Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States

Kun Wang; Masahito Hayashi

Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States

T0 review · 0 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-02 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry reduces verification with local states to checking a single basis state.

desk verdict Symmetry reduces verification of locally transitive irreducible projective measurements to single-state verification, with explicit local protocols and closed forms for several families. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.21355 v2 pith:YB5ZIZIF submitted 2026-06-19 quant-ph

Kun Wang , Masahito Hayashi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantummeasurementverificationlocalstatepreparationprojectivemeasurementssymmetryreductionentangledfidelityestimationsamplecomplexity

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

The paper introduces a framework for verifying quantum measurements using only local state preparations. It proves that for projective measurements satisfying local transitivity and irreducibility, symmetry simplifies the task to verifying one basis state. This reduces designing verification protocols to optimizing homogeneous operators. The approach is demonstrated on generalized Bell measurements and other examples, providing explicit protocols with known success probabilities and sample needs. Additionally, the protocols allow estimating measurement fidelity from how often tests pass.

What carries the argument

The symmetry reduction that maps locality-constrained QMV for such measurements to verification of a single basis state using homogeneous verification operators.

What would settle it

A counterexample where a locally transitive irreducible projective measurement's QMV cannot be reduced to single basis state verification via symmetry, or where the derived sample complexities do not match experimental observation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry reduces locality constrained quantum measurement verification to quantum state verification of a single basis state, reducing protocol design to the optimization of homogeneous verification operators. Explicit local protocols are derived for generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter measurements on two qubits, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer state induced measurements, along with closed-form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. Homogeneous QMV protocols can also estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The measurements must satisfy local transitivity and irreducibility as projective measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Derivation of explicit local protocols for several classes of entangled measurements including generalized Bell measurements.
Closed-form expressions for verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities.
Direct estimation of measurement fidelity from passing frequencies in homogeneous protocols.
Simplification of protocol design through optimization of homogeneous verification operators.

Reading between the lines

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

This reduction may enable verification in distributed quantum systems where global entangled states are hard to prepare.
The method could be tested on other symmetric measurements beyond those listed.
It suggests that fidelity estimation might be possible without full tomography in similar settings.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core contribution is a symmetry reduction: for measurements that are locally transitive and irreducible projective, the locality-constrained QMV problem collapses to verifying one basis state. Protocol design then reduces to optimizing homogeneous verification operators. They instantiate this on generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter two-qubit measurements, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer-induced measurements, supplying explicit local protocols, closed-form success probabilities, and sample complexities. They also note that passing frequencies directly yield a fidelity estimator.

The reduction is scoped explicitly to those symmetry properties, so the claim does not overreach. The explicit constructions and closed forms are the practical value; they turn an abstract framework into something an experimentalist could plug in for those specific cases. The fidelity estimation step is a small but useful extra.

The main boundary is the restriction to locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements. Outside that class the symmetry argument does not apply, which is stated up front rather than hidden. Without the full proofs in front of me I cannot check every derivation step, but the abstract and stress-test note give no sign of circularity or post-hoc fitting.

This is for groups working on device certification or measurement verification who want to avoid entangled-state preparation. The concrete protocols make it worth a referee's time even if the scope is narrow.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations. For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, symmetry is shown to reduce locality-constrained QMV to quantum state verification of a single basis state, reducing protocol design to optimization of homogeneous verification operators. The framework is instantiated on generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter two-qubit measurements, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer-induced measurements, yielding explicit local protocols together with closed-form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. It is further shown that homogeneous QMV protocols estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a symmetry-based reduction that simplifies verification of a relevant subclass of entangled measurements to a standard state-verification task, together with explicit closed-form protocols for several concrete families. The direct fidelity estimator from passing rates is a practical addition. Explicit constructions and closed-form expressions are shipped, which strengthens usability for quantum device certification.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'single-parameter measurements on two qubits' is used without a brief characterizing equation or reference; a parenthetical definition would improve immediate readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its significance, and recommendation to accept. We are pleased that the symmetry reduction, explicit protocols, and fidelity estimation were viewed as useful contributions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper scopes its core reduction explicitly to the subclass of locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements and presents the symmetry reduction to single-basis-state verification as a direct mathematical consequence of those group-action properties (not as a definitional equivalence or fitted-parameter renaming). No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem imported from prior author work is visible in the abstract or described framework; the subsequent instantiations on concrete families supply explicit operators and probabilities derived from the reduction rather than presupposing them. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external symmetry assumptions.

