Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Robustly self-testing all maximally entangled states in every finite dimension

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 A single Bell experiment robustly certifies maximal entanglement in every finite dimension.

desk verdict New Bell operator and explicit SOPO decomposition for qudit self-testing, but the proof of the central Lemma 1 has a linear-algebra gap that, as written, leaves the main claim unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01071 v1 pith:XMFXMICV submitted 2025-08-01 quant-ph

Uta Isabella Meyer , Ivan Šupić , Frédéric Grosshans , Damian Markham This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P68
keywords self-testingdevice-independentcertificationmaximallyentangledstatesquditBellinequalitiesHeisenberg-Weyloperatorsrobustnessboundssum-of-positive-operatorsdecompositionsCHSHgeneralization
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 tries to establish that a single $d$-input, $d$-outcome Bell experiment can certify, without trusting the devices, that a bipartite quantum system of any finite dimension $d$ carries a maximally entangled state, and that the certification tolerates noise. The certificate generalizes the CHSH test to qudits by using non-diagonal Heisenberg–Weyl observables, and the Bell operator comes with an exact sum-of-positive-operators decomposition that gives the quantum maximum $d(d-1)$ in closed form. The main theorem says that if the observed Bell value is within $\epsilon$ of that maximum, then, up to local unitaries and an auxiliary factor, the state is within trace distance $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ of the ideal maximally entangled state and the measurements are close to the canonical Heisenberg–Weyl operators $T(1,j)$. The proof handles every odd prime dimension directly, and a tensor-factor argument lifts the result to every composite dimension. If correct, this is the first single protocol that is both robust and universal in dimension, which earlier high-dimensional self-tests lacked.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bell operator $B_d$, defined as a sum over non-diagonal Heisenberg–Weyl terms $g(j,k,n)\, A_j^n \otimes B_k^n$, summed over $j,k \in \mathbb{Z}_d$ and $n \in \mathbb{Z}_d^*$, with coefficients $g(j,k,n)$ built from a non-linear phase function $\nu$. The key identity is the sum-of-positive-operators decomposition $d(d-1)\mathbb{1} - B_d = \sum_{n=1}^{(d-1)/2} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}_d} C_{n,j}^\dagger C_{n,j}$ with $C_{n,j} = A_j^n - \sum_k g(j,k,n)^* (B_k^n)^\dagger$. This decomposition turns near-maximal violation into small-norm conditions $C_{n,j}|\psi\rangle \approx 0$, from which the proof derives twisted commutation relations and the relations linking $A_j$ to $B_j$. The second carrying mechanism is a local isometry, defined by a qudit SWAP circuit that applies Fourier transforms and the operators $A_0, A_1$ on Alice's side and $B_0, B_1$ on Bob's side; it maps the physical state to a rotated maximally entangled state times an auxiliary factor and maps the physical observables to the canonical $T(1,j)$.

What would settle it

For $d=5$, compute the kernel of the matrix $M$ whose rows are the products $g(j,k,1)g(j,l,1)$; if any nonzero vector $c(n)$ satisfies $M c(n) = g(j,n,2)$, then the uniqueness claim in Lemma 1 fails and the twisted commutation relations are not secured by the proof as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For every odd prime $d \geq 3$, the paper constructs a Bell operator $B_d$ (with a separate operator $B_3$ for $d=3$) from non-diagonal Heisenberg–Weyl observables $A_j$ and $B_j$, and shows that near-maximal violation of the inequality $\langle B_d \rangle \leq d(d-1)$ forces the state and measurements to the ideal ones. Concretely, Theorem 1 states that whenever $|\langle \psi | B_d | \psi \rangle - d(d-1)| \leq \epsilon$, there exist local unitaries $V_A, V_B$ and an auxiliary state such that the rotated state is within trace distance $\sqrt{\epsilon}\, d(d-1)\,(\mu_d(4+1/d)+1)$ of the maximally entangled state, with $\mu_d = \sqrt{d}(\sqrt{d}+2)$ for $d>3$ and a slightly different constant for $d=3$, and under these unitaries the observables map to canonical Heisenberg–Weyl operators $T(1,j)$. The proof has two stages: maximal violation forces twisted commutation relations $(A_jA_k - \omega^{j-k}A_kA_j)|\psi\rangle = 0$ and the analogue for $B$, and then a local isometry built from the operators $A_0, A_1, B_0, B_1$ extracts the entangled state and implements the observable mapping. Because every finite dimension factorizes into prime-power blocks, the prime-dimensional result yields a robust self-test for every composite dimension, with errors accumulating at most linearly in the number of blocks.

