Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Strict hierarchy between $n$-wise measurement simulability, compatibility structures, and multi-copy compatibility

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five generalizations of quantum measurement incompatibility form a strict hierarchy of sets, not interchangeable notions of counting measurements.

desk verdict Worth reading for its clean analytic core, but the headline strict hierarchy is only demonstrated for one (n,m) pair, not for all 1<n<m. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21223 v2 pith:ULOYZ44X submitted 2025-06-26 quant-ph

Lucas Tendick , Costantino Budroni , Marco Túlio Quintino This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581P4081P45
keywords quantummeasurementincompatibilityjointmeasurabilitysimulabilityn-wisecompatibilitymulti-copysemidefiniteprogrammingsteeringnoiserobustness
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 argues that the recently proposed generalizations of quantum measurement incompatibility are genuinely different mathematical objects, not competing names for the same phenomenon. It claims that the sets of measurement assemblages defined by standard joint measurability ($JM$), deterministic $n$-simulability ($\mathrm{SIM}^{\mathrm{Det}}_n$), probabilistic $n$-simulability ($\mathrm{SIM}_n$), its convex hull (shown equal to $n$-wise compatibility, $\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$), and $n$-copy joint measurability ($\mathrm{Copy}_n$) are strictly nested for $1

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the ladder of Eq. (1) itself: each rung is a set of measurement assemblages defined by a different simulation rule, and the argument proceeds by locating a single example that lies on one rung but not on the rung below it. The key identity is $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)=\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$, proved by writing any convex mixture of $n$-simulable decompositions as a convex combination of deterministic pre-processings, which are exactly the hyper-edge collections used to define $n$-wise compatibility. Two technical devices supply the strictness: an $\epsilon$-net over the pre-processing probabilities together with an operator-norm error estimate, which lets the paper conclude from finitely many SDPs that the Pauli assemblage is not $2$-simulable; and the optimal cloning machine, whose $n\to m$ cloning visibility $c_n(d,m)=n(d+m)/(m(d+n))$ yields the universal lower bound on $n$-copy joint measurability. The parent POVM, a single effective measurement whose outcome is classically post-processed, is the basic unit that every rung generalizes.