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

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all such elements would need to be extracted from the full manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YB5ZIZIF

@misc{pith2026260621355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YB5ZIZIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.21355}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a framework for quantum measurement verification (QMV) using only local state preparations. For locally transitive and irreducible projective measurements, we prove that symmetry reduces locality constrained QMV to quantum state verification of a single basis state, thereby reducing protocol design to the optimization of homogeneous verification operators. We apply the framework to generalized Bell measurements, single-parameter measurements on two qubits, elegant joint measurements, and stabilizer state induced measurements, and derive explicit local protocols together with closed form verification operators, success probabilities, and sample complexities. We further show that homogeneous QMV protocols can estimate measurement fidelity directly from observed passing frequencies.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

[1]

For every θ ∈ Θ, Tθ(S) is a valid verification operator for the state |ψθ⟩; namely, 0 ≤ Tθ(S) ≤ 1 , Tθ(S)|ψθ⟩ = |ψθ⟩. ( 17)

work page
[2]

( 18) In particular, the value of the maximization on the right hand side is independent of the choice of θ

The QMV worst-case passing probability is equal to the QSV worst-case passing probability for any fixed outcome θ; namely, for any θ ∈ Θ, P(S, ε) = max σ≥0, Tr[σ]=1: ⟨ψθ |σ|ψθ ⟩≤1−ε Tr[Tθ(S)σ]. ( 18) In particular, the value of the maximization on the right hand side is independent of the choice of θ. 5

work page
[3]

Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε

The second largest eigenvalue of Tθ(S) is independent of θ. Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε. ( 19) Equivalently, for every θ ∈ Θ, λ2(Tθ(S)) = λ2(S). ( 20) Theorem 2 is the main reduction result and is shown in Appendix B 2. It turns the original optimization over faulty POVMs in Eq. (8) into the familiar QSV problem ...

work page
[4]

(37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM is defined as Jκ = {|Φκ j ⟩ ⟨Φκ j | : j = 0, 1, 2, 3}

Define four orthonormal states [ 54]: |Φκ 0⟩ = 1 2 e− iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e− 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37a) |Φκ 1⟩ = 1 2 e iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37b) |Φκ 2⟩ = 1 2 e− 3iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e− iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37c) |Φκ 3⟩ = 1 2 e 3iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e iπ 4 |11⟩ . (37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM ...

work page 2025
[5]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993
[6]

Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)

N. Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)

work page doi:10.3390/e21030325 2019
[7]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Liu et al., Nature 640, 343 (2025)

M. Liu et al., Nature 640, 343 (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 91 references

[9]

Bluvstein et al., Nature 626, 58 (2024)

D. Bluvstein et al., Nature 626, 58 (2024)

2024
[10]

PsiQuantum team, Nature 641, 876 (2025)

2025
[11]

Fiurášek, Physical Review A 64, 024102 (2001)

J. Fiurášek, Physical Review A 64, 024102 (2001)

2001
[12]

J. S. Lundeen, A. Feito, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, K. L. Pregnell, C. Silberhorn, T. C. Ralph, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Nature Physics 5, 27 (2008)

2008
[13]

Hayashi, K

M. Hayashi, K. Matsumoto, and Y. Tsuda, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, 14427 (2006)

2006
[14]

Hayashi, arXiv: 0810.3381 10 .48550/arXiv.0810.3381 (2008)

M. Hayashi, arXiv: 0810.3381 10 .48550/arXiv.0810.3381 (2008)

2008 arXiv
[15]

Hayashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 043028 (2009)

M. Hayashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 043028 (2009)

2009
[16]

Hayashi and T

M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Physical Review Letters 115, 220502 (2015)

2015
[17]

Morimae, Y

T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, Physical Review A 96, 062321 (2017)

2017
[18]

Hayashi and M

M. Hayashi and M. Hajdušek, Physical Review A 97, 052308 (2018)

2018
[19]

Pallister, N

S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Physical Review Letters 120, 170502 (2018)

