Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper introduces a hierarchy of semidefinite-programming relaxations built from block moment matrices, governed by a problem-tailored completely positive map, that incorporates constraints—fidelity, dimension, operator norms—standard NP

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:51 UTC pith:QY2GQ6QF

load-bearing objection A sound and genuinely general SDP framework whose central construction holds up, with a recurring pattern of 'tight' claims that are heuristic rather than proven. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.19388 v2 pith:QY2GQ6QF submitted 2026-03-19 quant-ph

Semidefinite block-matrix relaxations for computing quantum correlations

Nicola D'Alessandro , Carles Roch i Carceller , Armin Tavakoli This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4590C22
keywords quantum correlationssemidefinite programmingblock moment matrixNPA hierarchyentanglement witnessdimension certificationuncertainty relationsprepare-and-measure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a general method for bounding quantum correlations as semidefinite programs: replace the operator variables by a block moment matrix whose blocks are images of the operator monomials under a completely positive map chosen for the problem at hand. The map lets the relaxation absorb constraints—fixed Hilbert-space dimension, fidelity bounds, subspace dimensions, operator-norm limits—that the standard NPA hierarchy cannot efficiently encode. The authors apply the method to five concrete problems and report bounds that are tight or near-tight, including a case where the SDP is proven to dominate every fidelity-based criterion for genuine multipartite entanglement dimension. A sympathetic reader would care because a single flexible relaxation framework could replace many ad hoc SDP constructions in quantum information.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the block moment matrix Γ_{u,v}=Θ(uv†), with Θ chosen to fit the physics of the problem, yields an SDP relaxation of the operator feasibility problem (find a set of operators satisfying linear, semidefinite and equality constraints on their monomials) in which every quantum-feasible solution maps to a feasible point of the SDP. This turns a broad class of state-and-measurement optimisation problems into finite SDPs. The paper demonstrates the point by solving five previously open or poorly handled problems: correcting entanglement witnesses for imperfect measurements, certifying measurements from fidelity-bounded sources, bounding genui

What carries the argument

The central object is the block moment matrix Γ = Σ_{u,v} |iu⟩⟨iv| ⊗ Θ(uv†), where S is a chosen set of monomials in the operators and Θ is a completely positive map that projects the operator algebra onto a tractable image space—the identity map when the Hilbert-space dimension is fixed, id ⊕ tr_⊥ when only a d-dimensional subspace is trusted, and trace-like maps when uncharacterised parties are discarded. Positivity of Γ follows from complete positivity of Θ and enforces the quantum constraints. The choice of Θ, together with the monomial list and localising matrices for polynomial constraints, is what lets the method fold constraints such as fidelity bounds, Schmidt-rank limits, commutati

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen completely positive map and monomial list capture enough of the physics that the SDP's outer approximation is tight; in the uncertainty-relation application this is certified only by matching brute-force numerical search, because the relaxation cannot impose the nonlinear consistency condition tr(Γ_{ρ,O_i})² = tr(Γ_{ρ,Õ_i}), and the paper concedes this limitation.