What would settle it

Run the same $\epsilon$-net SDP certification for the three noisy Pauli measurements at $\eta=(\sqrt{2}+1)/3$ with exact rational arithmetic, following the construction the paper cites as [57]; if the certified gap $\nu^*_g-\varepsilon$ is not positive, the claimed non-convexity of $\mathrm{SIM}_2$ collapses. Alternatively, exhibit any assemblage with $n>2$ or $m>3$ that lies on one rung of Eq. (1) but not on its predecessor, which would directly falsify the universal strict hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is the strict set-containment ladder of Eq. (1): for $1<n<m$, $$JM\subset \mathrm{SIM}^{\mathrm{Det}}_n\subset \mathrm{SIM}_n\subset \mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)=\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n\subset \mathrm{Copy}_n\subset \mathrm{All}_m.$$ Here $JM$ is the familiar set of jointly measurable (compatible) assemblages, simulable by one measurement after classical post-processing; $\mathrm{SIM}^{\mathrm{Det}}_n$ and $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ are the sets simulable by $n$ measurements with deterministic or probabilistic classical pre-processing; $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)$ is the convex hull of the $n$-simulable set; $\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$ is the set of $n$-wise compatible assemblages defined by compatibility structures; and $\mathrm{Copy}_n$ is the set of assemblages jointly measurable on $n$ copies of the state. The equality $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)=\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$ is proven by showing that convexifying the simulation model is exactly the operation of allowing mixtures of different compatibility hypergraphs. The strict inclusions are supported by explicit examples: probabilistic pre-processing simulates the $\sigma_x,\sigma_z,H$ assemblage at a higher visibility than deterministic pre-processing, and the three noisy Pauli measurements lie in $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_2)$ at $\eta=(\sqrt{2}+1)/3$ but not in $\mathrm{SIM}_2$, which the paper takes as proof that $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ is not convex. The chain is completed by showing $n$-wise compatibility is strictly contained in $n$-copy joint measurability, with the Pauli example separating them at $(\sqrt{2}+1)/3$ and $\sqrt{3/2}$, and by deriving a universal depolarizing-noise lower bound $\eta^*=n(d+m)/(m(d+n))$ for membership in $\mathrm{Copy}_n$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that strictness of the inclusions for the single tested case $n=2$, $m=3$, certified by floating-point SDPs with an $\epsilon$-grid error bound, implies the inclusions hold for every $1<n<m$, and that the numerical gap would survive exact rational arithmetic; if the gap in Result 2 closes under exact arithmetic, the non-convexity of $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ and the strict inclusion $\mathrm{SIM}_n\subset\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)$ are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When $n$-simulability is used in semi-device-independent certification, the best convex approximation is $n$-wise compatibility, not $n$-copy joint measurability; for the three Pauli measurements this lowers the certified genuinely-three-measurements visibility from $\sqrt{3/2}$ to $(\sqrt{2}+1)/3\approx 0.8047$.
  • Because $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ is not convex, deciding $n$-simulability cannot be formulated as a single SDP; any efficient numerical method must either grid over the pre-processing probabilities or use a convex relaxation such as $\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$.
  • $n$-wise compatibility is a strictly stronger condition than $n$-copy joint measurability, so demonstrating compatibility structures is a stronger witness of genuinely $n$ measurements than demonstrating collective-copy measurability.
  • Every $m$-measurement qudit assemblage is $n$-copy jointly measurable under depolarizing noise of visibility at least $n(d+m)/(m(d+n))$, generalizing the standard joint-measurability bound.
  • Device- and theory-independent certifications built on $n$-wise compatibility transfer automatically to every weaker notion in the hierarchy, including $n$-simulability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same $\epsilon$-net strategy could be used to probe other small parameter pairs and produce a table of which $(n,m)$ actually realize each strict inclusion, including how large the gaps are.
  • Beyond the paper: the open question of whether randomness-assisted $n$-simulability strictly contains plain $n$-simulability could be tested on the same three-measurement family; a positive gap would insert another rung into Eq. (1).
  • Beyond the paper: the cloning bound suggests reading $n$-copy joint measurability as a noise-robustness resource for "needs $n$ copies", and one could test tightness for non-Pauli qudit assemblages where no analytic threshold is known.
  • Beyond the paper: because $\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{SIM}_n)=\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$, any future exact characterization of $n$-simulability automatically gives its convex envelope; conversely, finding a convex set strictly between $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ and $\mathrm{JM}^{\mathrm{conv}}_n$ that contains $\mathrm{SIM}_n$ would refute the equality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified framework for generalized notions of quantum measurement incompatibility and claims a strict hierarchy (Eq. (1)): standard joint measurability (JM), deterministic n-simulability (SIMDet_n), n-simulability (SIM_n), its convex hull (Conv(SIM_n), shown equal to n-wise compatibility JMconv_n), n-copy joint measurability (Copy_n), and all m-measurement assemblages (All_m). The hierarchy is derived from five results: Result 1 (probabilistic pre-processing is strictly more powerful than deterministic), Result 2 (SIM_n is non-convex), Result 3 (Conv(SIM_n) = JMconv_n), Result 4 (JMconv_n ⊂ Copy_n), and Result 5 (a universal lower bound on the n-copy joint measurability robustness). The paper also discusses implications for semi-device-independent and device-independent certification of the number of measurements.

