical contraction' is grammatically unclear and should be revised.
  3. Eq. (13): L_Π is defined as a product of μ_{Φ+} and π_{Φ+}, but the relationship to the projector Π̂_{SR} in Eq. (10) is only by analogy. The paper should clarify what operational role L_Π plays and whether it is the most general non-deterministic transformation available.
  4. The conclusion states 'cloning-based attacks are impossible without contextuality.' This is stronger than what Theorem 1 establishes (which is specific to the factorized, confusability-preserving setting). The claim should be stated more carefully.
  5. Reference [24] is cited as 'arXiv:2406.19382 (2026)' but the arXiv number suggests 2024. Please verify and correct the year.
  6. In Appendix A, Eq. (23), the support-space computation involves three terms but the text refers to 'the three epistemic states in each term are defined on mutually distinct ontic state spaces.' A brief clarification of why the supports are disjoint would help the reader.
  7. The notation c_{ψ,ẽψ} for confusability is introduced in Eq. (20) of Appendix A but used earlier in Eq. (9) of the main text. Consider defining it at first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying three substantive issues. We agree that the factorization assumption, the scope of the N→M claims, and the status of the confusability-preservation condition all require clarification in the manuscript. We address each point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §III.A, Eq. (7) and Appendix A, Eq. (24): The proof of Theorem 1 depends critically on the output epistemic state factorizing as a mixture of products of single-system epistemic states. A general noncontextual representation could use a joint epistemic state that is not a mixture of product states but still yields the correct marginals, and the polynomial constraint would not arise. The paper does not argue that the factorized form is the only or most general noncontextual representation.

    Authors: The referee is correct that our proof relies on the factorized structure of Eq. (7), and that we have not established this as the most general noncontextual representation of the cloning output. We acknowledge this as a genuine scope limitation of Theorem 1. The factorized form is motivated by the structure of the quantum output state itself: the Bužek-Hillery machine produces a quantum state that is a mixture of product states (Eq. 5), and Eq. (7) is the natural noncontextual analog of that structure. However, as the referee observes, a noncontextual model need only reproduce measurement statistics, and a joint epistemic state with the correct marginals but non-factorized correlations could in principle evade our polynomial constraint. We cannot rule out this possibility on the basis of the current argument. In the revised manuscript, we will (i) explicitly state that Theorem 1 applies to noncontextual models whose output epistemic state takes the factorized form of Eq. (7), (ii) acknowledge that this is not proven to be the most general noncontextual representation, and (iii) discuss the status of the factorization assumption as a structural ansatz motivated by the quantum output rather than a consequence of noncontextuality alone. We believe the result remains nontrivial—since the factorized form is the most direct noncontextual representation of the quantum cloning output—but the scope qualification is necessary and will be added. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The N→M generalization rests on the same factorized-output assumption and only two specific instances (1→3 and 1→4) are worked out. The general N→M case is not proved. The claim in the abstract and conclusion that the N→M scenario is 'fully contextual' should be either supported by a general proof or qualified.

    Authors: We agree. The manuscript currently presents only the 1→3 and 1→4 cases as examples and does not provide a general proof for arbitrary N→M. The phrase 'fully contextual' in the abstract and conclusion overstates what we have established. In the revision, we will qualify the abstract and conclusion to state that we provide evidence of contextuality for specific instances (1→2, 1→3, 1→4) and that a general proof for arbitrary N→M remains open. We will also note that the N→M examples inherit the same factorization assumption discussed in our response to the first comment. We will adjust the language in §III.C to make clear that f_{M,N}(c) = 1 has been verified only for the specific cases treated, not for all M and N. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The confusability-preserving condition (§II, Eq. 4) is the load-bearing premise but is stated rather than derived from the noncontextual framework axioms. The paper should either provide a reference establishing that confusability preservation is a theorem within Spekkens' framework or explicitly flag it as an additional assumption and discuss whether it is necessary.