Load-bearing premise

The twisted-commutation step assumes that the linear system fixing the products $B_k B_l |\psi\rangle$ has a unique solution; the paper's row-rank argument does not by itself prove uniqueness, since the matrix involved has more columns than rows, so an additional linear-independence argument is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Correlations within $\epsilon$ of $d(d-1)$ certify the high-dimensional maximally entangled state up to trace distance $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$, so the self-test is noise-tolerant rather than ideal-case only.
  • The same self-test certifies the measurements: the local observables are mapped to canonical Heisenberg–Weyl operators $T(1,j)$, not just the state.
  • Since every finite dimension decomposes into prime-power factors, a single protocol now covers all dimensions, and the composite-dimension robustness degrades only linearly in the number of prime-power blocks.
  • The explicit SOPO decomposition proves the Cirelson bound $d(d-1)$ in closed form and shows analytically that the correlations are nonlocal for every odd prime $d$, where previous work only had numerical evidence for small dimensions.
  • The required operations are Heisenberg–Weyl displacements and diagonal non-Clifford phase gates, so the protocol maps directly onto high-dimensional photonic and atomic experimental platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tensor-factor argument suggests a modular experimental certification strategy for large local dimension: certify each prime-power factor independently and combine the certificates; this is a testable extension of the paper's robustness analysis.
  • The $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ robustness bound is exactly the ingredient a device-independent randomness or key-rate analysis would need, so folding this self-test into an entropy-accumulation argument is a plausible next step that the paper does not carry out.
  • Whether the $d$-input overhead can be reduced while keeping explicit analytic measurement forms is left open; a constant-setting protocol with comparable robustness would be a natural competitor, but the paper does not claim one.
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 device-independent certification protocol for maximally entangled states of every finite local dimension. For each odd prime d, it defines a d-input, d-output Bell operator built from non-diagonal Heisenberg-Weyl observables and a non-Clifford phase gate, proves an exact sum-of-positive-operators decomposition, and claims that near-maximal violation forces the underlying state and measurements to be close, up to local isometries, to the ideal rotated Bell state and canonical Heisenberg-Weyl operators. The main theorem states an O(√ε) robustness bound for prime d, and a tensor-factor argument is sketched to extend the result to composite d. The proof structure has two stages: first, a Lemma establishing twisted commutation relations from the SOPO decomposition, and second, a Mayers-Yao isometry construction. The robustness analysis in the appendices follows the ideal-case proof with error bounds.

Significance. If the proof gaps are repaired, this would be a significant advance: it provides a single, analytic, noise-tolerant self-testing protocol covering all finite dimensions, with explicit robustness bounds and simple Heisenberg-Weyl measurements, in contrast to earlier constructions that required tailored inequalities, number-theoretic conditions, or lacked robustness. The explicit SOPO decomposition and the detailed isometry and robustness calculations in Appendices B-G are valuable and largely self-contained. The paper also gives a fair account of prior work on qudit self-testing. However, the central algebraic step of Lemma 1 is not proven as written, and the claimed extension to every composite dimension is only sketched, so the main theorem is currently unsupported at a load-bearing point.

