Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 108 references

Efficient utilization of imaginarity in quantum steering

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Imaginarity can certify quantum steering from just four real parameters of a two-qubit state, via a new steering inequality that any local hidden state model must satisfy, with violation detected by simple Pauli witness operators.

desk verdict Candid take: the 2-measurement imaginarity steering inequality is a real and useful variant of NAQC/NAQI, the central algebra checks out, but the paper has proof-presentation gaps and an incomplete noise comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17140 v1 pith:PXELLTMK submitted 2025-08-23 quant-ph

Shounak Datta , A. S. Majumdar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn03.65.Ta
keywords quantumsteeringimaginarityrobustnessofinequalitywitnessoperatormonogamytwo-qubitstatesmutuallyunbiasedbases
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

This paper claims that the part of a two-qubit density matrix that changes under transposition — its imaginarity — is enough to certify quantum steering, and that detecting this requires less information than earlier steering tests. The authors derive an imaginarity steering inequality, $I_2(\rho_{AB}) \le \sqrt{2}$, that must hold for every local-hidden-state model, so a bipartite qubit state violating it lets Alice steer Bob's local imaginarity. The certificate uses only four of the state's fifteen real parameters, and the violation is read off from witness operators built from Pauli measurements in two bases per side. The paper also proves a monogamy trade-off and shows greater noise tolerance than two existing three-measurement partial-information steering criteria.

What carries the argument

The engine is the imaginarity-steering functional $I_2(\rho_{AB})$ together with the qubit complementarity relation $I^x_R(\rho)+I^y_R(\rho)\le\sqrt{2}$ for the robustness of imaginarity $I_R(\rho)=\tfrac12\|\rho-\rho^T\|_1$. The complementarity bound is applied to Bob's conditional states under Alice's $x$- and $y$-measurements; averaging over the hidden states in a local-hidden-state model converts it into the steering inequality. Convexity and compactness of the free set of states then turn the inequality into witness operators built from the Pauli terms $\mathbb{1}\otimes\sigma_x$, $\mathbb{1}\otimes\sigma_y$, $\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$, and $\sigma_y\otimes\sigma_y$, so a violation is read off as a negative expectation value.

