pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18243 · v1 · pith:J3ZMCXFTnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

One pure steered state implies Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering

Qiu-Cheng Song , Joonwoo Bae This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 10:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords EPR steeringquantum steering ellipsoidtwo-qubit entangled statespure steered statesGisin theoremBloch spherebidirectional steering
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-qubit entangled state with at least one pure steered state is EPR steerable in both directions.

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

The paper shows that any two-qubit entangled state possessing even a single pure steered state on one side must be Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steerable toward the other side. This follows because a pure steered state occurs precisely when the quantum steering ellipsoid touches the Bloch sphere at one point, and the authors prove that the number of such contact points is always the same for both parties. The possible counts are only zero, one, two, or infinitely many. Consequently, the existence of one pure steered state forces two-way steerability. The result supplies a simple geometric test that directly addresses how the Gisin theorem behaves under steering.

Core claim

We show that a two-qubit entangled state admitting at least one pure steered state is Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steerable from Alice to Bob. Pure steered states correspond to the quantum steering ellipsoid of Bob being tangent to his Bloch sphere at least at one point. We prove that Bob's ellipsoid is tangent to his Bloch sphere at exactly N points, for N in {0,1,2,∞}, if and only if Alice's ellipsoid is tangent to her Bloch sphere at exactly N points. Therefore, for any two-qubit entangled state, if one party can steer the other to at least one pure state, the state is two-way EPR steerable.

What carries the argument

The quantum steering ellipsoid and the points at which it touches the Bloch sphere; each tangency point marks a pure steered state and the count of such points determines steerability.

If this is right

  • Existence of one pure steered state immediately certifies two-way EPR steering without further calculation.
  • Absence of any pure steered states on both sides is consistent with the state being unsteerable in either direction.
  • The only possible numbers of pure steered states for entangled two-qubit states are zero, one, two, or infinitely many.
  • Steering verification reduces to counting tangency points of the ellipsoid rather than optimizing over all measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The geometric criterion may allow faster numerical checks of steering for families of states parameterized by a single angle.
  • The same tangency counting could be tested experimentally by preparing the state and measuring conditional purity on one side.
  • If the symmetry of tangency points extends beyond two qubits, it would link steering in larger systems to ellipsoid geometry in higher dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

A pure steered state is exactly equivalent to the steering ellipsoid touching the Bloch sphere at that point.

What would settle it

An explicit two-qubit entangled density matrix in which one party steers the other to a pure state yet the overall state fails to satisfy any EPR steering criterion, or in which the two parties have unequal numbers of tangency points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18243 by Joonwoo Bae, Qiu-Cheng Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-to-one correspondence between the pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Illustration of Alice’s response function in LHS models. If an LHS model exists, it must include the pure state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The one-to-one correspondence between Alice’s pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A polyhedron cannot fully contain a QSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of Alice’s response function in LHS models for two pure steered states. Bob’s QSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. QSEs for the X-states ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. QSEs for the state in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. QSEs for the state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we show that a two-qubit entangled state admitting at least one pure steered state is Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steerable from Alice to Bob. Pure steered states signifies that the quantum steering ellipsoid of Bob is tangent to his Bloch sphere at least at a single point. Furthermore, we prove that for a two-qubit entangled state, Bob's quantum steering ellipsoid is tangent to his Bloch sphere at exactly $N$ points, for $N\in \{ 0,1,2,\infty\}$, if and only if Alice's quantum steering ellipsoid is tangent to her Bloch sphere at exactly $N$ points. For any two-qubit entangled state, therefore, if one party can steer the other to at least one pure state, the state is two-way EPR steerable. We also present several illuminating instances of two-qubit entangled states such that the EPR steering can be verified in terms of pure steered states. Our result addresses the Gisin theorem in a EPR steering scenario: at least a single pure steered state implies two-way steering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that for two-qubit entangled states, the existence of at least one pure steered state implies EPR steerability from Alice to Bob. It equates a pure steered state with tangency of Bob's quantum steering ellipsoid to the Bloch sphere at that point. The paper further proves that the number of tangency points N (where N is in {0,1,2,∞}) is identical for Alice's and Bob's ellipsoids, implying that one pure steered state yields two-way EPR steerability. Examples of such states are provided, and the result is framed as addressing Gisin's theorem in the steering setting.

