REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references
On optimal cloning and incompatibility
T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Mutually unbiased bases are the hardest observables to clone
desk verdict A promising cloning-based incompatibility measure with a nice qubit cloner, but the abstract's 'iff MUBs' claim is false for N>d+1 and the proof of tightness for N<=d+1 leans on an unproven uniqueness result. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the symmetric 1-to-2 quantum cloning machine, a unitary transformation parameterized by $p$ and $q$ with $p^2 + 2(d-1)q^2 = 1$, which sends a basis state to a weighted sum of a copied term and symmetrized cross terms. For an input ensemble $S$, the average clone fidelity depends on the cloning basis $B$ only through $A(S,B)$, the sum of participation ratios of the ensemble states in the basis; maximizing over $B$ is equivalent to choosing the best projective measurement-and-reconstruction strategy. The upper bound is proved by comparing $A(S,B)$ with its mutually-unbiased-bases value $A_{opt}(S_{MUB}) = N+d-1$, using an imported uniqueness result, and for $N>d+1$ by falling back on the universal-cloner fidelity bound.
What would settle it
Search all sets of $N=3$ observables in $d=4$ for one whose eigenstate ensemble gives $A_{opt}(S)=N+d-1=6$ but is not mutually unbiased; if such a set exists, its optimal cloning fidelity matches the MUB value and the 'if and only if' fails. Alternatively, optimize two-qubit cloning beyond the paper's $p^2>2pq$ restriction for a pair with Bloch overlap $0.5$; a higher fidelity would show $Q_c$ is not the true optimal cloning fidelity.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
For a set $X$ of $N$ observables on a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space, let $S$ be the uniform ensemble of their eigenstates and let $F_{opt}(S)$ be the maximum average fidelity achieved by a symmetric 1-to-2 quantum cloning machine, optimized over cloning basis and parameters in the regime $p^2 > 2pq$. The paper defines $Q_c(X) = 1 - F_{opt}(S)$ and claims three things: it is faithful, vanishing only for commuting observables; for sets of at most $d+1$ observables it is bounded above by the value for $N$ mutually unbiased bases, with equality only for mutually unbiased sets; and for more than $d+1$ observables it is bounded by the universal-cloner fidelity. It also gives an explicit optimal cloner for a pair of qubit observables, with optimal cloning basis along the sum and difference of their Bloch vectors, and shows that a complete set of $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases is cloned optimally by the universal symmetric cloner.
Load-bearing premise
The 'if and only if' statement rests on an imported uniqueness result: only a mutually unbiased ensemble attains the minimal measurement-and-reconstruction fidelity $(N+d-1)/(Nd)$ among sets of $N$ observables; if another ensemble also attains that minimum, the upper bound could be reached without MUBs.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- A complete set of $d+1$ mutually unbiased bases is cloned optimally by the universal symmetric cloner, so the cloning fidelity for such an ensemble is the universal value $(d+3)/(2(d+1))$.
- No set of at most $d+1$ observables can be more incompatible than the same number of mutually unbiased bases, so wherever such bases exist they are the maximally incompatible measurements.
- For more than $d+1$ observables, the cloning-based bound saturates at the universal-cloner level, meaning that adding extra observables beyond $d+1$ cannot increase the incompatibility as measured here.
- Because the optimal cloning fidelity is always at least the best measurement-and-reconstruction fidelity for mutually unbiased ensembles, a cloning attack outperforms an intercept-and-resend attack on such signal states, a fact relevant to quantum key distribution.
Reading between the lines
- The paper does not discuss generalized measurements, but if its logic carries over, a cloning-based measure for POVMs should vanish exactly when the effects are jointly commuting; a natural test is whether the upper bound is again attained by mutually unbiased bases.
- The explicit two-qubit solution predicts that the optimal cloner depends only on the absolute overlap between the two Bloch vectors, so a tabletop experiment with photon polarization qubits could map that fidelity curve and check the formula.