What would settle it

Run a semidefinite-programming feasibility search for a local-hidden-state model on the four-parameter family with $I_2(\rho_{AB})>\sqrt{2}$; the theorem is settled by whether any such model reproduces the $x/y$ measurement statistics, and a positive example for the visibility-mixed singlet at $v=0.75$ would directly contradict the paper's prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2: for any bipartite qubit state, Alice can steer Bob's local imaginarity whenever $$I_2(\rho_{AB})=\tfrac12\big(|n_1-t_{11}|+|n_1+t_{11}|+|n_2-t_{22}|+|n_2+t_{22}|\big)>\sqrt{2}.$$ The quantity is derived from a complementarity relation for the robustness of imaginarity in two mutually unbiased bases, $I^x_R(\rho)+I^y_R(\rho)\le\sqrt{2}$, applied to Bob's conditional states. The proof shows every separable state satisfies the inequality, and it constructs witness operators $\widetilde{W}^k_{i,j}=\sqrt{2}\,\mathbb{1}_4-W^k_{i,j}$ whose negative expectation values flag the violation, establishing that no local hidden state model can reproduce the two-measurement statistics. The paper also proves the monogamy trade-off $I_2(\rho_{AB})+I_2(\rho_{AC})\le 2\sqrt{2}$ for tripartite pure states, and compares the inequality with two earlier partial-information steering criteria, finding a larger noise tolerance for the visibility-mixed singlet family.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that when Alice's cheating strategy averages hidden states, the imaginarity of the averaged state is no larger than the weighted average of the imaginarities of the individual hidden states; if mixing could concentrate imaginarity, the $\sqrt{2}$ ceiling on $I_2$ would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any two-qubit state with $I_2(\rho_{AB})>\sqrt{2}$ is steerable from Alice to Bob, so steering can be certified from four parameters instead of full state tomography.
  • The witness operators require only spin measurements in the $x$- and $y$-bases, with eight local projectors in the decomposition given in the paper.
  • In a tripartite pure state, Alice cannot simultaneously steer the imaginarity of both Bob and Charlie; one of the two reduced states must satisfy the inequality.
  • For white-noise-mixed singlet states the violation starts at $v>1/\sqrt{2}$, below the $v>0.815$ and $v>0.745$ thresholds quoted for the coherence-based and imaginarity-based three-measurement tests; the same $1/\sqrt{2}$ threshold applies to unsharp measurement sharpness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the witness needs only two bases per side and four parameters, a direct estimator that extracts these marginals from raw coincidence counts without reconstructing the full density matrix is a natural next step; the paper does not construct such an estimator.
  • The inequality is sufficient but not necessary for steering, so there is a gap between the region detected by $I_2$ and the full steerable region; mapping that gap could show how much steering is missed by partial-information tests.
  • The monogamy trade-off suggests a quantitative bound for one-sided device-independent tasks such as key distribution or self-testing, since all maximally entangled states saturate the maximal violation; quantifying how the violation magnitude converts into a security parameter is not done here.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an imaginarity steering inequality (ISI) for bipartite qubit states. By exploiting the robustness of imaginarity and a complementarity relation between two mutually unbiased bases, the authors derive a steering bound of √2 for local hidden state models. They express the left-hand side I2(ρAB) in terms of only four parameters (n1, n2, t11, t22), construct witness operators whose negative expectation values detect violations, illustrate the criterion on Werner states, X states, and MEMS, prove a monogamy inequality for pure tripartite states, and compare noise robustness and unsharp-measurement tolerance with NAQC and NAQI criteria.

Significance. The central steering certificate is attractive because it uses only two measurement settings per party and a partial tomographic description of the state. I verified the key algebraic reductions: the LHS bound in Eq. (15), the four-parameter formula in Eqs. (21)-(24), the Werner and X-state evaluations, and the equivalence I2 = 2λ under unsharp measurements are internally consistent. The witness family in Eqs. (35)-(40) is also a valid subgradient construction: its maximum over the Pauli-pair expectations equals I2(ρAB). If the proof gaps identified below are repaired, this would be a useful addition to the steering literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (10)] The equality I_R(σ_{a|A}) = Σ_λ p(λ)p(a|A,λ) I_R(ρ_λ) is not valid for the robustness of imaginarity: the trace norm is subadditive, not additive, so only ≤ holds in general. The subsequent derivation needs only the ≤ direction, so the steering bound in Eq. (15) survives, but the manuscript must replace the equality by an inequality and adjust the accompanying text, which currently attributes additivity to homogeneity of the norm.
  2. [Section IV, Lemma 2, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The norm estimate ∥Σ_{i,j}[(σ_i⊗I)+(I⊗σ_i)+(σ_i⊗σ_j)]∥ = √15/2 is not justified and appears numerically incorrect. The continuity of I2 can be proven by a simpler direct Lipschitz bound because n1, n2, t11, t22 are linear functions of ρ and | |a|-|b| | ≤ |a-b|, but the current proof should be corrected before the compactness argument for the separating witness is accepted.
  3. [Section V, Theorem 4, Eq. (66)] The proof jumps from the explicit expressions in Eqs. (62)-(65) to the claimed inequality I2(ρAB)+I2(ρAC) ≤ 2√2 without supplying the required algebra or optimization. The assertion that the maximum is attained at η0 = 1/√2, η1 = η4 = 0, η2 = η3 = 1/2 is stated but not demonstrated. Since monogamy is a headline result, the derivation must be completed or replaced by a valid argument.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'unhsarp' should be 'unsharp'.
  2. [Section III B, Eq. (11)] The notation I_R(ρ_{λ_max}) is used before λ_max is defined; please define it explicitly.
  3. [Section IV C, Eqs. (54)-(57)] The kets such as |0x0x⟩ are not defined; please add a sentence explaining the tensor-product shorthand, e.g. |ab⟩ = |a⟩⊗|b⟩.
  4. [Section IV A, Eq. (35)] The notation I2(ρAB) = { ±n1±n2, ... } is nonstandard; it should be written as the maximum over the displayed expressions, since the witness construction relies on I2 = max(|n1|,|t11|) + max(|n2|,|t22|).
  5. [Section VI A, Table I] The sentence 'The same bounds are obtained if Alice performs unsharp measurements with parameter v' is confusing because v denotes visibility in the table; please clarify whether the table's entries apply to the sharpness parameter λ.
  6. [Section III B, Eq. (10) versus Theorem 1, Eq. (18)] Theorem 1 correctly uses subadditivity and homogeneity, which is inconsistent with the equality claimed in Eq. (10); harmonizing these derivations would improve the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central ISI bound is derived self-contained from LHS model and qubit imaginarity complementarity.