What would settle it

For the n-cycle uncertainty problem with a specific n and η, find an explicit set of qubit observables satisfying the relaxed anticommutation bounds whose sum of squared expectations exceeds β_n(0)+α_n η from Table V; such a construction would show the reported value is an upper bound rather than the exact tight value. A simpler check is to evaluate the SDP for n=7, η=0.01 and compare against an exhaustive parameter search over rotations of Pauli observables.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Entanglement witnesses can be corrected for measurement misalignment with tight, SDP-computed bounds, including for qutrits and non-uniform errors, where no analytical solution was known.
  • Measurement certification under fidelity-bounded sources becomes tractable beyond the simplest scenarios; the reported bounds are up to 13% stronger than the previous best for the Hesse SIC discrimination task.
  • For genuine multipartite entanglement dimension, the SDP relaxation is proven to be at least as strong as any fidelity criterion, and in tested cases (e.g. Dicke states and random states) it yields substantially lower critical visibility.
  • Operational-dimension bounds for state-preparation devices can be computed up to dimension 15 in reasonable time, giving rigorous bounds where only heuristic lower bounds existed.
  • Noise-robust uncertainty relations for almost anti-commuting observables scale linearly as β_n(η)=β_n(0)+α_n η, and these relations translate directly into calibration-error-robust entanglement witnesses via the derived Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same Θ-tailoring recipe could be applied to security proofs of quantum key distribution and random-number generation, where misalignment and source leakage are naturally expressed as fidelity or operator-norm constraints.
  • The linear scaling in Problem 5 suggests that for any anticommutation graph, the first-order correction to the sum-of-squares bound may be a graph-theoretic quantity (e.g. related to the graph's independence number); this is a testable conjecture not made in the paper.
  • Because the method's convergence depends on the problem, one should expect that for some future applications only loose bounds will be obtainable at practical relaxation levels; the paper's five successes do not guarantee a universal recipe for tightness.
  • The SDP's proven dominance over fidelity criteria for GME dimension opens the possibility that similar dominance holds for other entanglement monotones, which would be worth checking case by case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a general SDP relaxation framework for quantum correlation problems, based on positive-semidefinite block moment matrices Γ_{u,v} = Θ(uv†), where Θ is a problem-tailored completely positive map. The method encompasses the NPA hierarchy as a special case and is applied to five problems: entanglement witnessing with imperfect measurements, certification from fidelity-bounded sources, GME dimensionality, operational dimension of preparation devices, and uncertainty relations for almost anticommuting observables. For each problem the paper reports upper bounds, several of which are presented as tight or optimal. The appendices contain proofs that the GME-dimension SDP dominates all fidelity criteria, that a natural dimension-restricted instantiation reduces to an existing hierarchy, and that a steering hierarchy fits the same framework.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a useful unifying perspective on SDP relaxations for quantum correlations, with a clean positivity argument (Eq. 3) and rigorous-looking appendix proofs. Strengths include the generality of the block-moment construction, the explicit treatment of five diverse physical problems, the proof in Appendix A that the GME criterion is at least as strong as any fidelity criterion, and the availability of code. The reported upper bounds are valid outer approximations. However, several claims of optimality or tightness rest on numerical matching with heuristic search rather than on dual certificates or explicit feasible constructions. The most load-bearing such case is Problem 5, where the SDP is explicitly a relaxation over a superset because a nonlinear consistency constraint cannot be imposed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§VII.B–C, Eq. (36), Table V, §VIII] The SDP in Eq. (36) uses a scalar extension Õ_i = ⟨O_i⟩ O_i but cannot impose the consistency tr(Γ_{ρ,O_i})² = tr(Γ_{ρ,Õ_i}), as