arxiv: 2604.19911 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Semi-device-independent self-testing of unitary operations

Rajdeep Paul , Prabuddha Roy , A. K. Pan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords semi-device-independentself-testingunitary operationsprepare-measure random access codequantum communication3-bit PMRACcertification protocol

0 comments

The pith

The optimal quantum advantage in a variant of the 3-bit prepare-measure random access code self-tests Alice's unitary operations and Bob's measurements.

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

This paper develops a semi-device-independent protocol to certify unitary operations using a communication game based on a variant of the 3-bit prepare-measure random access code. Alice and Bob share a two-qubit state, with Alice applying unitaries to encode her bits and Bob measuring the combined system to guess a specific bit. By reaching the analytically derived optimal quantum success probability, which exceeds the classical bound, the specific unitaries Alice uses and Bob's measurements are uniquely certified. This approach is elegant because it relies on the game performance alone without needing full characterization of the devices. It can be extended to any n-bit version of the game.

Core claim

In this variant of the 3-bit PMRAC, the maximum quantum success probability is achieved only when Alice applies specific unitary operations on her qubit and Bob performs particular measurements on the two-qubit system, thereby self-testing these operations through the observed game statistics.

What carries the argument

The variant of the 3-bit prepare-measure random access code (PMRAC), in which the quantum advantage over classical strategies serves as a witness for the exact form of the unitary operations and measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes Alice and Bob share a fixed two-qubit entangled state and follow the exact rules of the prepare-measure game without any additional hidden variables or device imperfections.

What would settle it

Measuring a success probability in the 3-bit PMRAC that is lower than the calculated quantum maximum, or observing correlation patterns inconsistent with the predicted unitaries, would disprove the self-testing claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19911 by A. K. Pan, Prabuddha Roy, Rajdeep Paul.

read the original abstract

We present a hitherto unexplored semi-device-independent (SDI) self-testing protocol designed to certify unitary operations within a variant of prepare-measure framework. We consider a communication game which we refer to as a variant of $3$-bit prepare-measure random access code (PMRAC) involving two parties, Alice and Bob, who share a prior two-qubit quantum state. Alice encodes her message by applying unitary operations on her subsystem and sends it to Bob. To decode the message, Bob performs a measurement on the whole system. We demonstrate that the optimal quantum advantage of the variant of $3$-bit PMRAC over the classical bound enables the self-testing of Alice's unitary operations and Bob's measurements. The derivation of the optimal quantum success probability is fully analytical. The approach is so elegant that it can be generalized for any arbitrary $n$-bit PMRAC and may also be extended to other prepare-measure communication games.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives an exact optimal success probability for a 3-bit prepare-measure RAC variant and claims this certifies Alice's unitaries and Bob's measurements in SDI fashion, but the step from bound to rigidity looks incomplete.

read the letter

The core contribution is an analytical calculation of the maximum success probability in this specific prepare-measure game with a shared two-qubit state. Alice encodes by applying one of a set of unitaries and Bob decodes with a joint measurement. The authors obtain a closed-form quantum value that beats the classical bound and argue that reaching it forces the operations to match the target ones up to local isometries. That analytical route is cleaner than many numerical optimizations in similar games and opens a path to n-bit generalizations without extra assumptions on the state dimension beyond two qubits. The prepare-measure framing itself is a reasonable choice for reducing experimental requirements compared to full Bell tests. The derivation of the bound appears direct from the game rules and does not rely on fitting or circular self-citation. That part stands on its own. The self-testing claim is weaker. Computing the maximum under the assumed state shows what value is achievable, but does not automatically rule out other unitaries or small deviations in the shared state that could hit the same number. Rigidity requires showing that any strategy attaining the optimum must be equivalent to the target via isometries; the abstract and the stress-test note both leave that step unaddressed. If the full manuscript only equates the bound to the target without characterizing all optimal strategies, the certification does not yet follow. The paper is aimed at researchers who work on quantum communication games, random access codes, and device certification. Someone looking for an exact analytical handle on a prepare-measure scenario will find the bound useful even if the self-testing needs extra work. It is not a foundational result but it is concrete enough that a referee could check the missing uniqueness argument and suggest fixes. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject. The analytical bound is worth referee time; the self-testing part can be tightened or scoped down during revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a semi-device-independent self-testing protocol for unitary operations in a prepare-and-measure framework based on a variant of the 3-bit prepare-measure random access code (PMRAC). Alice and Bob share a fixed two-qubit state; Alice encodes a three-bit message by applying one of a set of unitary operations to her qubit before sending it to Bob, who performs a joint measurement on the two-qubit system to guess a designated bit. The authors derive the optimal quantum success probability analytically and claim that attaining this bound self-tests Alice's unitaries and Bob's measurements up to local isometries. They note that the method generalizes to arbitrary n-bit PMRAC.