major comments (4)
  1. [Proof of Lemma 1 for d>3, Eq. (22)] The uniqueness claim for the solution of Eq. (22) is incorrect. The matrix M is d×d² with full row rank d, so its kernel has dimension d(d−1); full row rank only makes the row-space projection of c(n) unique, not the full coefficient vector C^n_{kl}. Consequently the conclusion C^n_{kl} = ω^{2^{-1}(k−l)} δ_{n,2^{-1}(k+l)} does not follow from the displayed linear system. Since the twisted commutation relations (17) are derived from this uniqueness, Lemma 1 is not established as stated. The proof needs an explicit argument using the full family of equations over n,n′ or additional constraints from unitarity of the operators B_kB_l, rather than the rank of M alone.
  2. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C12)-(C14)] The step from the weighted sum Σ_{k,l} g(j,k,n)g(j,l,n′)[...]|ψ⟩ = 0 to termwise vanishing of each bracket [...]|ψ⟩ is a non sequitur. The coefficients for fixed j form the diagonal Kronecker rows u_j^{(n)} ⊗ u_j^{(n′)} of G_n ⊗ G_{n′}; these rows span only a d-dimensional subspace of C^{d²}, so they cannot force a general vector in C^{d²} to vanish. The remark that g(j,k,n) ≠ 0 does not justify the conclusion unless the coefficient matrix has full column rank, which it does not. A rank or linear-independence argument over the full set of equations is required; the current text does not provide one.
  3. [Proof of Lemma 1 for d>3, expansion in Eq. (22)] The proof expands B_kB_l|ψ⟩ in the basis {B^2_m|ψ⟩} and then projects with ⟨ψ|(B^2_n)^†, but the orthonormality of {B^2_m|ψ⟩} is not proven before this point. The SOPO relations and unitarity of the B_m do not by themselves imply that these vectors form an orthonormal basis of the grade-2 sector. If this fact is intended to follow from other parts of the argument, the appendix containing that proof should be cited explicitly; I did not find such a proof.
  4. [Discussion, tensor-factor argument] The extension to every composite dimension is only sketched and is not a rigorous theorem. The prime-dimension result covers odd primes only, so a composite d with a factor 2 is not covered by the stated theorem. Moreover, decomposing C^d as a tensor product of prime-power subsystems does not automatically imply that the Bell operator B_d or the Heisenberg-Weyl observables A_j, B_j factor accordingly; the protocol and the robustness bound for the joint system are not derived. Since the title and abstract claim self-testing in every finite dimension, this gap must be addressed with a explicit tensor-product construction and proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 1 statement] The definition of µ_3 is inconsistent with Appendix G: Theorem 1 writes µ_3 = 9√ε(√3+2), while Eq. (G3) defines µ_3 = 9(√3+2). The current definition would make δ(ε) scale as O(ε) for d=3, contradicting the abstract's O(√ε). Please correct the typo.
  2. [Introduction, after Eq. (7)] The phrase "this specual case" should read "this special case".
  3. [Appendices E and F] Several typos occur: "Form here onward" should be "From here onward" and "If follows that" should be "It follows that" in the first paragraphs of Appendices E and F.
  4. [Discussion] The sentence "We conjecture that self-testing most of the algebra separates this Bell test from previous works" is grammatically incomplete and unclear; please rephrase.
  5. [Appendix D and Fig. 2] The isometry circuit in the main text defines X := A^†_0 and Z := ω^{-2}A^†_0 A_1, while Appendix D uses expressions such as ω^{-2^{-1}j}A^†_0 A_j; please ensure the notation is consistent and the constants are defined unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the self-test is built from an explicit SOPO decomposition and an explicit local isometry; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation ([40]) is non-load-bearing, and the Lemma 1 uniqueness flaw is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is self-contained against its own inputs. The Bell operator B_d is defined by Eq. (9) from the characteristic function of the rotated maximally entangled state, but the task is to show that any state saturating the bound is locally isometric to that state; the expectation value is not used as an output of the derivation. Appendix B verifies the SOPO decomposition algebraically, so C_{n,j}|ψ⟩=0 is a real consequence of saturation, and Appendix D constructs V_A, V_B by an explicit circuit and computes its action using Eqs. (17)-(18); no parameter is fitted to data, and no quantity called a "prediction" is an input by construction. The self-citation to [40] (the authors' earlier nonlocality conjecture, verified numerically for 5≤d≤23) is mentioned to motivate the experiment, but the proof of Theorem 1 does not invoke [40]; the Discussion even claims the present self-test itself verifies nonlocality. Thus the citation is not load-bearing. Two caveats belong in a correctness column, not a circularity column. First, in the proof of Lemma 1 for d>3, the uniqueness of C^n_{kl} in Eq. (22) is argued from the d×d² matrix M having full row rank d, which only fixes the projection onto a d-dimensional subspace; Appendix C's step from a weighted sum over k,l to termwise vanishing likewise requires an invertibility argument for G_1⊗G_1 that is not supplied. This is a proof gap, not a reduction of the conclusion to an assumption. Second, the tensor-factor extension to composite d is asserted in the Discussion without a derivation that B_d factors under the CRT isomorphism; again a completeness risk, not circularity. Overall, no load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; nu is a fixed Howard-Vala polynomial and the d=3 phases solve the stated constraints. The axioms are the standard Bell-scenario assumptions plus the specific algebraic properties of the chosen phase function. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or unobserved entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The physical observables A_j, B_j are unitary and satisfy the group-power identities A_j^n A_j^{n'} = A_j^{n+n'} for all n, n' in Z_d.
    The Bell operator and the SOPO proof are written in terms of powers A_j^n, B_k^n. In a raw Bell experiment only measurement projectors are given; the mapping from projectors to unitary observables and their powers is standard but not explicitly derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-Clifford phase function nu (Howard-Vala degree-three polynomial over the finite field) makes the matrix g(j,k,1) unitary and ensures g(j,k,n) is nonzero for all j,k and n in Z_d*.
    The uniqueness of the twisted commutation relations and the full-rank inversion in the robustness proof depend on this property. The paper notes that a quadratic nu would make the matrix drop rank and allow stabilizer solutions, so the choice of nu is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The bipartite state in the robustness theorem is pure; mixed-state statistics are handled by purification without explicit justification.
    Theorem 1 states |psi> as a pure bipartite state. Device-independent experiments produce mixed states, and the standard move to a purification is not spelled out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustly self-testing all maximally entangled states in every finite dimension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMFXMICV

@misc{pith2026250801071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustly self-testing all maximally entangled states in every finite dimension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMFXMICV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01071}
}
abstract