the authors state in §VII.B. Therefore the feasible set of the SDP is a superset of the actual almost-anticommuting configurations, and the reported β_n(η) are mathematically only upper bounds. The labels “tight bounds” (Table V) and the Discussion’s statement that Problem 5 gave “optimal results” are not proven. The only certification is a matching lower bound from “brute force optimisation,” whose details and global-optimality guarantees are not given. If that search is incomplete, the coefficients α_n in Eq. (37) are overestimates rather than exact slopes. This is load-bearing because Problem 5 is explicitly highlighted in §VIII as a case where optimal results were obtained. I ask the authors either to provide explicit feasible operator constructions or du
  2. [§III.C and §IV.C] A similar certification gap appears in Problems 1 and 2. In §III.C the tightness of the witness bounds is supported only by “a series of random case studies,” and in §IV.C the Hesse-SIC bounds are called “optimal” because they match alternating-convex-search lower bounds. These lower bounds are heuristic, and no dual certificate for the SDP is provided. The upper bounds themselves are valid, but the wording in the abstract (“optimal correlation bounds”) and in Table I (“Making entanglement witnesses robust,” “Characterising correlations from imperfect sources”) overstates what has been established. Since the same pattern recurs, the paper should either provide rigorous certification of tightness for at least the flagship cases, or consistently qualify the claims as “upper bounds that are observed to be tight in numerical searches.”
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (3)] The factorisation Γ = (1⊗Θ)(MM†) is elegant, but the block-index convention could be stated slightly more explicitly: after defining i_u as the position of monomial u, clarify that Γ_{u,v} is the block in block-row i_u and block-column i_v. Also, “ammenable” should be “amenable.”
  2. [§III.B] The fidelity constraint is written as tr(R_{a|x} Ã_{a|x}) ≥ d(1−ε). This looks dimension-dependent relative to Eq. (10), but it is correct because the trace is taken over the full d² space with the identity on the other party. It would help readers if this trace convention were stated explicitly at that point.
  3. [§IV.B, Eq. (17)] The scalar variable d_⊥ represents the trace of the identity on the complementary subspace. Since the Hilbert space is described as potentially infinite-dimensional, it would be useful to comment on how d_⊥ is bounded or normalised in the implementation, and on how the SDP limit d_⊥→∞ relates to the infinite-dimensional problem.
  4. [§VIII] Minor typo: “compter-based” should be “computer-based.” Also, the phrase “computer-based methods” is used where “computational methods” may be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: BMM relaxations are outer approximations by construction; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: Eq. (4) is a valid SDP relaxation because every feasible solution of the original decision problem maps to a feasible block moment matrix, so the reported upper bounds are valid by construction. The five applications are independent instantiations of this construction; none defines its target quantity in terms of its own output. The admitted limitation in Problem 5 (the nonlinear consistency constraint cannot be imposed in an SDP) weakens the certified tightness claim but is an explicitly stated correctness caveat, not circular reasoning. Likewise, the reductions in Appendices B and C to prior hierarchies [27] and [68] are honest special-case equivalences; they are not used to justify the methodology's validity. The many self-citations serve as benchmarks, baseline definitions, and prior-art comparisons, not as load-bearing premises. No equation is used to define its own conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The methodology introduces no fitted free parameters: the imperfection/distrust inputs (ε, ω, η, γ, v) are problem data, and the α_n slopes in Eq (37) are SDP outputs matched to brute-force lower bounds rather than hand-fitted constants. The main burdens are structural: problem-dependent choices of the map Θ, the monomial lists, and the hierarchy levels, each justified per application without a general convergence theorem. The model assumptions (fidelity, projectivity, Schmidt-rank support, anticommutation graph) are borrowed from prior work, much of it co-authored by the present group, which is the primary circularity exposure.