- Because the bound for more than $d+1$ observables is attained by a unitarily invariant ensemble, maximal cloning-based incompatibility may occur in every dimension even when a complete set of mutually unbiased bases does not exist, extending the paper's MUB result beyond the usual MUB dimensions.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a cloning-based incompatibility measure Q_c for a set of N observables on a d-dimensional Hilbert space, defined as Q_c(X) = 1 - F_opt(S), where S is the uniform ensemble of eigenstates and F_opt is the maximum average fidelity under a symmetric 1→2 QCM (Eqs. (19)-(23)). The authors derive an explicit formula for the average cloning fidelity (Eq. (16)), obtain the optimal cloner parameters for a general ensemble (Lemma 2, Appendix B), evaluate the measure for mutually unbiased bases (MUBs), prove an upper bound (Theorem 5), and work out the two-qubit example (Lemma 6).
Significance. The paper's explicit formulas in Appendix B and the two-qubit solution are careful and reproduce the known limits (MUB and commuting cases), and the faithfulness property (Lemma 1) gives a clean operational interpretation. If the proof gaps discussed below are fixed, the measure would provide a quantitative, operationally meaningful link between no-cloning and incompatibility, with MUBs singled out for N≤d+1. The connection to cloning attacks in QKD is also plausible and potentially useful. However, the headline claim as stated in the abstract is too strong and needs correction.
major comments (4)
- [Abstract and Theorem 5] The abstract's statement that the upper bound is attained 'if and only if the observables are mutually unbiased' is contradicted by the paper's own Theorem 5 for N>d+1. Since at most d+1 MUBs exist in dimension d, no set with N>d+1 can be MUBs, yet Eq. (29) states the bound is attained for a unitarily invariant ensemble. A concrete counterexample in d=2, N=4 is given by four tetrahedral qubit observables, whose Bloch vectors satisfy sum_i (r.a_i)^2 = 4/3 for every direction r; this gives A_opt/(Nd)=2/3 and Q_c=1/6, saturating Eq. (29) without the observables being MUBs. The abstract, introduction, and conclusions must be amended to state the restriction N≤d+1 for the iff claim.
- [Sec. II C, Eq. (21)] The restriction p^2>2pq is introduced with only a heuristic discussion, not a proof that the global optimum of the average cloning fidelity lies in this regime. Since Q_c is defined via this restricted maximization in Eq. (23), it is not established as the true optimal cloning fidelity of the ensemble. Moreover, the proof of the upper bound in Eq. (30) explicitly relies on the sign of (p^2-2pq). Either a proof that the restriction is without loss of generality, or a clear redefinition of Q_c as a 'restricted-cloning incompatibility measure', is needed for the operational claims to be sound.
- [Theorem 5 proof, N≤d+1] The equality condition 'iff MUBs' rests on the assertion that the lower bound (N+d-1)/Nd for the measurement-reconstruction fidelity is achieved only by MUBs, which is cited from [17] and used after Eq. (30). Lemma 7 only proves achievability by a projective measurement for MUBs; the uniqueness direction is not proved in this paper. Since the abstract's iff claim depends on this uniqueness, the gap is load-bearing. A simple Cauchy argument choosing the measurement basis as one of the ensemble's own bases would supply the needed projective bound and uniqueness, but it is not included.
- [Eq. (33)] In the N>d+1 part of the proof, the lower bound A_opt(S)/Nd ≥ 2/(d+1) is imported from Fuchs-Sasaki [20], but that bound concerns the optimal fidelity over all measurements (including POVMs), while A_opt(S)/Nd is the maximum over projective measurements. The equality A_opt(S)/Nd ≡ max_B F_avg(S,M_B,A_B) from Prop. 1 does not imply that the projective restriction preserves the lower bound. This step needs a justification that the gap between the projective optimum and the POVM optimum does not violate the inequality, or the proof must use a different argument.
minor comments (6)
- [Sec. II A heading] The heading contains a typo: 'Quantifying incomptibility' should be 'Quantifying incompatibility'.