We establish a device-independent, noise-tolerant certification of maximally entangled states in every finite dimension $d$. The core ingredient is a $d$-input, $d$-outcome Bell experiment that generalizes the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt test from qubits to qudits, where each setting is a non-diagonal Heisenberg-Weyl observable. For every odd prime $d \geq 3$, the associated Bell operator has an exact sum-of-positive-operators decomposition, yielding the Cirelson bound in closed form, from which we reconstruct the Heisenberg-Weyl commutation relations on the support of the state. We then extend the Mayers-Yao local isometry from qubits to prime-dimensional systems and show that any $\epsilon$-near-optimal strategy below that bound is, up to local isometries, within trace distance $\delta = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon})$ of the ideal maximally entangled state; the implemented measurements are correspondingly close to the target observables. Via a tensor-factor argument, the prime-dimension result extends the self-testing protocol to every composite dimension $d$. The protocol uses standard Heisenberg-Weyl operations and non-Clifford phase gates that are diagonal in the computational basis, making it directly applicable to high-dimensional photonic and atomic platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.01071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Circuit description of a SWAP gate between an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Two circuits describing the action of the isometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Since the SOPO decomposition (11) expresses this operator as a sum of positive terms, it follows that every term must vanish individually

    − Bd|ψ⟩ = 0. Since the SOPO decomposition (11) expresses this operator as a sum of positive terms, it follows that every term must vanish individually. In particular, ⟨ψ|C † n,jCn,j|ψ⟩ = 0, which impliesCn,j|ψ⟩ = 0 for all n ∈ Z∗ d and j ∈ Zd. Explicitly, An j |ψ⟩ = X k∈Zd g(j, k, n)∗ (Bn k )† |ψ⟩ . (18) It generally holds thatAn j An′ j = An+n′ j for all...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Unlike for the cased >3, ν cannot be a polynomial in the finite field

    , is again diagonal in the computation basis and part of the present Bell experiment. Unlike for the cased >3, ν cannot be a polynomial in the finite field. Instead, a possible choice is ϕ1 = −π/18 and ϕ2 = −13π/18, for which ⟨B3⟩lhv < 5.640. Given the qutrit Bell state, it is ⟨Φ|B3|Φ⟩ = 6. Moreover, there exist a SOPO decomposition61−B 3 = C † 0C0 + C † ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In Ap- pendix A, we calculate explicitly that χ[(U ⊗ 1) |Φ⟩](x1,z1),(x2,z2) = 1 d δx1=x2 X s∈Zd ω(z1+z2)s+νs+2−1 x1 −νs−2−1 x1

    With these choices, the Bell operator is B(ν) d = X u,v∈Z2 d χ[(Uν ⊗ 1) |Φ⟩](u,v) Tu ⊗ Tv , (6) where χ denotes the characteristic function. In Ap- pendix A, we calculate explicitly that χ[(U ⊗ 1) |Φ⟩](x1,z1),(x2,z2) = 1 d δx1=x2 X s∈Zd ω(z1+z2)s+νs+2−1 x1 −νs−2−1 x1 . (7) 3 Although our analysis allows general functionsν, Howard and Vala identified a min...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Suppose futher that|ψ⟩ ∈ HA ⊗ HB is a bipartite state such that |⟨ψ|Bd|ψ⟩ −d(d − 1)| ≤ϵ. Then, there exist local unitaries VA : HA → Cd ⊗ HA′ and VB : HB → Cd ⊗ HB′ together with an error functionδ(ϵ) = √ϵ d(d − 1)(µd(4 + 1/d) + 1)such that ∥ (VA ⊗ VB) (|ψ⟩) − |Φ⟩ ⊗ |aux⟩∥ ≤δ, (16) where |Φ⟩ is the maximally entangled state as in Eq.(4), |aux⟩ ∈ HA′ ⊗HB′ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Using these relations, we explicitly build a local isometry that extracts the maximally entangled state and maps the physical observables to their canonical HW counterparts

    Isometry construction. Using these relations, we explicitly build a local isometry that extracts the maximally entangled state and maps the physical observables to their canonical HW counterparts. Lemma 1. Let Aj, Bj and |ψ⟩ be as in Theorem 1, and assume ⟨ψ|Bd|ψ⟩ = d(d − 1). Then for allj, k∈ Zd the following twisted commutation relations hold: AjAk − ωj...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Additionally, it must holdA† j = AjAj for j ∈ {0, 1, 2}

    As a consequence,Cj|ψ⟩ = 0, relating the operators Aj to the Bk. Additionally, it must holdA† j = AjAj for j ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Writing these constraints out gives a linear system of equations that can be simplified to {B2 0 , B2 1 } + B2 |ψ⟩ = 0 , {B2 0 , B2 2 } + B1 |ψ⟩ = 0 , {B2 1 , B2 2 } + B0 |ψ⟩ = 0 . (23) In AppendixC, it is shown that the commutation el...

    work page

  7. [7]

    J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika , 1:195–200, Nov 1964. doi:10. 1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    work page 1964

  8. [8]

    JOHN S. BELL. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 38:447–452, Jul 1966. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.38.447, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.38.447