    Authors: The referee is right that confusability preservation is not a theorem of Spekkens' framework in the generality we use it. The condition is motivated by the physical intuition that a closed-system transformation should not allow information flow to or from the environment, and confusability preservation captures this intuition. However, this is an additional assumption beyond the definition of a noncontextual transformation L(λ'|λ). In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly flag confusability preservation as an additional assumption, clarify its physical motivation, and discuss its necessity. We note that without this assumption, the class of allowed noncontextual transformations is strictly larger, and our impossibility result would not follow. We will also note that this assumption is used in prior work on contextuality and state-dependent cloning [22, 23], but we agree that its status as an assumption rather than a derived theorem should be made transparent. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The factorization assumption (Eq. 7) is a genuine limitation: we cannot prove that it is the most general noncontextual representation of the cloning output, and extending the proof to non-factorized joint epistemic states would require a substantially different argument that we do not currently have.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; the proof is a genuine reductio using externally-sourced assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central result (Theorem 1) is a proof by contradiction: assume a noncontextual transformation L_V reproduces the Bužek-Hillery cloning output (Eq. 7), then show the confusability-preserving condition (Eq. 4, sourced from Ref. [14] by Schmid and Spekkens — an external reference) yields the polynomial 3c²−4c+1=0 (Eq. 9), which admits only c=1/3 and c=1, contradicting the requirement that arbitrary epistemic states with any confusability in [0,1] be handled. The derivation in Appendix A is straightforward algebra: the confusability integral (Eq. 24) decomposes into products of single-system confusabilities because of the factorized structure of Eq. 7, yielding c³+2c(1−c)², which when set equal to c (preservation) gives the polynomial. The factorized ansatz (Eq. 7) is a hypothesis within the reductio, not a definition of the conclusion — the paper assumes L_V exists with this structure and derives a contradiction. The two self-citations (Refs. [18, 23] by Namkung et al.) appear only in the introduction for motivational context on state-dependent cloning and state discrimination; neither is invoked as a load-bearing premise, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz justification in the proof chain. The confusability preservation condition (Eq. 4) — the load-bearing assumption — is attributed to the external Ref. [14]. The factorization assumption in Eq. 7 could limit the scope of the impossibility result (a non-factorized noncontextual representation might evade the polynomial), but this is a correctness/scope concern, not circularity: the paper does not define its inputs in terms of its outputs, nor does it rename a fit as a prediction. Score 1 reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations in a derivation that is otherwise self-contained against external references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The framework is entirely within the established Spekkens noncontextual ontology. The only parameter is the fidelity f, which is not fitted but is a variable over which the impossibility is claimed to hold universally.

free parameters (1)
  • f (fidelity parameter) = 2/3 in the optimal case; generalized to f∈[0,1]
    The fidelity parameter f in Eq. (7) determines the cloning fidelity. The proof claims to hold for any f∈[0,1], and the specific value f=2/3 corresponds to optimal cloning. It is not fitted to data but is a parameter of the transformation being analyzed.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Noncontextual ontological model framework (Spekkens): preparations, transformations, and measurements are described by epistemic states, ontic state transformations, and response functions with preparation/measurement/transformation equivalence.
    §II, Eqs. (1)-(3). This is the standard framework from Ref. [13].
  • domain assumption Confusability preservation: a transformation L acting on a closed system preserves the confusability between any two epistemic states.
    §II, Eq. (4) and surrounding text. This is the load-bearing assumption for all impossibility proofs. It is attributed to Ref. [14].
  • domain assumption Orthogonality of epistemic states: μ_ψ(λ)μ_{ψ⊥}(λ) = 0 for all λ, i.e., orthogonal quantum states have disjoint support in the ontological model.
    §III.A, after Eq. (7). This is a standard assumption in ontological models, following from preparation noncontextuality.
  • ad hoc to paper The structure of the noncontextual transformation L_V in Eq. (7) mirrors the quantum cloning output structure, with epistemic states replacing quantum states.
    §III.A, Eq. (7). This ansatz for the noncontextual transformation is constructed by direct analogy with the quantum cloning unitary. The proof shows no such transformation exists, but the specific form assumed could be questioned.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15957 in / 3235 out tokens · 570107 ms · 2026-07-08T19:57:27.460188+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum theory fundamentally forbids the perfect copying of an arbitrary unknown quantum state, according to a principle known as the no-cloning theorem. Nevertheless, it is possible to construct a deterministic quantum map that produces multiple approximate copies of an unknown quantum state. This task is referred to as universal quantum cloning, further facilitating numerous quantum technologies such as quantum cryptography and quantum communication. In this work, we theoretically verify that the universal quantum cloning cannot be realized within a noncontextual theory, highlighting its intrinsically nonclassical nature. Our verification first {focuses on revealing that} $1\rightarrow2$ cloning scenario {is fully contextual}, and {further covers general examples to observe the contextual behavior of} $N\rightarrow M$ scenario. We believe that our results regarding quantum cloning serve a key role for understanding both quantum foundation and application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05959 by Hyang-Tag Lim, Min Namkung.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Conceptual figure of a deterministic universal cloning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Conceptual figure of postselection-based universal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] 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

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature299, pp. 802-803 (1982)

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing,Proceed- ings IEEE International Conference on Computers, Sys- tems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India(IEEE, New York, 1984)

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    C. W. Helstrom,Quantum Detection and Estimation the- ory(Academy Press, New York, 1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Cariolaro,Quantum Communications(Springer, Switzerland, 2015)