Significance. If the geometric tangency condition is rigorously shown to be incompatible with any local-hidden-state model, the result supplies a simple, geometrically intuitive criterion for two-way EPR steering in two-qubit systems. This could streamline both theoretical classification and experimental verification of steering by reducing the check to the existence of a single pure steered state rather than the full assemblage.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The step equating tangency of the steering ellipsoid at one point to the absence of an LHS model for the steered assemblage is left implicit. No explicit derivation is visible linking the geometric condition to the definition of EPR steerability (e.g., via incompatibility with any LHS decomposition or via an SDP formulation of the steering problem). This link is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Main geometric argument (likely §3)] Main geometric argument (likely §3): The claimed iff relation between the exact number of tangency points N ∈ {0,1,2,∞} for the two parties' ellipsoids must be shown to preserve the steerability implication without additional assumptions on the state; if the tangency count can be realized while an LHS model still reproduces the assemblage, the two-way steering conclusion would not follow.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Examples] Examples: The illuminating instances should include explicit numerical values or figures showing the ellipsoid tangency points and the corresponding pure steered states so that readers can directly verify the geometric conditions.
  2. [Notation] Notation: Ensure uniform terminology for 'quantum steering ellipsoid' and 'Bloch sphere' across all sections to prevent any ambiguity in the geometric statements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight areas where the connection between the geometric tangency condition and the absence of a local-hidden-state (LHS) model can be made more explicit, and where the two-way steering implication from the shared tangency count N requires additional verification. We address each point below and will incorporate the necessary clarifications and derivations in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The step equating tangency of the steering ellipsoid at one point to the absence of an LHS model for the steered assemblage is left implicit. No explicit derivation is visible linking the geometric condition to the definition of EPR steerability (e.g., via incompatibility with any LHS decomposition or via an SDP formulation of the steering problem). This link is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the link between tangency of the steering ellipsoid and the non-existence of an LHS model should be derived explicitly rather than left implicit. In the revised manuscript we will add a short derivation (likely as a new paragraph in Section 2 or an appendix) showing that tangency at a point on Bob's Bloch sphere is equivalent to the corresponding steered state being pure. We will then prove that any pure state in the steered assemblage is incompatible with an LHS model: an LHS decomposition expresses every conditional state as a convex combination of the same fixed ensemble of states, but a pure state lying on the boundary of the Bloch sphere cannot arise from a non-trivial mixture while preserving the no-signaling condition and the entanglement of the underlying two-qubit state. This explicit step will also be referenced briefly in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Main geometric argument (likely §3)] Main geometric argument (likely §3): The claimed iff relation between the exact number of tangency points N ∈ {0,1,2,∞} for the two parties' ellipsoids must be shown to preserve the steerability implication without additional assumptions on the state; if the tangency count can be realized while an LHS model still reproduces the assemblage, the two-way steering conclusion would not follow.

    Authors: The iff relation for the tangency count N is obtained from the symmetry properties of the two-qubit correlation matrix and the explicit parametrization of the steering ellipsoids. In the revision we will strengthen the argument in §3 by explicitly confirming that whenever N ≥ 1 the tangency condition already precludes any LHS model for the corresponding assemblage (via the pure-state argument added in response to the first comment). Because the same N applies to both parties' ellipsoids, the absence of an LHS model holds simultaneously in both directions. We will add a remark ruling out the possibility that a shared tangency count could coexist with a reproducing LHS model for an entangled state, thereby establishing two-way steerability without further assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct geometric characterization and symmetry proof