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.38.447 1966

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Self testing quan- tum apparatus

    Dominic Mayers and Andrew Yao. Self testing quan- tum apparatus. Quantum Information & Computation , 4(4):273–286, 2004. doi:10.26421/QIC4.4-3

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    Self-testing of quantum systems: a review

    Ivan Šupić and Joseph Bowles. Self-testing of quantum systems: a review. Quantum, 4:337, 9 2020. doi:10. 22331/q-2020-09-30-337

    2020

  3. [11]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar, A. Boyer de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe. Random numbers certified by bell’s theorem.Nature, 464(7291):1021–1024, Apr 2010. doi:10.1038/nature09008

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Private randomness expansion with untrusted devices

    Roger Colbeck and Adrian Kent. Private randomness expansion with untrusted devices. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 44(9):095305, feb

  5. [13]

    Bell nonlo- cality

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlo- cality. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 86:419–478, Apr 2014. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Simple and tight device-independent security proofs

    Rotem Arnon-Friedman, Renato Renner, and Thomas Vidick. Simple and tight device-independent security proofs. SIAM Journal on Computing , 48(1):181–225, 2019. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1174726, doi:10. 1137/18M1174726

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazi- rani

    Ben W. Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazi- rani. Classical command of quantum systems. Na- ture, 496(7446):456–460, Apr 2013. doi:10.1038/ nature12035

    2013

  8. [16]

    Mip*= re.Communications of the ACM, 64(11):131–138, 2021

    Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright, and Henry Yuen. Mip*= re.Communications of the ACM, 64(11):131–138, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Entanglement detec- tion

    Otfried Gühne and Géza Tóth. Entanglement detec- tion. Physics Reports, 474(1):1–75, 2009. doi:10.1016/ j.physrep.2009.02.004

    2009

  10. [18]

    Test- ing the dimension of hilbert spaces

    Nicolas Brunner, Stefano Pironio, Antonio Acin, Nicolas Gisin, André Allan Méthot, and Valerio Scarani. Test- ing the dimension of hilbert spaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 100:210503, May 2008. URL: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.210503, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.1...

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Device-independent witnesses of genuine multipartite entanglement

    Jean-Daniel Bancal, Nicolas Gisin, Yeong-Cherng Liang, and Stefano Pironio. Device-independent witnesses of genuine multipartite entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 106:250404, Jun 2011. URL: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.250404, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.106.250404

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Nonclassicality of pure two-qutrit entangled states.Phys

    Jacek Gruca, Wiesław Laskowski, and Marek Żukowski. Nonclassicality of pure two-qutrit entangled states.Phys. Rev. A, 85:022118, Feb 2012.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85. 022118

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Bell inequalities for arbitrarily high- dimensional systems

    Daniel Collins, Nicolas Gisin, Noah Linden, Serge Massar, and Sandu Popescu. Bell inequalities for arbitrarily high- dimensional systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 88:040404, Jan

  14. [22]

    Maximum nonlocality and minimum un- certainty using magic states

    Mark Howard. Maximum nonlocality and minimum un- certainty using magic states. Phys. Rev. A , 91:042103, Apr 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.042103

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Dagomir Kaszlikowski, L. C. Kwek, Jing-Ling Chen, Marek Żukowski, and C. H. Oh. Clauser-Horne inequality for three-state systems. Phys. Rev. A , 65:032118, Feb

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032118

    doi

  17. [25]

    Dagomir Kaszlikowski, Darwin Gosal, E. J. Ling, L. C. Kwek, Marek Żukowski, and C. H. Oh. Three-qutrit correlations violate local realism more strongly than those of three qubits. Phys. Rev. A , 66:032103, Sep 2002.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032103

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

    Multisetting Bell inequality for qudits

    Se-Wan Ji, Jinhyoung Lee, James Lim, Koji Nagata, and Hai-Woong Lee. Multisetting Bell inequality for qudits. Phys. Rev. A , 78:052103, Nov 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.052103

    2008 doi

  19. [28]

    Reexamination of a multisetting Bell inequal- ity for qudits

    Yeong-Cherng Liang, Chu-Wee Lim, and Dong-Ling Deng. Reexamination of a multisetting Bell inequal- ity for qudits. Phys. Rev. A , 80:052116, Nov 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.052116

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    Hoban, and Stefanie Barz

    Jelena Mackeprang, Daniel Bhatti, Matty J. Hoban, and Stefanie Barz. The power of qutrits for non-adaptive measurement-based quantum computing. New Jour- nal of Physics , 25(7):073007, jul 2023. doi:10.1088/ 1367-2630/acdf77. 7

    2023

  21. [30]

    Weidong Tang, Sixia Yu, and C. H. Oh. Greenberger- Horne-Zeilinger paradoxes from qudit graph states. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 110:100403, Mar 2013. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.110.100403

    2013

  22. [31]

    Silverstone, Qihuang Gong, Antonio Acín, Karsten Rottwitt, Leif K

    Jianwei Wang, Stefano Paesani, Yunhong Ding, Raffaele Santagati, Paul Skrzypczyk, Alexia Salavrakos, Jordi Tura, Remigiusz Augusiak, Laura Mančinska, Davide Bacco, Damien Bonneau, Joshua W. Silverstone, Qihuang Gong, Antonio Acín, Karsten Rottwitt, Leif K. Oxen- løwe, Jeremy L...