Significance. If the full hierarchy in Eq. (1) were established, it would be a valuable unifying contribution, clarifying the relations among competing generalizations and improving certification bounds for the number of measurements. The paper's strengths include a complete analytic proof of Result 3, a transparent derivation of the cloning-based bound in Result 5, and publicly released code for the numerical computations in Results 1 and 2. The main weakness is that the strict inclusions that constitute the universal hierarchy are only demonstrated for the single case n=2, m=3; the arguments do not establish the claimed strictness for all 1<n<m.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Result 1, Eq. (1)] Result 1 is proven only for n=2, m=3. The proof states 'it is enough to find some n where the sets do not coincide' (Sec. 5.1), which establishes that SIMDet_n ≠ SIM_n for that particular n, not for all n. No embedding, tensor-product construction, or monotonicity argument is provided to lift the 3-measurement example to arbitrary n and m. Consequently the first strict inclusion in Eq. (1) is not established as stated.
  2. [Sec. 5.3, Result 2, Observation 2] The non-convexity proof of SIM_2 relies on an epsilon-net SDP computation with floating-point arithmetic; the gap is ν*_g - ε ≈ 0.0753. Observation 2 explicitly concedes that complete rigor would require exact rational arithmetic certificates (following [57]) and that these are not provided. Since Result 2 supplies the strict inclusion SIM_n ⊂ Conv(SIM_n) in Eq. (1), and since only the n=2 case is treated (the claim that the arguments 'straightforwardly generalize' is not a proof), the universal non-convexity claim is not rigorously established.
  3. [Sec. 5.5, Result 4] The strict inclusion JMconv_n ⊂ Copy_n is shown only by comparing the critical visibilities (√2+1)/3 and √(3/2) for the three noisy Pauli measurements with n=2, m=3. The convexity argument in the proof yields only the inclusion JMconv_n ⊆ Copy_n. No construction is given that would produce, for arbitrary n and m, an assemblage in Copy_n outside JMconv_n, so the claimed strictness for all n is unsupported.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Result 1 (numerical thresholds)] The demonstration that probabilistic pre-processing outperforms deterministic pre-processing uses numerical thresholds ηdet ≈ 0.7654 and ηprob ≈ 0.8150 obtained from SDP and heuristic optimization, without rigorous error bounds. The accompanying Observation 2 acknowledges that a fully analytic or exact-arithmetic proof has not been supplied. This is a load-bearing point because Result 1 is the basis for the strict inclusion SIMDet_n ⊂ SIM_n in Eq. (1).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'mulit-copy' should be 'multi-copy'.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (17) and Sec. 5.6 heading] Misspelling: 'jointly measuarble' and 'measureability' should be 'jointly measurable' and 'measurability'.
  3. [Eq. (40)] The maximally entangled state is written as |Φ+⟩ = (1/√2) Σ_i |ii⟩, which is only correct for d=2; for general qudit dimension d it should be (1/√d) Σ_{i=0}^{d-1} |ii⟩.
  4. [Sec. 5.3, footnote 1] The footnote reports 'numerical evidences suggest that Mη ∉ SIM2, if and only if η > 1/√2 ≈ 0.7071' without proof. This claims an exact threshold and should either be proven, made part of the main result, or clearly labeled as a numerical conjecture rather than a suggestion.
  5. [Sec. 6.2] The text says 'there exists for any n≥2, n-wise incompatible quantum measurements'; the intended meaning is likely 'n-wise compatible' or 'genuinely n-wise incompatible' in the sense of the paper, and the phrasing should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hierarchy is assembled from in-text proofs and external results; the self-citations are concrete threshold values, and the main proof gaps are rigor issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Result 3, the pivotal link, proves Conv(SIM_n)=JMconv_n by decomposing stochastic pre-processing p_lambda(x'|x) into convex combinations of deterministic functions (Eqs. (30)-(33)) and identifying the deterministic strategies with the hyper-edge partitions in Eq. (16); this is a proof from the definitions, not an assumption of the equality. Result 4 uses the external implication n-simulability implies n-copy joint measurability from [58], together with Result 3 and convexity of Copy_n; its strictness witness uses the Pauli thresholds eta=(sqrt(2)+1)/3 (from [39]) and eta=sqrt(3/2), which are concrete, independently checkable numbers, not the target inclusion. Result 5 derives the bound eta>=n(d+m)/(m(d+n)) from Werner cloning [52]. Self-citations exist, notably [39] for the compatibility-structure threshold and [45] in the implications section, but the cited quantities are externally falsifiable and are not being used as the conclusion of the argument. Two caveats are present but are not circularity: Observation 2 concedes that Result 2's floating-point proof would need exact rational arithmetic certificates for full rigor, and Result 1's proof states 'it is enough to find some n where the sets do not coincide' (Sec. 5.1), which supports strictness only for the exhibited n=2, m=3 example rather than the universal Eq. (1). These are proof-strength limitations, not reductions of outputs to inputs. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor self-citation, not any circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The hierarchy depends on the standard POVM formalism, cited theorems such as n-simulability implies n-copy joint measurability [58] and Werner cloning [52], and cited thresholds for Pauli measurements. The only ad hoc inputs are the numerical grid parameters and the floating-point accuracy assumption in Results 1 and 2.