full rationale

The derivation proceeds by characterizing pure steered states via tangency of the steering ellipsoid to the Bloch sphere, proving an if-and-only-if symmetry on the exact number of tangency points (N in {0,1,2,∞}) between the two parties' ellipsoids for any two-qubit entangled state, and concluding two-way steerability from the N=1 case. This chain uses standard geometric properties of two-qubit steering ellipsoids and does not reduce the central implication to any fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or load-bearing self-citation; the steps remain independent of the target result and are self-contained against external benchmarks for ellipsoid-based steering criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard representations and assumptions from quantum information theory with no new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Two-qubit states admit a representation via quantum steering ellipsoids inside Bloch spheres.
    This geometric picture is the central tool used to translate purity of steered states into tangency conditions.
  • domain assumption EPR steerability can be characterized through the existence of pure steered states.
    The paper invokes this link to convert the geometric statement into the steering claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1470 out tokens · 57485 ms · 2026-05-20T10:18:48.514826+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Schr¨ odinger, Proc

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555 (1935)

    work page 1935

  3. [3]

    Schr¨ odinger, Proc

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.32, 446 (1936)

    work page 1936

  4. [4]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. A76, 052116 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  8. [8]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Bowles, T

    J. Bowles, T. V´ ertesi, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 200402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Sekatski, F

    P. Sekatski, F. Giraud, R. Uola, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 110201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Branciard, E

    C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A85, 010301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    N. Walk, S. Hosseini, J. Geng, O. Thearle, J. Y. Haw, S. Armstrong, S. M. Assad, J. Janousek, T. C. Ralph, T. Symul, H. M. Wiseman, and P. K. Lam, Optica3, 634 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

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

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Xiang, S

    Y. Xiang, S. Cheng, Q. Gong, Z. Ficek, and Q. He, PRX Quantum3, 030102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A40, 913 (1989)

    work page 1989

  16. [16]

    E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A80, 032112 (2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    D. J. Saunders, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nat. Phys.6, 845 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa, and H. M. Wise- man, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B32, A74 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Schneeloch, C

    J. Schneeloch, C. J. Broadbent, S. P. Walborn, E. G. Cavalcanti, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A87, 062103 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Kogias, P

    I. Kogias, P. Skrzypczyk, D. Cavalcanti, A. Ac´ ın, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 210401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    M. F. Pusey, Phys. Rev. A88, 032313 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    Skrzypczyk, M

    P. Skrzypczyk, M. Navascu´ es, and D. Cavalcanti, Phys. 6 Rev. Lett.112, 180404 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 024001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Bowles, F

    J. Bowles, F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. A93, 022121 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. A93, 052112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Rutkowski and K

    A. Rutkowski and K. Siudzi´ nska, Phys. Rev. A111, 062207 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. J. W. Hall, M. R. Anderson, M. Zwierz, and H. M. Wiseman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B32, A40 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    H. C. Nguyen and T. Vu, Europhys. Lett.115, 10003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    H. C. Nguyen, H.-V. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 240401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Zhang and J.-L

    Y.-X. Zhang and J.-L. Chen, arXiv: 2512.22030 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Ren and C

    C. Ren and C. Chen, Phys. Rev. A100, 022314 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Zhang, Z

    L. Zhang, Z. Chen, and S.-M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A104, 052427 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Wang, H.-Y

    H.-M. Wang, H.-Y. Ku, J.-Y. Lin, and H.-B. Chen, Com- mun. Phys.7, 72 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Tsai, H.-M

    Z.-L. Tsai, H.-M. Wang, and H.-B. Chen, New J. Phys. 27, 094502 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    McCloskey, A

    R. McCloskey, A. Ferraro, and M. Paternostro, Phys. Rev. A95, 012320 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Ku, S.-L

    H.-Y. Ku, S.-L. Chen, C. Budroni, A. Miranowicz, Y.-N. Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A97, 022338 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Q.-C. Song, T. J. Baker, and H. M. Wiseman, New J. Phys.25, 053005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Horodecki and M

    R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A54, 1838 (1996)