full rationale

The claimed steering certificate is not circular. The central inequality (15) is derived from the LHS ansatz (1) by bounding Bob's conditional-state imaginarity with the maximum over hidden states and then invoking the qubit complementarity relation I_x^R(ρ)+I_y^R(ρ)≤√2 (9); neither step contains a fitted constant or assumes the target violation. The equality in Eq. (10) is stronger than the convexity of robustness of imaginarity actually guarantees, but the derivation needs only subadditivity in that direction, and replacing (10) by ≤ leaves inequalities (11)–(15) intact, so it is a proof-presentation defect rather than a circular reduction. Theorem 2's four-parameter formula (21) is obtained by direct algebra from the conditional Bloch vectors (22)–(23), with no parameter tuned to force a prediction. The witness family (35)–(40) is a linear reformulation of the same convex criterion: because max_{k,i,j} Tr[W^k_{i,j}ρ] equals I2(ρAB), the witnesses are mathematically equivalent to the inequality; this is a valid detection reformulation and not a separate fitted prediction. Noise and unsharpness comparisons use externally published NAQC/NAQI thresholds [40,41] and analytical evaluations of I2; no parameter is fitted to force the stated robustness conclusions. Self-citations by the authors appear only in contextual references and future-directions discussion, not as the load-bearing justification of the inequality. Some algebraic steps in Lemma 2 and Theorem 4 are omitted, but omitted algebra is a completeness defect, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no free parameters fitted to data: the numbers v, βxx, βyy, C in the examples are properties of the tested states, not parameters tuned to make the criterion work, and λ is a measurement sharpness setting. The central criterion rests on established background: the robustness-of-imaginarity measure [15,17], the standard LHS steering model [27,28], the Acín generalized Schmidt decomposition for three qubits [45], and the NAQC/NAQI bounds [40,41]. The qubit complementarity relation (Eq 9) is derived in-paper. No new physical entity is postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Robustness of imaginarity has the closed form I_R(ρ) = (1/2)||ρ - ρ^T||_1 and is a convex, homogeneous resource measure.
    Used in Eq (5) and Eqs (10)-(15) to bound conditional-state imaginarity under LHS mixtures; established in Hickey-Gour (2018) and Wu et al. (2021), not re-derived here.
  • standard math Subadditivity of the trace norm, ||Σ_i M_i||_1 ≤ Σ_i ||M_i||_1, and absolute homogeneity, ||cM||_1 = |c| ||M||_1.
    Invoked in Theorem 1 (Eq 18) and in the LHS bound (Eqs 10-11); standard properties of the trace norm.
  • domain assumption The LHS model (Eqs 1-2) with Bob's hidden states ρ_λ restricted to qubit states.
    Standard steering and cheating model from Wiseman-Jones-Doherty [27,28]; the complementarity bound I_x + I_y ≤ √2 applies only to qubit hidden states.
  • domain assumption The generalized Schmidt decomposition of 3-qubit pure states in Eq (59) covers all pure tripartite states up to local unitaries.
    Used in Theorem 4 (monogamy); from Acín et al. (2000) [45].
  • domain assumption The published NAQC bound γ_g and NAQI bound γ_g' from Refs [40,41] and their Werner-state thresholds v > 0.815 and v > 0.745.
    The noise-robustness comparison in Table I imports these thresholds from the cited literature; they are not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient utilization of imaginarity in quantum steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXELLTMK

@misc{pith2026250817140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient utilization of imaginarity in quantum steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXELLTMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17140}
}
read the original abstract

We illustrate the role of complex numbers in quantum information processing through the phenomenon of quantum steering. Exploiting partial knowledge of a qubit in terms of imaginarity, we formulate a steering criterion for bipartite qubit systems, which requires two dichotomic measurements at the untrusted side and two mutually unbiased bases at the trusted side. We show that quantum correlations embodied through our proposed imaginarity steering inequality can be witnessed by suitably constructed Hermitian operators that depend on fewer state parameters and require measurement of a lesser number of observables than for witnessing other forms of quantum nonlocal correlations. The monogamy of such correlations is also demonstrated. We further underscore the steering of imaginarity as an efficient nonlocal resource in the presence of white noise and under unhsarp measurements, showing the robustness of imaginarity steering compared to certain other steering criteria.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.17140 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color Online) The green coloured region in the parametric space of {βxx, βyy} ∈ [−1, 1] indicates the violation of inequality(15). To construct the witness operator for two-qubit X-state, we consider the following cases: (i) βxx ≤ 0 & βyy ≤ 0 which is equivalent to 0 = n1 ≥ t11 and 0 = n2 ≥ t22 as per Eq.(20). Hence we obtain I2(ρ X AB) = −t11−t22. This gives suitable witness operator as We4 1,1 = √ 2 114 + σx ⊗ σx… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Batle, A

    J. Batle, A. Plastino, M. Casas, and A. Plastino, On the entan- glement properties of two-rebits systems, Phys. Lett. A 298, 301 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Thus a state,ϱAB can be found which is witnessed by such an operator, thus allowing to witness the imaginarity steering criterion. A. Construction of a Witness Operator By using Eq.(24), a Hermitian operator eW can always be constructed which obeys the conditions, (i) Tr[ eWρAB] ≥ 0 for the states ρAB which satisfy inequality(15), and (ii) Tr[eWρAB] < 0 f...

  3. [3]

    The violation is maximal when there is no unsharpness in the measurement. We can observe that the conditional state,ρB|Ea|A obtained at Bob’s side after Alice’s unsharp measurement on her part of the singlet state is equivalent to that derived using projective measurement done by Alice on her subsystem of the initially chosen Werner state with visibilityλ...

  4. [4]

    Prasannan, S

    N. Prasannan, S. De, S. Barkhofen, B. Brecht, C. Silberhorn, and J. Sperling, Experimental entanglement characterization of two-rebit states, Phys. Rev. A 103, L040402 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement sharing in real-vector-space quantum theory, Found. Phys. 42, 19 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    W. K. Wootters, The rebit three-tangle and its relation to two- qubit entanglement, Jour. Phys. A: Math. Theo. 47, 424037 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Araki, On a characterization of the state space of quantum mechanics, Comm

    H. Araki, On a characterization of the state space of quantum mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys. 75, 1 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    McKague, M

    M. McKague, M. Mosca, and N. Gisin, Simulating quantum systems using real hilbert spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 020505 (2009)

    2009

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    D. E. Koh, M. Y . Niu, and T. J. Yoder, Quantum simulation from the bottom up: the case of rebits, Jour. Phys. A: Math. and Theo. 51, 195302 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Aleksandrova, V