- [Sec. III A] The sentence 'BEfore proceeding to prove an upper bound' should read 'Before proceeding'.
- [Introduction] There are typos 'no-singaling principle' and 'propsed' that should be corrected.
- [Lemma 2] The symbol M is used in Eq. (25) and (26) but is not defined in the statement of Lemma 2; it should be set to M=Nd.
- [Eq. (26)] The displayed formula for G(S,N,d) appears to be missing a division symbol between (A_opt(S)-Nd) and (Nd-2A_opt(S)); compare with Eq. (B5).
- [Eq. (40)] In the line for p(-)|b±⟩, an '=' sign is missing before the bracket expression.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: Q_c is defined independently of the results; the MUB-maximality claim is imported from prior work [17] as an external theorem, and the abstract's unconditional iff statement is a correctness issue rather than a circular one.
full rationale
The cloning-based incompatibility measure Q_c is defined directly from the optimal symmetric-QCM fidelity of the eigenstate ensemble (Def. 1, Eq. (23)); mutually unbiased bases are not built into the definition. The faithfulness property (Lemma 1) follows from the standard no-cloning/no-broadcasting theorems. The upper bound (Theorem 5) is derived by reducing the QCM optimization to the quantity A_opt(S)/Nd (Prop. 1 and Appendix B), then comparing ensembles via A_opt. The key inequality A_opt(S) >= N+d-1, with equality attained by MUBs, is taken from [17] (Bandyopadhyay-Mandayam, a paper with overlapping authorship) and from Lemma 7; the present paper does not rederive the uniqueness part of that theorem. This is a load-bearing self-citation, but it is a citation of an external, parameter-free theorem about a different operational measure, not a restatement of the present definition or a fitted parameter, so it does not make the derivation circular. The same holds for the N>d+1 bound, which uses the Fuchs-Sasaki bound [20] as external input. There are correctness concerns outside circularity: the abstract claims the upper bound is attained iff the observables are MUBs, while Theorem 5 itself restricts the iff statement to N<=d+1 and for N>d+1 attributes tightness to a unitarily invariant ensemble [20]; in addition, Eq. (21) restricts the optimization to the open region p^2 > 2pq, so several 'optimal' values (e.g., the universal cloner in Corollary 4) lie on the boundary and are attained only as suprema. None of these issues makes the central derivation equivalent to its own inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption A set of pure states can be cloned perfectly iff they are mutually orthogonal (no-cloning theorem and its converse).
- domain assumption The symmetric 1-2 QCM transformation in Eq. (7) with unitarity constraint Eq. (8) describes the relevant class of cloning machines.
- domain assumption For the measurement-reconstruction protocol, the optimal average fidelity satisfies F_opt(S) >= (N+d-1)/(Nd), with equality iff S is an ensemble of N MUBs.
- domain assumption For any ensemble of states in d dimensions, the optimal measurement-reconstruction fidelity is at least 2/(d+1) (Fuchs-Sasaki bound).