axioms (8)
  • standard math SDP strong duality and Slater's condition hold for the singlet-fraction SDP (Eqs A5–A6)
    Used in Appendix A.1 to equate the primal and dual and thereby identify the SDP criterion (A1) with the singlet-fraction criterion; standard convex quadratic SDP with strictly feasible points, but not explicitly justified in the text.
  • domain assumption PPT positivity Q_2^{T_A} ⪰ 0 is the only separability constraint imposed in Problem 1
    Invoked in §III.B with the acknowledgment that separability has no SDP characterization [19]; as a necessary condition it preserves validity of the upper bound, but tightness may suffer. Note the constraint is automatically satisfied for the product-state blocks, so it is effectively vacuous.
  • domain assumption Measurements can be taken projective without loss of generality in unbounded dimension (Naimark dilation)
    Stated in §IV.B and used to impose R_{b'y}^{by} = δ_{b,b'} Θ(M_{b|y}) and normalization Σ_b Θ(M_{b|y}) = 1_d ⊕ d_⊥; standard, but it fixes the measurement model for Problem 2.
  • domain assumption The fidelity-imperfection model tr(A Ã) ≥ 1−ε (Eq 10) and the distrust model ⟨ψ_x|ρ_x|ψ_x⟩ ≥ 1−ω_x (Eq 14) correctly describe the experimental imperfections
    Adopted from Refs [17] and [28]; all of Problems 1–2 inherit this model, including its implicit assumption that fidelity is the right scalar measure of imperfection.
  • ad hoc to paper For Problem 2, the compression map Θ = id_d ⊕ tr_⊥ captures all relevant information about the unbounded Hilbert space
    Chosen in §IV.B so that the fidelity constraint lives in the d-dimensional block; everything in the complement is collapsed to a scalar d_⊥, so any correlation depending on ⊥-structure beyond fidelity is lost, potentially loosening the relaxation.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen monomial lists and hierarchy levels are sufficient for the claimed tightness
    Each problem uses a hand-picked level: intermediate between K=1 and K=2 in Problems 1 and 3; S={1,ρ_x,M_{b|y},ρ_x M_{b|y}} in Problem 2; K=1 in Problem 4; level 1 plus an ad hoc monomial extension Õ_{i+1}O_{i+1}O_i in Problem 5. No convergence theorem guarantees tightness at these levels; the paper itself says convergence is problem-specific (§VIII.B).
  • domain assumption Every pure state of Schmidt rank ≤ r is supported on rank-r local projectors, giving the reduction rule Π⊗1|ψ⟩ = |ψ⟩ used in Eqs (23)–(24)
    Standard Schmidt-decomposition fact; it is the basis of the Problem 3 SDP and of the steering adaptation in Appendix C, and it is where the parameter r enters.
  • domain assumption The anticommutation-graph model with bounded anticommutators −η_{ij}1 ⪯ {O_i,O_j} ⪯ η_{ij}1 (Eq 34, taken from Ref [59]) is the right robustness model for Problem 5, and the observables are restricted to traceless qubit observables
    Adopted from Ref [59] with the additional choice of ring graphs and uniform η for presentation; all Table V results are specific to this model.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar-extension observable Õ_i = ⟨O_i⟩O_i no independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes the quadratic objective ⟨O_i⟩² as a linear functional on BMM blocks in Problem 5
    A mathematical auxiliary device, not a physical object: it makes tr(Γ_{ρ,Õi}) = ⟨O_i⟩² accessible to the SDP. Its use is legitimate but the relaxation must then drop the nonlinear consistency tr(Γ_{ρ,Oi})² = tr(Γ_{ρ,Õi}), as the paper acknowledges.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28181 in / 30730 out tokens · 314744 ms · 2026-08-02T17:51:36.034158+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bounding the correlations predicted by quantum theory is an important challenge in quantum information science. Today's leading approach is semidefinite programming relaxations, but existing methods still cannot account for many relevant types of constraints. Here, we propose a semidefinite relaxation methodology that can incorporate a breadth of constraints needed in various quantum correlation problems, thereby generalising the seminal Navascu\'es-Pironio-Ac\'in hierarchy. It yields useful results at reasonable computational cost. We showcase the methodology and its features by using it to address five different quantum information problems. These are (i) entanglement witnessing from imperfect measurement devices, (ii) certifying measurements from fidelity-constrained sources, (iii) computing dimensionality in genuine multi-particle entangled states, (iv) benchmarking dimensionality for state preparation devices, and (v) finding uncertainty relations for nearly anti-commuting observables. These applications reflect both the usefulness and versatility of the methodology, as well as its potential for broader relevance in the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.19388 by Armin Tavakoli, Carles Roch I Carceller, Nicola D'Alessandro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Certifying coherence in quantum devices under classical control