    A. Aleksandrova, V . Borish, and W. K. Wootters, Real-vector- space quantum theory with a universal quantum bit, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052106 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Hardy and W

    L. Hardy and W. K. Wootters, Limited holism and real-vector- space quantum theory, Found. Phys. 42, 454 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    J. C. Baez, Division algebras and quantum theory, Found. Phys. 42, 819 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Zhu, Hiding and masking quantum information in com- plex and real quantum mechanics (2020), arXiv:2010.07843 [quant-ph]

    H. Zhu, Hiding and masking quantum information in com- plex and real quantum mechanics (2020), arXiv:2010.07843 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    W. K. Wootters, Optimal information transfer and real-vector- space quantum theory, Quantum Theory: Informational Foun- dations and Foils, edited by G. Chiribella and R. W. Spekkens 181, 21 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Q. Liu, T. J. Elliott, F. C. Binder, C. Di Franco, and M. Gu, Optimal stochastic modeling with unitary quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062110 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xi- ang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Operational re- source theory of imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 090401 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Z

    R.-Q. Zhang, Z. Hou, Z. Li, H. Zhu, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental masking of real quantum states (2021), arXiv:2107.01589 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hickey and G

    A. Hickey and G. Gour, Quantifying the imaginarity of quan- tum mechanics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 414009 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Zhang, N

    Z. Zhang, N. Li, and S. Luo, Broadcasting of imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052439 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y . Xi- ang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Resource theory of imaginarity: Quantification and state conversion, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032401 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    K.-D. Wu, T. V . Kondra, C. Scandolo, S. M. Rana, G.-Y . Xi- ang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Resource theory of imaginarity in distributed scenarios, Comm. Phys. 7, 171 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- plete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  15. [23]

    Zhu, Hiding and masking quantum information in com- plex and real quantum mechanics, Phys

    H. Zhu, Hiding and masking quantum information in com- plex and real quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033176 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Batle, T

    J. Batle, T. Białecki, T. Rybotycki, J. Tworzydło, and A. Bed- norz, Efficient discrimination between real and complex quan- tum theories, Quantum 9, 1595 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Schr ¨odinger, Discussion of probability relations between separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society 31, 555–563 (1935)

    E. Schr ¨odinger, Discussion of probability relations between separated systems, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society 31, 555–563 (1935)

    1935

  18. [26]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  19. [27]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Pro- posed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  20. [28]

    S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and A. C. Doherty, Entangle- ment, einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations, bell nonlocality, and steering, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052116 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    E. G. Cavalcanti, C. J. Foster, M. Fuwa, and H. M. Wiseman, Analog of the clauser-horne-shimony-holt inequality for steer- ing, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, A74 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

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

    2007

  23. [31]

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

    2020

  24. [32]

    ˇSupi´c and J

    I. ˇSupi´c and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: a review, Quantum 4, 337 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Z. Bian, A. S. Majumdar, C. Jebarathinam, K. Wang, L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Y . Zhang, and P. Xue, Experimental demonstration of one-sided device-independent self-testing of any pure two- qubit entangled state, Phys. Rev. A 101, 020301(R) (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    M. D. Reid, Demonstration of the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989)

    1989

  27. [36]

    Schneeloch, C

    J. Schneeloch, C. J. Broadbent, S. P. Walborn, E. G. Caval- canti, and J. C. Howell, Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in- equalities from entropic uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062103 (2013)

    2013

  28. [37]

    Maassen and J

    H. Maassen and J. B. M. U ffink, Generalized entropic uncer- tainty relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103 (1988)

    1988

  29. [38]

    A. G. Maity, S. Datta, and A. S. Majumdar, Tighter einstein-podolsky-rosen steering inequality based on the sum- uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052326 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantenthe- oretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 43, 172 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantenthe- oretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 43, 172 (1927)

    1927

  31. [40]

    Mondal, T

    D. Mondal, T. Pramanik, and A. K. Pati, Nonlocal advantage of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A 95, 010301 (2017)