2018
[20]

Takeuchi and T

Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, Physical Review X 8, 021060 (2018)

2018
[21]

Wang and M

K. Wang and M. Hayashi, Physical Review A 100, 032315 (2019)

2019
[22]

X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, npj Quantum Informa- tion 5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0226-z (2019)

2019 doi
[23]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 100, 032316 (2019)

2019
[24]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Physical Review A 100, 062335 (2019)

2019
[25]

Liu, X.-D

Y.-C. Liu, X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, H. Zhu, and X. Zhang, Phys- ical Review Applied 12, 044020 (2019)

2019
[26]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Physical Review A 99, 052346 (2019)

2019
[27]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Physical Review Applied 12, 054047 (2019)

2019
[28]

Zhu and M

H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Physical Review Letters 123, 260504 (2019)

2019
[29]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Physical Review Applied 13, 054002 (2020)

2020
[30]

Dangniam, Y.-G

N. Dangniam, Y.-G. Han, and H. Zhu, Physical Review Research 2, 043323 (2020)

2020
[31]

Zhang, C

W.-H. Zhang, C. Zhang, Z. Chen, X.-X. Peng, X.-Y. Xu, P . Yin, S. Yu, X.-J. Ye, Y.-J. Han, J.-S. Xu, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review Letters 125, 030506 (2020)

2020
[32]

Jiang, K

X. Jiang, K. Wang, K. Qian, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, L. Xia, F. Song, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, npj Quantum Information 6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00317-7 (2020)

2020 doi
[33]

Zhang, X

W.-H. Zhang, X. Liu, P . Yin, X.-X. Peng, G.-C. Li, X.- Y. Xu, S. Yu, Z.-B. Hou, Y.-J. Han, J.-S. Xu, Z.-Q. Zhou, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, npj Quantum Informa- tion 6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00328-4 (2020)

2020 doi
[34]

Li, Y.-G

Z. Li, Y.-G. Han, H.-F. Sun, J. Shang, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 103, 022601 (2021)

2021
[35]

Y.-G. Han, Z. Li, Y. Wang, and H. Zhu, npj Quantum Information 7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00499-8 (2021)

2021 doi
[36]

Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, and X. Zhang, Physical Review Re- search 3, L042004 (2021)

2021
[37]

Y.-D. Wu, G. Bai, G. Chiribella, and N. Liu, Physical Re- view Letters 126, 240503 (2021)

2021
[38]

Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, R. Han, and X. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 126, 090504 (2021)

2021
[39]

Y. Li, H. Zhang, Z. Li, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 104, 062439 (2021)

2021
[40]

Miguel-Ramiro, F

J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, Physical Review Letters 129, 190504 (2022)

2022
[41]

Y.-C. Liu, Y. Li, J. Shang, and X. Zhang, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies 6, 2300083 (2023)

2023
[42]

H. Zhu, Y. Li, and T. Chen, Quantum 8, 1221 (2024)

2024
[43]

T. Chen, Y. Li, and H. Zhu, Physical Review A 107, 022616 (2023)

2023
[44]

L. Xia, L. Lu, K. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Zhu, and X. Ma, New Journal of Physics 24, 095002 (2022)

2022
[45]

Goˇ canin, I

A. Goˇ canin, I. Šupi´ c, and B. Daki´ c, PRX Quantum 3, 010317 (2022)

2022
[46]

Y.-C. Liu, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and X. Zhang, Physical Review A 101, 042315 (2020)

2020
[47]

Zhu and H

H. Zhu and H. Zhang, Physical Review A 101, 042316 (2020)

2020
[48]

P . Zeng, Y. Zhou, and Z. Liu, Physical Review Research 2, 023306 (2020)

2020
[49]

M. Luo, X. Zhang, and X. Zhou, Physical Review A 105, 012614 (2022)

2022
[50]

Zhang, Z

R.-Q. Zhang, Z. Hou, J.-F. Tang, J. Shang, H. Zhu, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Physical Review Letters 128, 020502 (2022)

2022
[51]

Zheng, X

C. Zheng, X. Yu, Z. Zhang, P . Xu, and K. Wang, Quantum Science and Technology 11, 035005 (2026)

2026
[52]