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces SDP hierarchies and qubit-specific joint-measurability techniques to certify coherence under hidden classical control, with applications to coherence-preserving channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We treat{ ˜ΠP }as our variables, resulting in the SDP relaxation find{ ˜ΠP }(P| ¯P) s. t. X (P| ¯P) ˜ΠP ⊗1 ¯P ⪰ρ 1...n X (P| ¯P) tr ˜ΠP ≤r 0⪯ ˜ΠP ⪯ 1 r tr ˜ΠP 1∀(P| ¯P). (27) Note we can always selectPas the element in the bipartition such that|P| ≤ |¯P|. This makes the program more efficient. If the program is infeasible, it implies thatρhas a GME di- me...

  2. [2]

    We prove that this is not the case

    Bipartite systems: fidelity with maximally entangled states is sufficient One may consider that for some statesρ AB it is advantageous for fidelity-based Schmidt number witnessing to use a target state that is not maximally entangled. We prove that this is not the case. In other words, we show that the optimal target state is always maximally entangled (u...

  3. [3]

    The results are optimal, matching up to numerical precision the explicit models obtained through alternating convex search methods

    Using the monomialsS={1, ρ x, ρxMx|y, Mx|yρx} we have evaluated upper bounds onP s via the SDP method and the results are illustrated by the dashed line in Fig 2. The results are optimal, matching up to numerical precision the explicit models obtained through alternating convex search methods. Furthermore, we have compared the bound with the analytical up...

  4. [4]

    1| {z } k1 . . . d−1. . . d−1| {z } kd−1 ⟩, (28) whereC n,⃗k = n! Πd−1 j=0 kj is the multinomial coefficient and the sum runs over all permutations of vectors in which the integer j∈ {0, . . . , d−1}appearskj times. For ann-partite system, the vector ⃗k= (k 0, . . . , kd−1)must satisfy Pd−1 i=0 ki =n. We focus on the family corresponding tok j =⌈ n−j d ⌉....

    2023

  5. [5]

    When considering only bipartite states (n= 2), it simplifies to findΠ s

    Bipartite systems: SDP criterion is equivalent to singlet fraction criterion On the one hand, consider our SDP (27) from the main text. When considering only bipartite states (n= 2), it simplifies to findΠ s. t.Π⊗1⪰ρ AB tr(Π)≤r . (A1) Note thatΠ⪰0is implied and that we can without loss of generality restrict toΠ⪯1. On the other hand, consider the singlet ...

  6. [6]

    T. H. Yang, T. Vértesi, J.-D. Bancal, V . Scarani, and M. Navas- cués, Robust and versatile black-box certification of quantum devices, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 040401 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Multipartite systems: SDP criterion is stronger than any fidelity criterion On the one hand, consider again the SDP from the main text forn-partite systems of local dimensiond, find{ ˜ΠP }(P| ¯P) s. t. X (P| ¯P) ˜ΠP ⊗1 ¯P ⪰ρ 1...n X (P| ¯P) tr ˜ΠP ≤r 0⪯ ˜ΠP ⪯ 1 r tr ˜ΠP 1∀(P| ¯P). (A14) On the other hand, consider the general fidelity criterion ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ ≤m...

  8. [8]

    Tavakoli, A

    A. Tavakoli, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, P. Brown, and M. Araújo, Semidefinite programming relaxations for quantum correla- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 045006 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Complete family of separability criteria, Phys. Rev. A69, 022308 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    A. Acín, T. Fritz, A. Leverrier, and A. B. Sainz, A combinatorial approach to nonlocality and contextuality, Communications in Mathematical Physics334, 533 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    M. F. Pusey, Negativity and steering: A stronger peres conjec- ture, Phys. Rev. A88, 032313 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Navascués and T

    M. Navascués and T. Vértesi, Bounding the set of finite di- mensional quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 020501 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Navascués, S

    M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, A convergent hierar- chy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations, New Journal of Physics10, 073013 (2008)

    2008

  14. [14]

    Pozas-Kerstjens, R

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens, R. Rabelo, L. Rudnicki, R. Chaves, D. Cav- alcanti, M. Navascués, and A. Acín, Bounding the sets of classi- cal and quantum correlations in networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140503 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Wolfe, A