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Q.-C. Song, T. J. Baker, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A108, 012216 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Jevtic, M

    S. Jevtic, M. Pusey, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 020402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Braun, O

    D. Braun, O. Giraud, I. Nechita, C. Pellegrini, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, J. Phys. A47, 135302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    work page 1989

  43. [43]

    Zhang and E

    Y. Zhang and E. Chitambar, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    M. J. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Wang, Z.-C

    R.-C. Wang, Z.-C. Li, X.-Y. Fan, X.-R. Xie, H.-H. Wei, C. H. Oh, and J.-L. Chen, Phys. Rev. A110, 052210 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Chen, X.-J

    J.-L. Chen, X.-J. Ye, C. Wu, H.-Y. Su, A. Cabello, L. C. Kwek, and C. H. Oh, Sci. Rep.3, 2143 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    H. C. Nguyen and K. Luoma, Phys. Rev. A95, 042117 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Verstraete, Ph.D

    F. Verstraete, Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leu- ven (2002)

    work page 2002

  49. [49]

    Milne, S

    A. Milne, S. Jevtic, D. Jennings, H. Wiseman, and T. Rudolph, New J. Phys.16, 083017 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Milne, D

    A. Milne, D. Jennings, and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. A 92, 012311 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Hu and H

    X. Hu and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A91, 022301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Cheng, A

    S. Cheng, A. Milne, M. J. W. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A94, 042105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Cheng, L. Li, Q.-Y. Liang, B.-H. Liu, Y.- F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, M. J. W. Hall, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    B. G. Divyamani, I. Reena, P. K. Panigrahi, A. R. U. Devi, and Sudha, Phys. Rev. A107, 042207 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    K. Xu, L. Liu, N.-N. Wang, C. Zhang, Y.-F. Huang, B.- H. Liu, S. Cheng, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032415 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed derivations and additional figures

    work page

  57. [57]

    Gisin, Phys

    N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A154, 201 (1991)

    work page 1991

  58. [58]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 160402 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    M. T. Quintino, T. V´ ertesi, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    R. Uola, T. Moroder, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160403 (2014)

    work page 2014

  61. [61]

    Kiukas, C

    J. Kiukas, C. Budroni, R. Uola, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Phys. Rev. A96, 042331 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. G¨ uhne, and J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    Grinko and R

    D. Grinko and R. Uola, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 200201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    L. E. Porto, L. Tendick, D. Cavalcanti, R. Uola, and M. T. Quintino, arXiv: 2603.25345 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Gisin and A

    N. Gisin and A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A162, 15 (1992)

    work page 1992

  66. [66]

    J.-L. Chen, C. Wu, L. C. Kwek, and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 140407 (2004)

    work page 2004

  67. [67]

    S. K. Choudhary, S. Ghosh, G. Kar, and R. Rahaman, Phys. Rev. A81, 042107 (2010)

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    Li and S.-M

    M. Li and S.-M. Fei, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 240502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  69. [69]

    S. Yu, Q. Chen, C. Zhang, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 120402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Quantum Info. Comput.7, 459 (2007)

    work page 2007

  72. [72]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A200, 340 (1995)

    work page 1995

  73. [73]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969). Supplemental Material: One pure steered state implies Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering Qiu-Cheng Song 1∗ and Joonwoo Bae 2† 1Information&Electronics Research Institute, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141...

    work page 1969

  74. [74]

    Pointsaandbdenote the Bloch vectors of Alice and Bob, respectively. where X:= p x(1−x), Y:= 1 6 p y(1−y), K:= 1−y 6 .(171) Bob can steer systemAto exactly two distinct pure steered states |α⟩A = p 1−y|0⟩+ √y|1⟩,|α ′⟩A =− √1−y√1 + 3y|0⟩+ 2√y√1 + 3y|1⟩.(172) The two pure steered states on systemBare uniquely given by |β⟩B = √x|0⟩+ √ 1−x|1⟩,|β ′⟩B = p 3(1−x)...

    work page