    2017

  32. [41]

    Oppenheim and S

    J. Oppenheim and S. Wehner, The uncertainty principle de- termines the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, Science 330, 1072 (2010)

    2010

  33. [42]

    Pati and P

    A. Pati and P. Sahu, Sum uncertainty relation in quantum the- ory, Phys. Lett. A 367, 177 (2007)

    2007

  34. [43]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky-rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). 13

    1989

  35. [44]

    Wei and S.-M

    Z.-W. Wei and S.-M. Fei, Nonlocal advantages of quantum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. A110, 052202 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Bengtsson, Three ways to look at mutually unbi- ased bases, AIP Conference Proceedings 889, 40 (2007), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.2713445

    I. Bengtsson, Three ways to look at mutually unbi- ased bases, AIP Conference Proceedings 889, 40 (2007), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.2713445

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    H. S. Dhar, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Monogamy of quantum correlations - a review, in Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Applications , edited by F. F. Fanchini, D. d. O. Soares Pinto, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham,...

    2017

  38. [47]

    A. R. P. Rau, Algebraic characterization of x-states in quantum information, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 412002 (2009)

    2009

  39. [48]

    Ac ´ın, A

    A. Ac ´ın, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jan ´e, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach, Generalized schmidt decomposition and classifi- cation of three-quantum-bit states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1560 (2000)

    2000

  40. [49]

    Winter and D

    A. Winter and D. Yang, Operational resource theory of coher- ence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co- herence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Girolami, Observable measure of quantum coherence in finite dimensional systems, Phys

    D. Girolami, Observable measure of quantum coherence in finite dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  43. [52]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Violating bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and su fficient condition, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995)

    1995

  44. [53]

    F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao and G. Gour, Reversible framework for quantum resource theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 070503 (2015)

    2015

  45. [54]

    Fano, Pairs of two-level systems, Rev

    U. Fano, Pairs of two-level systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 855 (1983)

    1983

  46. [55]

    Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis , 3rd ed

    W. Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis , 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976)

    1976

  47. [56]

    Horodecki, M

    R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Teleportation, bell’s inequalities and inseparability, Phys. Lett. A 222, 21 (1996)

    1996

  48. [57]

    R. B. Holmes, Geometric Functional Analysis and its Applica- tions, 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer Verlag, 1975)

    1975

  49. [58]

    Kelleher, F

    C. Kelleher, F. Holweck, P. L ´evay, and M. Saniga, X-states from a finite geometric perspective, Results in Physics 22, 103859 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Evolution from entanglement to de- coherence of bipartite mixed ”x” states, Quantum Information and Computation 7, 459 (2007)

    2007

  51. [60]

    M. Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, Quantum discord for two- qubit x states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042105 (2010)

    2010

  52. [61]

    Ishizaka and T

    S. Ishizaka and T. Hiroshima, Maximally entangled mixed states under nonlocal unitary operations in two qubits, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022310 (2000)

    2000

  53. [62]

    W. J. Munro, D. F. V . James, A. G. White, and P. G. Kwiat, Maximizing the entanglement of two mixed qubits, Phys. Rev. A 64, 030302 (2001)

    2001

  54. [63]

    Bose and V

    S. Bose and V . Vedral, Mixedness and teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 61, 040101 (2000)

    2000

  55. [64]

    Fernandes, R

    C. Fernandes, R. Wagner, L. Novo, and E. F. Galv˜ao, Unitary- invariant witnesses of quantum imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 190201 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    Verstraete, K

    F. Verstraete, K. Audenaert, and B. De Moor, Maximally en- tangled mixed states of two qubits, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012316 (2001)

    2001

  57. [67]

    Bourennane, M

    M. Bourennane, M. Eibl, C. Kurtsiefer, S. Gaertner, H. We- infurter, O. G ¨uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Experimental detection of multipartite entangle- ment using witness operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087902 (2004)

    2004

  58. [68]