    E. Wolfe, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, M. Grinberg, D. Rosset, A. Acín, and M. Navascués, Quantum inflation: A general approach to quantum causal compatibility, Phys. Rev. X11, 021043 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Tavakoli, J

    A. Tavakoli, J. Pauwels, E. Woodhead, and S. Pironio, Correla- tions in entanglement-assisted prepare-and-measure scenarios, PRX Quantum2, 040357 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Brown, H

    P. Brown, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, Device-independent lower bounds on the conditional von Neumann entropy, Quantum8, 1445 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Pironio, M

    S. Pironio, M. Navascués, and A. Acín, Convergent relax- ations of polynomial optimization problems with noncommut- ing variables, SIAM Journal on Optimization20, 2157 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1137/090760155

    work page doi:10.1137/090760155 2010

  19. [19]

    Navascués, S

    M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, Bounding the set of quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 010401 (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  21. [21]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Re- ports474, 1–75 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    H. Cao, S. Morelli, L. A. Rozema, C. Zhang, A. Tavakoli, and P. Walther, Genuine multipartite entanglement detection with imperfect measurements: Concept and experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150201 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Rosset, R

    D. Rosset, R. Ferretti-Schöbitz, J.-D. Bancal, N. Gisin, and Y .-C. Liang, Imperfect measurement settings: Implications for quantum state tomography and entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A86, 062325 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Morelli, H

    S. Morelli, H. Yamasaki, M. Huber, and A. Tavakoli, Entangle- ment detection with imprecise measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 250501 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Tavakoli, Quantum steering with imprecise measurements, Phys

    A. Tavakoli, Quantum steering with imprecise measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 070204 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Fawzi, The set of separable states has no finite semidef- inite representation except in dimension3×2(2019), arXiv:1905.02575 [quant-ph]

    H. Fawzi, The set of separable states has no finite semidef- inite representation except in dimension3×2(2019), arXiv:1905.02575 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Pauwels, S

    J. Pauwels, S. Pironio, E. Woodhead, and A. Tavakoli, Almost qudits in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250504 (2022). 20

    2022

  28. [28]

    Spengler, M

    C. Spengler, M. Huber, S. Brierley, T. Adaktylos, and B. C. Hiesmayr, Entanglement detection via mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A86, 022311 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    Gühne, E

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

    2023

  30. [30]

    Tavakoli, J

    A. Tavakoli, J. m. k. Kaniewski, T. Vértesi, D. Rosset, and N. Brunner, Self-testing quantum states and measurements in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. A98, 062307 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Farkas and J

    M. Farkas and J. m. k. Kaniewski, Self-testing mutually unbi- ased bases in the prepare-and-measure scenario, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032316 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Quantum random ac- cess codes and incompatibility of measurements, Europhysics Letters130, 50001 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Navascués, K

    M. Navascués, K. F. Pál, T. Vértesi, and M. Araújo, Self- testing in prepare-and-measure scenarios and a robust version of wigner’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 250802 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    L. Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of edmonds’ problem and quantum entanglement, inProceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’03 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2003) p. 10–19

    2003

  35. [35]

    Tavakoli, Semi-device-independent framework based on restricted distrust in prepare-and-measure experiments, Phys

    A. Tavakoli, Semi-device-independent framework based on restricted distrust in prepare-and-measure experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 210503 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Tavakoli, E

    A. Tavakoli, E. Z. Cruzeiro, R. Uola, and A. A. Abbott, Bound- ing and simulating contextual correlations in quantum theory, PRX Quantum2, 020334 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Chaturvedi, M

    A. Chaturvedi, M. Farkas, and V . J. Wright, Characterising and bounding the set of quantum behaviours in contextuality sce- narios, Quantum5, 484 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Tavakoli, E

    A. Tavakoli, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, E. Woodhead, and S. Piro- nio, Informationally restricted correlations: a general frame- work for classical and quantum systems, Quantum6, 620 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Numerical methods can do better, but they become too expensive on standard computers already beyond for ex- ample four-qutrit systems [38]

    and for general states it is rarely straightforward to find the best state with respect to which one should evaluate the fidelity. Numerical methods can do better, but they become too expensive on standard computers already beyond for ex- ample four-qutrit systems [38]. In parallel, experiments have demonstrated high-dimensional multipartite entanglement ...