free parameters (2)
  • Result 1 pre-processing strategy p(x'|x) = p(1|1)=0, p(1|2)=1, p(1|3)=1/2
    Chosen by heuristic numerical exploration in Section 4.1 and Section 5.1 to demonstrate the advantage of probabilistic pre-processing; no optimality proof is given, so it is an ad hoc input to the example.
  • Epsilon-net grid resolution for Result 2 = l=1/50 over a 50^3 grid
    The numerical proof of non-convexity in Section 5.3 uses this discretization to bound the true optimum. The resulting error estimate epsilon=6l=0.12 is compared with the SDP value 0.1953; the grid size is a numerical parameter, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Quantum measurements are POVMs and compatibility is defined via a parent POVM with classical post-processing, as in Eq. (2).
    This is the standard framework of the field, taken from [35,36], and is not justified within the paper.
  • standard math n-simulability in the sense of Eq. (8) implies n-copy joint measurability, with a separable parent POVM acting on n copies.
    Invoked in the proof of Result 4 and attributed to [58]; it is not re-derived in this manuscript.
  • standard math The optimal n-to-m cloning map produces m noisy copies with visibility c_n(d,m)=n(d+m)/(m(d+n)), from Werner [52].
    Used in Result 5 to construct the lower bound; the formula is imported from [52] without proof.
  • domain assumption For noisy Pauli observables, the 2-wise compatibility threshold is (sqrt(2)+1)/3 and the 2-copy joint measurability threshold is sqrt(3/2).
    Used in Result 4 to prove strictness of JMconv_2 subset Copy_2; the values are taken from [39] and [38]/Section 4.3 without proof in this manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper Floating-point SDP solutions in Results 1 and 2 are accurate enough that the reported gaps, about 0.0753 in Result 2, are not artifacts of numerical error.
    The proof of non-convexity relies on this assumption. The authors explicitly note in Observation 2 that a fully rigorous proof would require primal and dual certificates verified by exact rational arithmetic, which are not supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strict hierarchy between $n$-wise measurement simulability, compatibility structures, and multi-copy compatibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULOYZ44X

@misc{pith2026250621223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strict hierarchy between $n$-wise measurement simulability, compatibility structures, and multi-copy compatibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULOYZ44X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21223}
}
abstract

The incompatibility of quantum measurements, i.e. the fact that certain observable quantities cannot be measured jointly is widely regarded as a distinctive quantum feature with important implications for the foundations and the applications of quantum information theory. While the standard incompatibility of multiple measurements has been the focus of attention since the inception of quantum theory, its generalizations, such as measurement simulability, $n$-wise incompatibility, and mulit-copy incompatibility have only been proposed recently. Here, we point out that all these generalizations are differing notions of the question of how many measurements are genuinely contained in a measurement device. We then show, that all notions do differ not only in their operational meaning but also mathematically in the set of measurement assemblages they describe. We then fully resolve the relations between these different generalizations, by showing a strict hierarchy between these notions. Hence, we provide a general framework for generalized measurement incompatibility. Finally, we consider the implications our results have for recent works using these different notions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical representation of our main result. We are considering the notion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Operational illustration of measurement incompatibility. If [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Operational interpretation of measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometrical representation of the compatibility structures introduces in Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the possible compatibility hypergraphs to simulate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Operational interpretation of multi-copy joint measurability. The measurement box gets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Measurement Incompatibility Based In-equivalence Between Bell and Network Nonlocality

    quant-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    In linear quantum networks with more than two independent sources, nonlocal correlations can appear even when all parties use compatible measurements, so measurement incompatibility is not always necessary for network...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [57]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino,Strict Hierarchy between Parallel, Sequen- tial, and Indefinite-Causal-Order Strategies for Channel Discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200504 (2021), arXiv:2011.08300 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds.,Quantum Theory and Measurement(Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, 1983)

    work page 1983

  3. [2]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen,Quantum Measurement(Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Herrero-Collantes and J