    2018

  23. [32]

    Quantum solution to the byzantine agreement problem.Phys

    Matthias Fitzi, Nicolas Gisin, and Ueli Maurer. Quantum solution to the byzantine agreement problem.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:217901, Nov 2001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 87.217901

    2001 doi

  24. [33]

    Entanglement creation and distribution on a graph of exchange-coupled qutrits

    Christopher Hadley, Alessio Serafini, and Sougato Bose. Entanglement creation and distribution on a graph of exchange-coupled qutrits. Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 72, 11 2005. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevA.72.052333

    2005

  25. [34]

    Shaari, M.R.B

    J.S. Shaari, M.R.B. Wahiddin, and S. Mancini. Blind encoding into qudits. Physics Letters A , 372(12):1963– 1967, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2007.08.076

    1963 doi

  26. [35]

    Adrian Keet, Ben Fortescue, Damian Markham, and Barry C. Sanders. Quantum secret sharing with qu- dit graph states. Phys. Rev. A , 82:062315, Dec 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.062315

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    Cross, Bei Zeng, and Isaac L

    Xie Chen, Hyeyoun Chung, Andrew W. Cross, Bei Zeng, and Isaac L. Chuang. Subsystem stabilizer codes cannot have a universal set of transversal gates for even one encoded qudit. Phys. Rev. A , 78:012353, Jul 2008.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012353

    2008 doi

  28. [37]

    Julien Niset, Jaromír Fiurášek, and Nicolas J. Cerf. No-go theorem for Gaussian quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 102:120501, Mar 2009. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.102.120501

    2009

  29. [38]

    Self-testing quantum systems of arbitrary local dimension with minimal number of measurements

    Shubhayan Sarkar, Debashis Saha, Jędrzej Kaniewski, and Remigiusz Augusiak. Self-testing quantum systems of arbitrary local dimension with minimal number of measurements. npj Quantum Information , 7(1):151, Oct

  30. [39]

    Marek Żukowski, Anton Zeilinger, and Michael A. Horne. Realizable higher-dimensional two-particle entanglements via multiport beam splitters.Phys. Rev. A, 55:2564–2579, Apr 1997. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.55.2564, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.55.2564

    1997 doi

  31. [40]

    Bell nonlocality from Wigner neg- ativity in qudit systems

    Uta Isabella Meyer, Ivan Šupić, Damian Markham, and Frédéric Grosshans. Bell nonlocality from Wigner neg- ativity in qudit systems. 2024. arXiv:2405.14367, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.14367

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Robust self- testing of unknown quantum systems into any en- tangled two-qubit states

    Tzyh Haur Yang and Miguel Navascués. Robust self- testing of unknown quantum systems into any en- tangled two-qubit states. Phys. Rev. A , 87:050102, May 2013. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.87.050102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87. 050102

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested

    AndreaColadangelo, KoonTongGoh, andValerioScarani. All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested. Nature Communications, 8(1):15485, May 2017. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15485

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    Generalization of the clauser- horne-shimony-holt inequality self-testing maximally en- tangled states of any local dimension

    Andrea Coladangelo. Generalization of the clauser- horne-shimony-holt inequality self-testing maximally en- tangled states of any local dimension. Phys. Rev. A , 98:052115, Nov 2018. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052115, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 98.052115

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    Maximal nonlocality from maximal entanglement and mutually unbiased bases, and self-testing of two-qutrit quantum systems

    Jędrzej Kaniewski, Ivan Šupić, Jordi Tura, Flavio Baccari, Alexia Salavrakos, and Remigiusz Augusiak. Maximal nonlocality from maximal entanglement and mutually unbiased bases, and self-testing of two-qutrit quantum systems. Quantum, 3:198, October 2019.doi:10.22331/ q-2019-10-24-198

    2019

  36. [45]

    A generalization of CHSH and the algebraic structure of optimal strategies.Quantum, 4:346, October 2020

    David Cui, Arthur Mehta, Hamoon Mousavi, and Seyed Sajjad Nezhadi. A generalization of CHSH and the algebraic structure of optimal strategies.Quantum, 4:346, October 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-10-21-346

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of noncon- textuality inequalities and self-testing of quantum de- vices

    Debashis Saha, Rafael Santos, and Remigiusz Augusiak. Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of noncon- textuality inequalities and self-testing of quantum de- vices. Quantum, 4:302, August 2020. doi:10.22331/ q-2020-08-03-302