  40. [40]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Mathematical Physics45, 2171–2180 (2004)

    2004

  41. [41]

    Pauwels, S

    J. Pauwels, S. Pironio, and A. Tavakoli, Information capacity of quantum communication under natural physical assumptions, Quantum9, 1637 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Gharibian, Strong np-hardness of the quantum separability problem (2009), arXiv:0810.4507 [quant-ph]

    S. Gharibian, Strong np-hardness of the quantum separability problem (2009), arXiv:0810.4507 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki, Schmidt number for density matrices, Phys. Rev. A61, 040301 (2000)

    2000

  44. [44]

    Huber and J

    M. Huber and J. I. de Vicente, Structure of multidimensional entanglement in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 030501 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Cobucci and A

    G. Cobucci and A. Tavakoli, Detecting the di- mensionality of genuine multiparticle entangle- ment, Science Advances10, eadq4467 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adq4467

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adq4467 2024

  46. [46]

    Weilenmann, B

    M. Weilenmann, B. Dive, D. Trillo, E. A. Aguilar, and M. Navascués, Entanglement detection beyond measuring fi- delities, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 200502 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental greenberger–horne–zeilinger entanglement beyond qubits, Na- ture Photonics12, 759 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    Cervera-Lierta, M

    A. Cervera-Lierta, M. Krenn, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. Galda, Experimental high-dimensional greenberger-horne-zeilinger entanglement with superconducting transmon qutrits, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 024062 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y . Chi, Y . Cao, C. Zhai, Y . Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen, X. Jia, L. Zhao, Y . Zheng, B. Tang, Z. Li, J. Luo, W. Wang, Y . Yang, Y . Peng, D. Liu, D. Dai, Q. He, A. L. Muthali, L. K. Oxenløwe, C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, H. Hou, R. Santagati, J. W. Silverstone, A. Laing, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, Y . Ding, Q. Gong, and J. W...

    2023

  50. [50]

    Hu, C.-X

    X.-M. Hu, C.-X. Huang, N. d’Alessandro, G. Cobucci, C. Zhang, Y . Guo, Y .-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, X. Gao, M. Huber, A. Tavakoli, and B.-H. Liu, Observation of genuine high-dimensional multi-partite non-locality in entangled pho- ton states, Nature Communications16, 5017 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Erhard, M. Huber, M. Krenn, R. Fickler, and A. Zeilinger, Multi-photon entanglement in high dimensions, Nature Photonics10, 248 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  53. [53]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entan- glement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quan- tum states, Physical Review A68, 10.1103/physreva.68.042307 (2003)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.68.042307 2003

  54. [54]

    Hayashi, D

    M. Hayashi, D. Markham, M. Murao, M. Owari, and S. Vir- mani, Entanglement of multiparty-stabilizer, symmetric, and antisymmetric states, Phys. Rev. A77, 012104 (2008)

    2008

  55. [55]

    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)

    2010

  56. [56]

    Ahrens, P

    J. Ahrens, P. Badziag, A. Cabello, and M. Bourennane, Exper- imental device-independent tests of classical and quantum di- mensions, Nature Physics8, 592 (2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    Hendrych, R

    M. Hendrych, R. Gallego, M. Mi ˇcuda, N. Brunner, A. Acín, and J. P. Torres, Experimental estimation of the dimension of classical and quantum systems, Nature Physics8, 588 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Ringbauer, T