- ad hoc to paper The cloning optimization is restricted to the regime p^2 > 2pq.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of On optimal cloning and incompatibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGW25UDS
@misc{pith2026190804182,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: On optimal cloning and incompatibility},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGW25UDS}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04182}
}
abstract
We investigate the role of symmetric quantum cloning machines (QCMs) in quantifying the mutual incompatibility of quantum observables. Specifically, we identify a cloning-based incompatibility measure whereby the incompatibility of a set of observables maybe quantified in terms of how well a uniform ensemble of their eigenstates can be cloned via a symmetric QCM. We show that this new incompatibility measure $\mathcal{Q}_{c}$ is {\it faithful} since it vanishes only for commuting observables. We prove an upper bound for $\mathcal{Q}_{c}$ for any set of observables in a finite-dimensional system and show that the upper bound is attained if and only if the observables are mutually unbiased. Finally, we use our formalism to obtain the optimal quantum cloner for a pair of qubit observables. Our work marks an important step in formalising the connection between two fundamental concepts in quantum information theory, namely, the no-cloning principle and the existence of incompatible observables in quantum theory.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[17]
S. Bandyopadhyay, and P. Mandayam, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042120 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[20]
C. Fuchs, and M. Sasaki, Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, 377 (2003); C. Fuchs, Quant. Inf. Comp. 4, 467 (2004)
work page 2003
- [1]
- [2]
-
[3]
D. G. B. J. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 92(6), 71-272 (1982)
work page 1982
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
Show all 26 references
-
[7]
Buz’ek & M
V. Buz’ek & M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5003 (1998)
1998
-
[8]
Gisin and S
N. Gisin and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(11), 2153 (1997)
1997
-
[9]
R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1827 (1998)
1998
-
[10]
Niu, R.B
C.S. Niu, R.B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4377 (1998)
1998
-
[11]
N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4497 (2000)
2000
-
[12]
Fan et al
H. Fan et al. Phys. Rep. 544, 241322 (2014)
2014
-
[13]
Heinosaari, J
T. Heinosaari, J. Schultz, A. Toigo, and M. Ziman, Phys. Lett. A 378, 1695 (2014)
2014
-
[14]
Heinosaari, T
T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera and M. Ziman, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. 49, 123001 (2016)
2016
-
[15]
Heisenberg, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik , 43, 172 (1927); H
W. Heisenberg, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik , 43, 172 (1927); H. P. Robertson, Physical Review 34, 163 (1929)
1927
-
[16]
Wehner, and A
S. Wehner, and A. Winter, New Journal of Physics 12, 025009 (2010)
2010
-
[18]
Mandayam, and M
P. Mandayam, and M. D. Srinivas, Phys. Rev. A 89 (6), 062112 (2014)
2014
-
[19]
W. Xie, K. Fang, X. Wang, and R. Duan, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022302 (2017)
2017
-
[21]
Mandayam, and M
P. Mandayam, and M. D. Srinivas, Phys. Rev. A 90 (6), 062128 (2014)
2014
-
[22]
Ghirardi, L
G. Ghirardi, L. Marinatto and R. Romano, Phys Lett A 317, 32 (2003)
2003
-
[23]
G. M. Bosyk, M. Portesi, and A. Plastino, Phys Rev A 85 012108 (2012)
2012
-
[24]
Streltsov, G
A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(4), 041003 (2017). 11 Appendix A: Optimal measurement and reconstruction strategy for MUBs Lemma 7. For an ensemble of states comprising vec- tors from a set Π ofN mutually unbiased bases (MUBs), the optimal fidelity...
2017
-
[25]
This in turn, provides an upper bound on the cloning- based incompatibility measureQc as shown in Sec
Optimal Cloning Fidelity for N MUBs in d dimensions: Proof of Lemma 3 We now evaluate the optimal cloning fidelity for an ensembleSMUB of states which constitute a set of MUBs. This in turn, provides an upper bound on the cloning- based incompatibility measureQc as shown in Sec...
-
[26]
Setting √ 2(d− 1)q = sinθ, the optimization problem becomes, max q h(q) = max θ [ 2 + (d− 3 2 ) sin2θ + √ 2(d− 1) sinθ cosθ ] = max θ h(θ)
Optimal cloning fidelity for N > d + 1 observables Since Aopt Nd ≥ 2 d+1, we have, Favg(S,Bopt,p,q )≥ 2pq + (d− 1)q2 + 2 d + 1(p2− 2pq) = 1 d + 1 [ (d− 1)2pq + 2p2 + (d + 1)(d− 1)q2] = 1 d + 1 [ 2 + (d− 1)(d− 3)q2 + 2(d− 1)q √ 1− 2(d− 1)q2 ] ≡ ( 1 d + 1 ) h(q), where we have us...
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.