J. Chen, P . Zeng, Q. Zhao, X. Ma, and Y. Zhou, PRX Quantum 6, 040353 (2025)

2025
[53]

Zheng, P

C. Zheng, P . Xu, K. Wang, and Z. Zhang, Science China Information Sciences 68, 180511 (2025)

2025
[54]

Y. Hu, C. Zheng, X. Yu, and Z. Zhang, Quantum Science and Technology 11, 025014 (2026)

2026
[55]

X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, Advanced Quantum Technologies 5, 2100126 (2022)

2022
[56]

Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017)

M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017). 10

2017
[57]

Tavakoli, N

A. Tavakoli, N. Gisin, and C. Branciard, Physical Review Letters 126, 220401 (2021)

2021
[58]

Huang, X.-M

C.-X. Huang, X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, N. Gisin, C. Branciard, and A. Tavakoli, Physical Review Letters 129, 030502 (2022)

2022
[59]

Wollmann, X

S. Wollmann, X. Qiang, A. Montanaro, N. Linden, and J. C. F. Matthews, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2306.01068 10.48550/arXiv.2306.01068 (2023)

2023 doi
[60]

Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States

T. DURT, B.-G. ENGLERT, I. BENGTSSON, and K. ˙ZY- CZKOWSKI, International Journal of Quantum Informa- tion 08, 535 (2010). 11 Supplemental Material for “Efficient Verification of Entangled Measurements with Local States” This Supplemental Material is organized as follows. Appe...

2010
[61]

Proof of Proposition 1 15
[62]

Preparation of a key lemma 16 b

Proof of Theorem 2 15 a. Preparation of a key lemma 16 b. Reduction to quantum state verification 16 C. Generalized Bell measurement verification 19
[63]

Introduction to generalized Bell measurements 19
[64]

Symmetries of generalized Bell measurements 20
[65]

Verification protocol 20 b

Proof of Corollary 3 20 a. Verification protocol 20 b. Performance analysis 20 D. Single-parameter measurement on two qubits verification 21
[66]

Introduction to single-parameter measurements on two qubits 21
[67]

Symmetries of single-parameter measurements on two qubits 21
[68]

Verification protocol 22 b

Proof of Corollary 4 22 a. Verification protocol 22 b. Performance analysis 22 E. Elegant joint measurement verification 23
[69]

Introduction to elegant joint measurements 23
[70]

Symmetries of elegant joint measurements 24
[71]

Verification protocol 24 b

Proof of Corollary 5 24 a. Verification protocol 24 b. Performance analysis 25 F. Stabilizer state induced measurement verification 26
[72]

Introduction to stabilizer state induced measurements 26
[73]

Symmetries of stabilizer state induced measurements 26
[74]

Verification protocol 27 b

Proof of Corollary 6 26 a. Verification protocol 27 b. Performance analysis 27 G. Discussion on measurement fidelity estimation 28 Appendix A: Properties of the maximal probability In this section, we collect several basic properties of the maximal passing probability P(S, ε) ...
[75]

For any POVM M = {Mθ}θ∈Θ, define the averaged POVM ¯Mθ := 1 |G| ∑ g∈G V†(g)MgθV(g)

Proof of Proposition 1 For any local protocol S = {px, (ρx, P (ρx))}x∈X , its symmetrization ¯S is local because each V(g) is a product unitary. For any POVM M = {Mθ}θ∈Θ, define the averaged POVM ¯Mθ := 1 |G| ∑ g∈G V†(g)MgθV(g). (B 1) Then ¯M := { ¯Mθ}θ∈Θ is a valid POVM and F...
[76]

Proof of Theorem 2 This appendix first proves a lifting lemma for stabilizer-twirled states and then uses it to reduce the QMV analysis to QSV for one representative outcome. 16 a. Preparation of a key lemma To prove Theorem 2 from the main text, the following key lemma is nee...
[77]

For every positive integer d, define the set Zd := {0, · · · , d − 1}

Introduction to generalized Bell measurements We first define the Weyl operators, which generalize the qubit Pauli operators. For every positive integer d, define the set Zd := {0, · · · , d − 1}. Whenever elements of Zd appear in arithmetic expressions, we assume that the ope...
[78]