    Zhang and N

    L. Zhang and N. Li, On imaginarity witnesses, Physics Letters A 530, 130135 (2025)

    2025

  59. [69]

    G ¨uhne, P

    O. G ¨uhne, P. Hyllus, D. Bruß, A. Ekert, M. Lewenstein, C. Macchiavello, and A. Sanpera, Detection of entangle- ment with few local measurements, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062305 (2002)

    2002

  60. [70]

    Hyllus, Witnessing entanglement in qudit systems (PhD Thesis, University of Hannover, 2005)

    P. Hyllus, Witnessing entanglement in qudit systems (PhD Thesis, University of Hannover, 2005)

    2005

  61. [71]

    Barbieri, F

    M. Barbieri, F. De Martini, G. Di Nepi, P. Mataloni, G. M. D’Ariano, and C. Macchiavello, Detection of entanglement with polarized photons: Experimental realization of an entan- glement witness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 227901 (2003)

    2003

  62. [72]

    Ganguly, S

    N. Ganguly, S. Adhikari, A. S. Majumdar, and J. Chatter- jee, Entanglement witness operator for quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 270501 (2011)

    2011

  63. [73]

    Toner, Monogamy of non-local quantum correlations, Proc

    B. Toner, Monogamy of non-local quantum correlations, Proc. R. Soc. A. 465, 59 (2008)

    2008

  64. [74]

    Coffman, J

    V . Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Distributed entan- glement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000)

    2000

  65. [75]

    Toner and F

    B. Toner and F. Verstraete, Monogamy of bell correlations and tsirelson’s bound (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0611001 [quant-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Milne, S

    A. Milne, S. Jevtic, D. Jennings, H. Wiseman, and T. Rudolph, Quantum steering ellipsoids, extremal physical states and monogamy, New J. Phys. 16, 083017 (2014)

    2014

  67. [77]

    Kurzy ´nski, T

    P. Kurzy ´nski, T. Paterek, R. Ramanathan, W. Laskowski, and D. Kaszlikowski, Correlation complementarity yields bell monogamy relations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180402 (2011)

    2011

  68. [78]

    M. D. Reid, Monogamy inequalities for the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox and quantum steering, Phys. Rev. A88, 062108 (2013)

    2013

  69. [79]

    Kurzy ´nski, A

    P. Kurzy ´nski, A. Cabello, and D. Kaszlikowski, Fundamen- tal monogamy relation between contextuality and nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 100401 (2014)

    2014

  70. [80]

    Lee and J

    S. Lee and J. Park, Monogamy of entanglement and teleporta- tion capability, Phys. Rev. A79, 054309 (2009)

    2009

  71. [81]

    Ramanathan, A

    R. Ramanathan, A. Soeda, P. Kurzy´nski, and D. Kaszlikowski, Generalized monogamy of contextual inequalities from the no-disturbance principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 050404 (2012)

    2012

  72. [82]

    X.-K. Song, T. Wu, and L. Ye, The monogamy relation and quantum phase transition in one-dimensional anisotropic xxz model, 12, 3305–3317 (2013)

    2013

  73. [83]

    G. L. Giorgi, Monogamy properties of quantum and classical correlations, Phys. Rev. A 84, 054301 (2011)

    2011

  74. [84]

    Allegra, P

    M. Allegra, P. Giorda, and A. Montorsi, Quantum discord and classical correlations in the bond-charge hubbard model: Quantum phase transitions, off-diagonal long-range order, and violation of the monogamy property for discord, Phys. Rev. B 84, 245133 (2011)

    2011

  75. [85]

    Pramanik, M

    T. Pramanik, M. Kaplan, and A. S. Majumdar, Fine-grained einstein-podolsky-rosen–steering inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 90, 050305 (2014)

    2014

  76. [86]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Singha Roy, A. K. Pal, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Conclusive identification of quantum channels via monogamy of quantum correlations, Phys. Lett. A 380, 3588 (2016)