    M. Herrero-Collantes and J. C. Garcia-Escartin,Quantum random number generators, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Acín and L

    A. Acín and L. Masanes,Certified randomness in quantum physics, Nature540, 213–219 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    W. C. Myrvold and J. Christian,Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: Essays in Honour of Abner Shimony(Springer Netherlands, 2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    Heisenberg,Über quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen, Zeitschrift für Physik33, 879 (1925)

    W. Heisenberg,Über quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen, Zeitschrift für Physik33, 879 (1925)

    work page 1925

  8. [7]

    Heisenberg,Über den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift für Physik43, 172 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg,Über den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift für Physik43, 172 (1927)

    work page 1927

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    H. P. Robertson,The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev.34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  2. [9]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne,Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk,Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 024001 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

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

    2007

  5. [12]

    M. T. Quintino, T. Vértesi, and N. Brunner,Joint Measurability, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steering, and Bell Nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160402 (2014), arXiv:1406.6976 [quant- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    R. Uola, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne,Joint Measurability of Generalized Measurements Implies Classicality, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160403 (2014), arXiv:1407.2224 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    R. Uola, C. Budroni, O. Gühne, and J.-P. Pellonpää,One-to-one mapping between steering and joint measurability problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230402 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    S. M. Barnett and S. Croke,Quantum state discrimination, Advances in Optics and Photonics 1, 238 (2009). 22

    2009

  9. [16]

    Buscemi, E

    F. Buscemi, E. Chitambar, and W. Zhou,Complete resource theory of quantum incompatibility as quantum programmability, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120401 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo,Quantum incompatibility witnesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130402 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    R. Uola, T. Kraft, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and O. Gühne,Quantifying quantum resources with conic programming, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130404 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Oszmaniec and T

    M. Oszmaniec and T. Biswas,Operational relevance of resource theories of quantum measure- ments, Quantum3, 133 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    A. F. Ducuara and P. Skrzypczyk,Operational interpretation of weight-based resource quan- tifiers in convex quantum resource theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 110401 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    R. Uola, T. Bullock, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonpää, and N. Brunner,All quantum resources provide an advantage in exclusion tasks, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 110402 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    Guerini, M

    L. Guerini, M. T. Quintino, and L. Aolita,Distributed sampling, quantum communication wit- nesses, and measurement incompatibility, Phys. Rev. A100, 042308 (2019), arXiv:1904.08435 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A.TavakoliandR.Uola,Measurement incompatibility and steering are necessary and sufficient for operational contextuality, Physical Review Research2, 013011 (2020), arXiv:1905.03614 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Brunner, D

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

    2014

  18. [25]

    J. S. Bell,On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  19. [26]

    M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, F. Hirsch, and N. Brunner,Incompatible quantum measurements admitting a local-hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A93, 10.1103/physreva.93.052115 (2016), 1510.06722 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, and N. Brunner,Quantum measurement incompatibility does not imply bell nonlocality, Phys. Rev. A97, 012129 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Bene and T

    E. Bene and T. Vértesi,Measurement incompatibility does not give rise to bell violation in general, New Journal of Physics20, 013021 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. Gühne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson,Kochen-specker contex- tuality, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045007 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Gallego, N

    R. Gallego, N. Brunner, C. Hadley, and A. Acín,Device-Independent Tests of Classical and Quantum Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 230501 (2010), arXiv:1010.5064 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [31]

    P. E. Frenkel and M. Weiner,Classical Information Storage in an n-Level Quantum System, Communications in Mathematical Physics340, 563 (2015), arXiv:1304.5723 [cs.IT]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Egelhaaf, J

    S. Egelhaaf, J. Pauwels, M. T. Quintino, and R. Uola,Certifying measurement incompatibility in prepare-and-measure and Bell scenarios, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General58, 095304 (2025), arXiv:2407.06787 [quant-ph]