    2020

  38. [47]

    All real projective measurements can be self-tested.Nature Physics, 20(10):1642–1647, 2024

    Ranyiliu Chen, Laura Mančinska, and Jurij Volčič. All real projective measurements can be self-tested.Nature Physics, 20(10):1642–1647, 2024

    2024

  39. [48]

    N. Gisin. Bell’s inequality holds for all non- product states. Physics Letters A , 154(5):201– 202, 1991. URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/037596019190805I, doi:10.1016/0375-9601(91)90805-I

    1991

  40. [49]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and RichardA.Holt. Proposedexperimenttotestlocalhidden- variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, Oct 1969. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

    1969 doi

  41. [50]

    Spekkens

    Robert W. Spekkens. Negativity and contextuality are equivalent notions of nonclassicality.Physical Review Let- ters, 101, 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020401

    2008 doi

  42. [51]

    Cirel’son

    Boris S. Cirel’son. Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 4:93–100, March 1980. doi:10.1007/BF00417500

    1980 doi

  43. [52]

    Device- independent certification of tensor products of quantum states using single-copy self-testing protocols.Quantum, 5:418, March 2021.doi:10.22331/q-2021-03-23-418

    Ivan Šupić, Daniel Cavalcanti, and Joseph Bowles. Device- independent certification of tensor products of quantum states using single-copy self-testing protocols.Quantum, 5:418, March 2021.doi:10.22331/q-2021-03-23-418

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    Quan- tum bounds for compiled xor games and d-outcome chsh games, 2024

    Matilde Baroni, Quoc-Huy Vu, Boris Bourdoncle, Eleni Diamanti, Damian Markham, and Ivan Šupić. Quan- tum bounds for compiled xor games and d-outcome chsh games, 2024. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2403. 05502, arXiv:2403.05502

    2024

  45. [54]

    Constant-sized correlations are sufficient to self-test maximally entangled states with unbounded di- mension

    Honghao Fu. Constant-sized correlations are sufficient to self-test maximally entangled states with unbounded di- mension. Quantum, 6:614, January 2022.doi:10.22331/ q-2022-01-03-614

    2022

  46. [55]

    Constant-sized robust self-tests for states and measurements of unbounded dimension.Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics , 405(9):221, 2024

    Laura Mančinska, Jitendra Prakash, and Christopher Schafhauser. Constant-sized robust self-tests for states and measurements of unbounded dimension.Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics , 405(9):221, 2024

    2024

  47. [56]

    Constant-sized self-tests for maximally entan- gled states and single projective measurements.Quantum, 8:1292, 2024

    Jurij Volčič. Constant-sized self-tests for maximally entan- gled states and single projective measurements.Quantum, 8:1292, 2024

    2024

  48. [57]

    Robust self- testing of the singlet.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 45(45):455304, oct 2012

    M McKague, T H Yang, and V Scarani. Robust self- testing of the singlet.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 45(45):455304, oct 2012. URL: https: 8 //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304, doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/45/45/455304

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    All the self-testings of the singlet for two binary measure- ments

    Yukun Wang, Xingyao Wu, and Valerio Scarani. All the self-testings of the singlet for two binary measure- ments. New Journal of Physics , 18(2):025021, feb

  50. [59]

    D. Gross. Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quan- tum systems. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 47, 2006. doi:10.1063/1.2393152

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    Self-testing in parallel

    Matthew McKague. Self-testing in parallel. New Jour- nal of Physics , 18(4):045013, apr 2016. URL:https:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/045013, doi:10. 1088/1367-2630/18/4/045013. Appendix A: Characteristic function The characteristic function used in the Bell operator(9)...

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    Contextuality supplies the ’magic’ for quan- tum computation

    Mark Howard, Joel Wallman, Victor Veitch, and Joseph Emerson. Contextuality supplies the ’magic’ for quan- tum computation. Nature, 510, 2014. doi:10.1038/ nature13460

    2014

  53. [62]

    Browne, and Robert Raussendorf

    Nicolas Delfosse, Cihan Okay, Juan Bermejo-Vega, Dan E. Browne, and Robert Raussendorf. Equivalence between contextuality and negativity of the Wigner function for qudits. New Journal of Physics , 19, 12 2017. doi:10. 1088/1367-2630/aa8fe3

    2017

  54. [63]

    Qudit versions of the qubit π/8 gate

    Mark Howard and Jiri Vala. Qudit versions of the qubit π/8 gate. Phys. Rev. A , 86:022316, Aug 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022316

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    Quantum contextuality with stabilizer states

    Mark Howard, Eoin Brennan, and Jiri Vala. Quantum contextuality with stabilizer states. Entropy, 15:2340– 2362, 2013. doi:10.3390/e15062340

    2013 doi

  56. [65]

    Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of clauser-horne-shimony- holt-like inequalities and their application to self-testing

    Cédric Bamps and Stefano Pironio. Sum-of-squares decompositions for a family of clauser-horne-shimony- holt-like inequalities and their application to self-testing. Phys. Rev. A , 91:052111, May 2015. URL: https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052111, doi: 10.1103/Phys...