After quotienting out phases, its action is represented by Wa,b ⊗ Wc,e with (a, b), (c, e) ∈ Z2 d

Symmetries of generalized Bell measurements Let G be the local Weyl group, including phases. After quotienting out phases, its action is represented by Wa,b ⊗ Wc,e with (a, b), (c, e) ∈ Z2 d. This action maps Bell states to Bell states and is transitive on {|Ψx,z⟩ : (x, z) ∈ Z...
[79]

Proof of Corollary 3 We prove Corollary 3 by constructing a local protocol and showing that its representative operator is the optimal separable verification operator for |Ψ⋆⟩. a. Verification protocol Assume that d is prime, so that Zd is the finite field Fd. Introduce the eq...
[80]

Introduction to single-parameter measurements on two qubits The single-parameter measurement on two qubits Pγ is defined in Eq. (32). It interpolates between product basis measurements at γ = 0, π/2 and the Bell measurement at γ = π/4. This appendix presents the local protocol...
[81]

( 31) shows that, up to irrelevant phases, the local unitaries generated by 1 ⊗ X, Z ⊗ Z, ZX ⊗ 1 (D1) 22 permute the four projectors of Pγ

Symmetries of single-parameter measurements on two qubits Direct substitution in Eq. ( 31) shows that, up to irrelevant phases, the local unitaries generated by 1 ⊗ X, Z ⊗ Z, ZX ⊗ 1 (D1) 22 permute the four projectors of Pγ. More explicitly, for x, z ∈ Z2, (1 ⊗ X)|Ψγ x,z⟩ = |Ψ...
[82]

Proof of Corollary 4 We prove Corollary 4 by constructing the local protocol and computing its verification operators. a. Verification protocol Define |v±⟩ = sin γ|0⟩ ± cos γ|1⟩, (D 8a) |v⊥ ±⟩ = cos γ|0⟩ ∓ sin γ|1⟩, (D 8b) |w±⟩ = sin γ|0⟩ ± i cos γ|1⟩, (D 8c) |w⊥ ±⟩ = cos γ|0⟩...
[83]

For any POVM M = {Mx,z}(x,z)∈Z2 2 , ∑ x,z Tr[Ωx,z(Sγ)Mx,z] = β + (1 − β)F(Pγ, M)

(D 11) The protocol is homogeneous with β = 1/3. For any POVM M = {Mx,z}(x,z)∈Z2 2 , ∑ x,z Tr[Ωx,z(Sγ)Mx,z] = β + (1 − β)F(Pγ, M). (D 12) 23 Index x Prob. px Test State ρx Outputs Pγ(ρx) 1 1/12 |0⟩ ⊗ |0⟩ { (0, 0), (1, 1)} 2 1/12 |1⟩ ⊗ |1⟩ { (0, 0), (1, 1)} 3 1/12 |0⟩ ⊗ |1⟩ { (...
[84]

Introduction to elegant joint measurements The EJM family on two qubits Jκ is defined in Eq. (38). Each state has tetrahedral one qubit marginals, with a Bloch length that depends on κ. To describe the local test states used below, let |r⟩ denote the pure state of one qubit wh...
[85]

Symmetries of elegant joint measurements Direct substitution in Eq. ( 37) gives (X ⊗ X)|Φκ 0⟩ = −|Φκ 1⟩, (X ⊗ X)|Φκ 1⟩ = −|Φκ 0⟩, (E 6) (X ⊗ X)|Φκ 2⟩ = −|Φκ 3⟩, (X ⊗ X)|Φκ 3⟩ = −|Φκ 2⟩, (E 7) and (Z ⊗ Z)|Φκ 0⟩ = −|Φκ 3⟩, (Z ⊗ Z)|Φκ 3⟩ = −|Φκ 0⟩, (E 8) (Z ⊗ Z)|Φκ 1⟩ = −|Φκ 2⟩, ...
[86]

Proof of Corollary 5 We prove Corollary 5 by constructing a local protocol and evaluating its homogeneous verification operators. a. Verification protocol The protocol Sκ consists of three symmetry orbits of local product tests. First, for each unordered pair0 ≤ j < ℓ ≤ 3, con...
[87]