    M. Ringbauer, T. R. Bromley, M. Cianciaruso, L. Lami, W. Y . S. Lau, G. Adesso, A. G. White, A. Fedrizzi, and M. Piani, Cer- tification and quantification of multilevel quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. X8, 041007 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Bernal, G

    A. Bernal, G. Cobucci, M. J. Renner, and A. Tavakoli, Ab- solute dimensionality of quantum ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 240203 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    Tóth and O

    G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

    2005

  62. [62]

    Hansenne, Z.-P

    K. Hansenne, Z.-P. Xu, T. Kraft, and O. Gühne, Symmetries in quantum networks lead to no-go theorems for entanglement distribution and to verification techniques, Nature Communica- tions13, 496 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Wehner and A

    S. Wehner and A. Winter, Higher entropic uncertainty rela- tions for anti-commuting observables, Journal of Mathematical Physics49, 062105 (2008)

    2008

  64. [64]

    Niekamp, M

    S. Niekamp, M. Kleinmann, and O. Gühne, Entropic uncer- tainty relations and the stabilizer formalism, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics53, 012202 (2012)

    2012

  65. [65]

    Kurzy ´nski, T

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

    2011

  66. [66]

    de Gois, K

    C. de Gois, K. Hansenne, and O. Gühne, Uncertainty relations from graph theory, Phys. Rev. A107, 062211 (2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    M. B. Morán and F. Huber, Uncertainty relations from state polynomial optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 200202 (2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Navascués, A

    M. Navascués, A. Feix, M. Araújo, and T. Vértesi, Character- izing finite-dimensional quantum behavior, Phys. Rev. A92, 042117 (2015)

    2015

  69. [69]

    Tavakoli, D

    A. Tavakoli, D. Rosset, and M.-O. Renou, Enabling computa- tion of correlation bounds for finite-dimensional quantum sys- tems via symmetrization, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070501 (2019)

    2019

  70. [70]

    Navascués, G

    M. Navascués, G. de la Torre, and T. Vértesi, Characterization of quantum correlations with local dimension constraints and its device-independent applications, Phys. Rev. X4, 011011 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    H. H. Jee, C. Sparaciari, O. Fawzi, and M. Berta, Quasi- Polynomial Time Algorithms for Free Quantum Games in Bounded Dimension, in48th International Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), Leib- niz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), V ol. 198, edited by N. Bansal, E. Merelli, and J. Worrell (Schloss Dagstuhl – ...

    2021

  72. [72]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entan- glement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox, 21 Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  73. [73]

    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

  74. [74]

    Designolle, V

    S. Designolle, V . Srivastav, R. Uola, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, M. Malik, and N. Brunner, Genuine high- dimensional quantum steering, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 200404 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    D’Alessandro, C

    N. D’Alessandro, C. R. i. Carceller, and A. Tavakoli, Semidefi- nite relaxations for high-dimensional entanglement in the steer- ing scenario, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 090802 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Johnston, R

    N. Johnston, R. Mittal, V . Russo, and J. Watrous, Extended non- local games and monogamy-of-entanglement games, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences472(2016)

    2016

  77. [77]

    Woodhead and S

    E. Woodhead and S. Pironio, Effects of preparation and mea- surement misalignments on the security of the bennett-brassard 1984 quantum-key-distribution protocol, Phys. Rev. A87, 032315 (2013)

    1984

  78. [78]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with corre- lated sources, Science Advances6, eaaz4487 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4487

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz4487 2020

  79. [79]

    Oszmaniec, L

    M. Oszmaniec, L. Guerini, P. Wittek, and A. Acín, Simulat- ing positive-operator-valued measures with projective measure- ments, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 190501 (2017)

    2017

  80. [80]

    Cobucci, A

    G. Cobucci, A. Bernal, M. J. Renner, and A. Tavakoli, Opera- tionally classical simulation of quantum states, Nature Commu- nications17, 10.1038/s41467-026-68581-3 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-026-68581-3 2026

Showing first 80 references.