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    Device-independent par- allel self-testing of two singlets

    Xingyao Wu, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Matthew McK- ague, and Valerio Scarani. Device-independent par- allel self-testing of two singlets. Phys. Rev. A , 93:062121, Jun 2016. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062121, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 93.062121

    2016 doi

  58. [70]

    Bell inequalities tailored to maximally entangled states.Phys

    Alexia Salavrakos, Remigiusz Augusiak, Jordi Tura, Pe- ter Wittek, Antonio Acín, and Stefano Pironio. Bell inequalities tailored to maximally entangled states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:040402, Jul 2017. URL: https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.040402, doi: 10.1103/Ph...

    2017 doi

  59. [72]

    [2] [3] [4] (a) |0⟩ F F † |ψ⟩ ω2−1 B1 B† 0 B† 0

  60. [73]

    [2] [3] [4] (b) FIG. 2: Two circuits describing the action of the isometryVA in 2a andVB in 2b, both on the states|ψ⟩ and |0⟩, with the Fourier operation (, a generalized Hadamard matrix),F = 1√ d P i,j∈Zd ωjk |j⟩⟨k|, and operatorsA0, A1, B0, B1. The slices [1] - [4] correspon...

  61. [74]

    Bound ∥[{B2 0 , B2 1 } + B2]|ψ⟩∥1, ∥[{B0, B1} + B2 2 ]|ψ⟩∥1, and index permutations thereof The first step is to bound∥[{B2 0 , B2 1 } + B2]|ψ⟩∥1 and index permutations thereof. To this aim,A2 0 = A† 0 leads to e−2iϕ1 3 B2 0 + ωB 2 1 + B2 2 2 − eiϕ1 √ 3 B0 + ω2B1 + B2 |ψ⟩ 1 (F...

  62. [75]

    (F33) Moreover, note that Q + Q† + 1 |ψ⟩ 1 = {B0, B1}{B2 0 , B2 1 } −1 |ψ⟩ 1 (F34) = {B0, B1}{B2 0 , B2 1 } + {B0, B1}B2 − {B0, B1}B2 − 1 |ψ⟩ 1 (F35) ≤ 6√ϵ( √ 3 + 2)

    Commutation elements We consider the three commutation elements Q = B0B1B2 0 B2 1 , (F28) Q′ = B2B0B2 2 B2 0 , (F29) Q′′ = B1B2B2 1 B2 2 , (F30) It is useful to write the commutation elementsQ, Q′, Q′′ as Q = B0B1({B2 0 , B2 1 } + B2) − 1 − B0B1B2 , (F31) Q′ = B2B0({B2 2 , B2 ...

  63. [76]

    (F46) Write λ = eiθ, then λ + λ∗ + 1 = 2 cos θ + 1

    Bounding ∥Q − ωk1∥ From Eq.(F36), |λ + λ∗ + 1| = (λ1 − Q) + (λ∗1 − Q†) + (1 + Q + Q†) |ψ⟩ 1 (F45) ≤ 18√ϵ( √ 3 + 2). (F46) Write λ = eiθ, then λ + λ∗ + 1 = 2 cos θ + 1. Assuming that ϵ′ := 18√ϵ( √ 3 + 2) < 1/2 < |ω − ω2|, confines θ to a ϵ′-neighborhood of θ = 2π/3 or θ = 4π/3,...

  64. [77]

    As a final step, we need to show thatk∗ is the same forQ, Q′, and Q′′

    Commutation elements Q′ and Q′′ All inequalities and arguments also hold forQ′ and Q′′ and cyclic permutations ofB0, B1, B2. As a final step, we need to show thatk∗ is the same forQ, Q′, and Q′′. First note thatQ, Q′, Q′′ are mutually close: ∥[Q − Q′] |ψ⟩∥1 = B0B1B2 0 B2 1 − B...

  65. [78]

    T wisted commutation relations For a small enoughϵ, i.e. 36√ϵ( √ 3 + 2) < 1/2, it follows from Eq.(F44) and its following considerations that [B0B1 − ωk∗ B1B0]|ψ⟩ 1 ≤ 9√ϵ( √ 3 + 2), (F71) [B2B0 − ωk∗ B0B2]|ψ⟩ 1 ≤ 9√ϵ( √ 3 + 2), (F72) [B1B2 − ωk∗ B2B1]|ψ⟩ 1 ≤ 9√ϵ( √ 3 + 2), (F7...

  66. [2002]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.040404

    doi

  67. [2011]

    URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/ 44/9/095305, doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/9/095305

    doi

  68. [2016]

    URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ 18/2/025021, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/025021

    doi

  69. [2021]

    doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00490-3

    doi

Pith tools

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