(E 15) satisfy bκ = 2cκ and aκ 1 − sin κ 12(1 + sin κ) = bκ

(E 20) The choices in Eq. (E 15) satisfy bκ = 2cκ and aκ 1 − sin κ 12(1 + sin κ) = bκ
[88]

(E 21) Therefore the terms outside the diagonal in aκ Aκ 0 + bκBκ 0 + cκCκ 0 cancel. The verification operator for the reference outcome is Ω0(Sκ) = aκ Aκ 0 + bκBκ 0 + cκCκ 0 = 1 4 [Pκ 0 + βκ(1 − Pκ 0 )] , (E 22) where βκ = aκ 3 + 2bκ 3 + cκ = 4 − 3 sinκ 3(2 − sin κ) . (E 23) ...
[89]

Introduction to stabilizer state induced measurements The stabilizer state induced measurement MS is defined in Eq. (45). It is obtained from the orbit of a stabilizer state |S⟩ under the n qudit Weyl representation. The protocol below is adapted from stabilizer state verifica...
[90]

They map |S,⃗a⟩ 7→ Wn(⃗x)|S,⃗a⟩ = |S,⃗x +⃗a⟩, (F 1) up to phases and modulo the stabilizer subgroup N

Symmetries of stabilizer state induced measurements The Weyl operators Wn(⃗x) are tensor products of local Weyl operators. They map |S,⃗a⟩ 7→ Wn(⃗x)|S,⃗a⟩ = |S,⃗x +⃗a⟩, (F 1) up to phases and modulo the stabilizer subgroup N. Hence the action is locally transitive on F2n d /N....
[91]

Proof of Corollary 6 We prove Corollary 6 by constructing a local stabilizer test protocol and evaluating the associated homogeneous verification operator. 27 a. Verification protocol Choose stabilizer generators {Wn(⃗xr) : r = 1, . . . ,n} for |S⟩. For ⃗k = (k1, . . . ,kn) ∈ ...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

For every θ ∈ Θ, Tθ(S) is a valid verification operator for the state |ψθ⟩; namely, 0 ≤ Tθ(S) ≤ 1 , Tθ(S)|ψθ⟩ = |ψθ⟩. ( 17)

work page

[2] [2]

( 18) In particular, the value of the maximization on the right hand side is independent of the choice of θ

The QMV worst-case passing probability is equal to the QSV worst-case passing probability for any fixed outcome θ; namely, for any θ ∈ Θ, P(S, ε) = max σ≥0, Tr[σ]=1: ⟨ψθ |σ|ψθ ⟩≤1−ε Tr[Tθ(S)σ]. ( 18) In particular, the value of the maximization on the right hand side is independent of the choice of θ. 5

work page

[3] [3]

Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε

The second largest eigenvalue of Tθ(S) is independent of θ. Denoting this common value by λ2(S), we have P(S, ε) = 1 − 1 − λ2(S) ε. ( 19) Equivalently, for every θ ∈ Θ, λ2(Tθ(S)) = λ2(S). ( 20) Theorem 2 is the main reduction result and is shown in Appendix B 2. It turns the original optimization over faulty POVMs in Eq. (8) into the familiar QSV problem ...

work page

[4] [4]

(37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM is defined as Jκ = {|Φκ j ⟩ ⟨Φκ j | : j = 0, 1, 2, 3}

Define four orthonormal states [ 54]: |Φκ 0⟩ = 1 2 e− iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e− 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37a) |Φκ 1⟩ = 1 2 e iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e 3iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37b) |Φκ 2⟩ = 1 2 e− 3iπ 4 |00⟩ + rκ −|01⟩ + rκ +|10⟩ + e− iπ 4 |11⟩ , (37c) |Φκ 3⟩ = 1 2 e 3iπ 4 |00⟩ − rκ +|01⟩ − rκ −|10⟩ + e iπ 4 |11⟩ . (37d) The single-parameter two-qubit EJM ...

work page 2025

[5] [5]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 70, 1895 (1993)

work page 1993

[6] [6]

Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)

N. Gisin, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21030325 (2019)

work page doi:10.3390/e21030325 2019

[7] [7]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature 638, 920 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Liu et al., Nature 640, 343 (2025)

M. Liu et al., Nature 640, 343 (2025)

work page 2025