    G. Cariolaro,Quantum Communications(Springer, Switzerland, 2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Scarani, S

    V. Scarani, S. Iblisdir, N. Gisin, and A. Acin, Quantum 8 cloning, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 1225 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    duan and G.-C

    L.-M. duan and G.-C. Guo, Probabilistic Cloning and Identification of Linearly Independent Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4999 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Bruss, D

    D. Bruss, D. P. DiVincenzo, A. Ekert, C. A. Fuchs, C. Macchiavello, and J. A. Smolin, Optimal universal and state-dependent quantum cloning, Phys. Rev. A57, 2368 (1998)

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    Buˇ zek and M

    V. Buˇ zek and M. Hillery, Quantum copying: Beyond the no-cloning theorem, Phys. Rev. A54, 1844 (1996)

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    Sciarrino, C

    F. Sciarrino, C. Sias, M. Ricci, and F. De Martini, Real- ization of Universal Optimal Quantum Machines by Pro- jective Operators and Stochastic Maps, Phys. Rev. A70, 052305 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Gisin and S

    N. Gisin and S. Massar, Optimal Quantum Cloning Ma- chines, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2153 (1997)

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. Specker, The problem of hidden vari- ables in quantum mechanics, Indiana Univ. Math. J.17, 59 (1968)

    work page 1968

  13. [13]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparation, transfor- mations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A71, 052108 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Schmid and R

    D. Schmid and R. W. Spekkens, Contextual Advantage for State Discrimination, Phys. Rev. X8, 011015 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Mukherjee, S

    S. Mukherjee, S. Naonit, and A. K. Pan, Discriminating three mirror-symmetric states with a restricted contex- tual advantage, Phys. Rev. A106, 012216 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    J. Shin, D. Ha, and Y. Kwon, Quantum Contextual Advantage Depending on Nonzero Prior Probabilities in State Discrimination of Mixed Qubit States, Entropy23, 1583 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Flatt, H

    K. Flatt, H. Lee, C. R. I. Carceller, J. B. Brask, and J. Bae, Contextual Advantages and Certification for Maximum-Confidence Discrimination, PRX Quantum3, 030337 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Namkung and H.-T

    M. Namkung and H.-T. Lim, Contextuality-enhanced quantum state discrimination under fixed failure prob- ability, Phys. Rev. A113, 022216 (2026)

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    Flatt and J

    K. Flatt and J. Bae, Contextual advantages across two- state discrimination strategies, New J. Phys.28, 044509 (2026)

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Guota, D

    S. Guota, D. Saha, Z.-P. Xu, A. Cabello, and A. S. Majumdar, Quantum Contextuality Provides Commu- nication Complexity Advantage, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 080802 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Lostaglio, Certifying Quantum Signatures in Thermo- dynamics and Metrology via Contextuality of Quantum Linear Response, Phys

    M. Lostaglio, Certifying Quantum Signatures in Thermo- dynamics and Metrology via Contextuality of Quantum Linear Response, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 230603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Lostaglio and G

    M. Lostaglio and G. Senno, Contextual advantage for state-dependent cloning, quantum4, 258 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Namkung, I

    M. Namkung, I. Kim, and H.-T. Lim, Contextuality of quantum non-demolition measurement via state discrim- ination, arXiv:2603.27917 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Doosi, T

    M. Doosi, T. Yianni, and F. Shahandeh, Contextuality of all optimal quantum cloning, arXiv:2406.19382 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    De Martini, V

    F. De Martini, V. Buˇ zek, F. Sciarrino, and C. Sias, Ex- perimental realizatiobn of quantum universal NOT gate, Nature419, 815 (2002)

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    H. K. Cummins, C. Jones, A. Furze, N. F. Soffe, M. Mosca, J. M. Peach, and J. A. Jones, Approximate Quan- tum Cloning with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 187901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    Z. B. Yang, P.-R. Han, X.-J. Huang, W. Ning, H. Li, K. Xu, D. Zheng, H. Fan, and S.-B. Zheng, Experimental demonstration of entanglement-based universal quantum cloning in a circuit, npj Quant. Inf.7, 44 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Lamas-Linares, C

    A. Lamas-Linares, C. Simon, J. C. Howell, and D. Bouwmeester, Experimental Quantum Cloning of Single Photons, Science296, 712 (2002)

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    R. W. Spekkens, Evidence for the epistemic view of quan- tum states: A toy theory, Phys. Rev. A75, 032110 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Bruss, A

    D. Bruss, A. Ekert, and C. Macchiavello, Optimal Uni- versal Quantum Cloning and State Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2598 (1998)

    work page 1998

  31. [31]

    Bae and A

    J. Bae and A. Acin, Asymptotic Quantum Cloning Is State Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 030402 (2006)

    work page 2006