    2025

  26. [33]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo,Quantum random access codes and incompatibility of measurements, EPL (Europhysics Letters)130, 50001 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Anwer, S

    H. Anwer, S. Muhammad, W. Cherifi, N. Miklin, A. Tavakoli, and M. Bourennane,Experimen- tal characterization of unsharp qubit observables and sequential measurement incompatibility via quantum random access codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 080403 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman,An invitation to quantum incompatibility, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 123001 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    Gühne, E

    O. Gühne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonpää, and R. Uola,Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quantum information science, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Guerini, J

    L. Guerini, J. Bavaresco, M. T. Cunha, and A. Acín,Operational framework for quantum measurement simulability, Journal of Mathematical Physics58, 092102 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, D. Reitzner, J. Schultz, and A. Toigo,Quantum incompatibility in collective measurements, Mathematics4, 54 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    M. T. Quintino, C. Budroni, E. Woodhead, A. Cabello, and D. Cavalcanti,Device-independent tests of structures of measurement incompatibility, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 180401 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  34. [41]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth,Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1–75 (2009). 23

    2009

  35. [42]

    Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and K

    P. Horodecki, Łukasz Rudnicki, and K. Życzkowski,Multipartite entanglement(2024), arXiv:2409.04566 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Luo,New genuinely multipartite entanglement, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 10.1002/qute.202000123 (2020)

    M. Luo,New genuinely multipartite entanglement, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 10.1002/qute.202000123 (2020)

    2020 doi

  37. [44]

    Kraft, S

    T. Kraft, S. Designolle, C. Ritz, N. Brunner, O. Gühne, and M. Huber,Quantum entanglement in the triangle network, Phys. Rev. A103, L060401 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Tendick,Nature cannot be described by any causal theory with a finite number of measure- ments(2024), arXiv:2408.08347

    L. Tendick,Nature cannot be described by any causal theory with a finite number of measure- ments(2024), arXiv:2408.08347

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Tendick, H

    L. Tendick, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß,Distributed quantum incompatibility, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 120202 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    Veeren, M

    I. Veeren, M. Plávala, L. Leppäjärvi, and R. Uola,Semi-device-independent certification of the number of measurements, Phys. Rev. A109, 062203 (2024)

    2024

  41. [48]

    A. F. Ducuara, R. Takakura, F. J. Hernandez, and C. E. Susa,Multi-object operational tasks for measurement incompatibility(2024), arXiv:2412.15615

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Skrzypczyk, I

    P. Skrzypczyk, I. Šupić, and D. Cavalcanti,All sets of incompatible measurements give an advantage in quantum state discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130403 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    A. K. Das, S. Mukherjee, D. Saha, D. Das, and A. S. Majumdar,An operational approach to classifying measurement incompatibility(2025), arXiv:2401.01236 [quant-ph]

    2025

  44. [51]

    Y. Li, Y. Xiang, J. Tura, and Q. He,Necessary and sufficient condition for randomness certification from incompatibility(2024), arXiv:2409.14991

    2024

  45. [52]

    R. F. Werner,Optimal cloning of pure states, Phys. Rev. A58, 1827 (1998)

    1998

  46. [53]

    S. T. Ali, C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo,Commutative povms and fuzzy observables, Foundations of Physics39, 593–612 (2009)

    2009

  47. [54]

    Fine,Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities, Phys

    A. Fine,Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 291 (1982)

    1982

  48. [55]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  49. [56]

    Tendick, M

    L. Tendick, M. Kliesch, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß,Distance-based resource quantification for sets of quantum measurements, Quantum7, 1003 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    S. N. Filippov, T. Heinosaari, and L. Leppäjärvi,Simulability of observables in general prob- abilistic theories, Phys. Rev. A97, 062102 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Plávala,General probabilistic theories: An introduction, Physics Reports1033, 1–64 (2023)

    M. Plávala,General probabilistic theories: An introduction, Physics Reports1033, 1–64 (2023). [60]Online repository for code used in the proof of result 1,https://github.com/LucasTendick/ measurement_simulability(2025). [61]Online repository for code used in the proof of resul...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.