    2016

  77. [87]

    Gisin, G

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

    2002

  78. [88]

    D ¨ur, G

    W. D ¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A62, 062314 (2000). 14

    2000

  79. [89]

    Datta, S

    S. Datta, S. Goswami, T. Pramanik, and A. Majumdar, Preser- vation of a lower bound of quantum secret key rate in the pres- ence of decoherence, Phys. Lett. A 381, 897 (2017)

    2017

  80. [90]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990)

    1990

  81. [91]

    S. Xue, J. Guo, P. Li, M. Ye, and Y . Li, Quantification of resource theory of imaginarity, Quant. Inf. Process. 20, 383 (2021)

    2021

  82. [92]

    Ac ´ın, D

    A. Ac ´ın, D. Bruß, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Classifica- tion of mixed three-qubit states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040401 (2001)

    2001

  83. [93]

    J. V . Neumann, Mathematical F oundations of Quantum Me- chanics (Princeton University Press, 1955)

    1955

  84. [94]

    Brunner, D

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

    2014

  85. [95]

    Q. Chen, T. Gao, and F. Yan, Measures of imaginarity and quantum state order, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 280312 (2023)

    2023

  86. [96]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  87. [97]

    S. Mal, A. S. Majumdar, and D. Home, Sharing of nonlocality of a single member of an entangled pair of qubits is not pos- sible by more than two unbiased observers on the other wing, Mathematics 4, 48 (2016)

    2016

  88. [98]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 024001 (2016)

    2016

  89. [99]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt, The quantum theory of measurement, V ol. 2 (Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 1996)

    1996

  90. [100]

    Passaro, D

    E. Passaro, D. Cavalcanti, P. Skrzypczyk, and A. Ac ´ın, Op- timal randomness certification in the quantum steering and prepare-and-measure scenarios, New J. Phys. 17, 113010 (2015)

    2015

  91. [101]

    F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, Quantifying entanglement with witness operators, Phys. Rev. A 72, 022310 (2005)

    2005

  92. [102]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y . Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error miti- gation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  93. [103]

    Mondal and C

    D. Mondal and C. Mukhopadhyay, Steerability of quantum coherence in accelerated frame (2015), arXiv:1510.07556 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [104]

    ˇSupic and M

    I. ˇSupic and M. J. Hoban, Self-testing through epr-steering, New J. of Phys. 18, 075006 (2016)

    2016

  95. [105]

    Goswami, B

    S. Goswami, B. Bhattacharya, D. Das, S. Sasmal, C. Jebarat- nam, and A. S. Majumdar, One-sided device-independent self- testing of any pure two-qubit entangled state, Phys. Rev. A98, 022311 (2018)

    2018

  96. [106]

    Datta and A

    S. Datta and A. S. Majumdar, Sharing of nonlocal advantage of quantum coherence by sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042311 (2018)

    2018

  97. [107]

    Hu and H

    M.-L. Hu and H. Fan, Nonlocal advantage of quantum co- herence in high-dimensional states, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022312 (2018)

    2018

  98. [108]

    Sasmal, D

    S. Sasmal, D. Das, S. Mal, and A. S. Majumdar, Steering a single system sequentially by multiple observers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012305 (2018)

    2018

  99. [110]

    Gupta, A

    S. Gupta, A. G. Maity, D. Das, A. Roy, and A. S. Majumdar, Genuine einstein-podolsky-rosen steering of three-qubit states by multiple sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022421 (2021)

    2021

  100. [112]

    Therefore, ISI turns out to be the most resilient against unsharp measure- ments done by Alice to obtain steerability using incomplete knowledge of Bob’s local hidden state (LHS)

    It hence follows that the optimum range of sharpness pa- rameter for which the quantum mechanical violation of ISI, NAQC and NAQI occur respectively, are indeed the same as those displayed in the Table I (replacing v by λ). Therefore, ISI turns out to be the most resilient aga...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.