Significance. If the analytical optimality derivation and the associated rigidity for self-testing hold, the work supplies an elegant, fully analytical SDI certification method for unitaries in bounded-dimension prepare-and-measure scenarios. The absence of numerical optimization and the explicit generalization pathway to n-bit games constitute clear strengths that could support applications in quantum communication and device certification.

major comments (2)

[Self-testing argument following optimality derivation] The central self-testing claim (abstract and the section following the optimality derivation) is load-bearing but insufficiently supported. Deriving the maximal success probability under a fixed two-qubit state establishes an upper bound, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate that this bound is attained exclusively by the target unitaries and measurements (up to local isometries). No explicit uniqueness argument or exclusion of alternative unitaries/measurements that could reach the same value is provided, leaving open whether the optimality condition is rigid or merely extremal.
[Protocol definition and assumptions] The protocol assumes the parties share a specific two-qubit state and operate strictly within the stated prepare-measure rules. The manuscript should clarify whether the self-testing relations remain valid under small deviations from this state or under additional hidden degrees of freedom consistent with the dimension bound, as this assumption is central to the SDI claim.

minor comments (1)

[Conclusion] The abstract asserts generalization to arbitrary n-bit PMRAC, but the main text contains only a brief remark without even a sketch for n=4; adding a short outline would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify the requirements for a complete self-testing argument. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Self-testing argument following optimality derivation] The central self-testing claim (abstract and the section following the optimality derivation) is load-bearing but insufficiently supported. Deriving the maximal success probability under a fixed two-qubit state establishes an upper bound, yet the manuscript does not demonstrate that this bound is attained exclusively by the target unitaries and measurements (up to local isometries). No explicit uniqueness argument or exclusion of alternative unitaries/measurements that could reach the same value is provided, leaving open whether the optimality condition is rigid or merely extremal.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit uniqueness proof is required to fully substantiate the self-testing claim. Our analytical derivation of the optimal success probability identifies the equality conditions that must hold for the bound to be achieved; these conditions constrain the unitaries and measurements to the target forms up to local isometries on the two-qubit space. However, we agree that this implication was not stated with sufficient rigor. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that extracts the equality cases from the success-probability expression and proves that any strategy saturating the bound is equivalent to the target strategy up to local isometries. revision: yes
Referee: [Protocol definition and assumptions] The protocol assumes the parties share a specific two-qubit state and operate strictly within the stated prepare-measure rules. The manuscript should clarify whether the self-testing relations remain valid under small deviations from this state or under additional hidden degrees of freedom consistent with the dimension bound, as this assumption is central to the SDI claim.

Authors: The protocol is defined for an exact two-qubit shared state with no additional degrees of freedom beyond the dimension bound, and the self-testing relations hold precisely when the observed success probability equals the derived quantum bound. We will revise the manuscript to state these assumptions explicitly in the protocol section and to note that the present results concern the ideal (exact) case. A full robustness analysis for small deviations is beyond the scope of the current work and will be flagged as a direction for future investigation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Analytical optimality derivation is self-contained; no reduction to inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper derives the optimal quantum success probability for the 3-bit PMRAC variant fully analytically from the prepare-measure game rules and the assumed two-qubit shared state, without fitting parameters or invoking prior self-citations for the bound. Self-testing of Alice's unitaries and Bob's measurements is claimed to follow directly from achieving this bound via local isometries. No quoted step reduces the central claim to a definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain; the derivation remains independent of the target operations themselves. This is the standard honest outcome for an analytical game-based self-testing paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of an optimal quantum advantage in the defined game that uniquely identifies the target unitaries and measurements; this depends on standard quantum mechanics assumptions and the specific game rules rather than new postulates.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Parties share a prior two-qubit quantum state and Alice applies unitary operations on her subsystem within the prepare-measure framework.
Stated directly in the abstract as the setup for the communication game.
standard math The classical bound and optimal quantum success probability can be derived analytically from the game rules.
Claimed in the abstract as the basis for self-testing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5450 in / 1328 out tokens · 33925 ms · 2026-05-10T02:20:17.977681+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

(6) is derived as Sopt Q = 1 2 + 1√ 6 ≈0.908 (19) Note thatS opt Q >(S C)3→2 i.e., optimal quantum success probability outperforms the classical RACs

Hence, the optimal success probability from Eq. (6) is derived as Sopt Q = 1 2 + 1√ 6 ≈0.908 (19) Note thatS opt Q >(S C)3→2 i.e., optimal quantum success probability outperforms the classical RACs. We remark here that the optimal quantum success probability of traditional 3- bit PMRAC by sending one qubit was derived asS QRAC = 1 2 1+ 1√ 3 ≈0.785 [34, 38...

2021
[2]

J. S. Bell, Physics1, 195 (1964)

1964
[3]

Brunner, D

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

2014
[4]

Mayers and A

D. Mayers and A. Yao, inProceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 98CB36280) (IEEE, 1998) pp. 503–509

1998
[5]

Self-testing quantum apparatus , Volume =

D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0307205 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2004
[6]

ˇSupi´c and J

I. ˇSupi´c and J. Bowles, Quantum4, 337 (2020)

2020
[7]

Hensen, H

B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr ´eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´an,et al., Nature526, 682 (2015)

2015
[8]

L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 250402 (2015)

2015
[9]

Giustina, M

M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 250401 (2015)

2015
[10]

Tavakoli, J

A. Tavakoli, J. Kaniewski, T. V ´ertesi, D. Rosset, and N. Brun- ner, Phys. Rev. A98, 062307 (2018)

2018
[11]

Tavakoli, Phys

A. Tavakoli, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 15, 150503 (2020)

2020
[12]

ˇSupi´c, M

I. ˇSupi´c, M. J. Hoban, L. D. Colomer, and A. Ac´ın, New J. Phys. 22, 073006 (2020)

2020
[13]

Pauwels, S

J. Pauwels, S. Pironio, E. Woodhead, and A. Tavakoli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250504 (2022)

2022
[14]

Navascu ´es, K

M. Navascu ´es, K. F. P´al, T. V´ertesi, and M. Ara´ujo, Phys. Rev. 6 Lett.131, 250802 (2023)

2023
[15]

Mironowicz and M

P. Mironowicz and M. Pawłowski, Phys. Rev. A100, 030301 (2019)

2019
[16]

Smania, P

M. Smania, P. Mironowicz, M. Nawareg, M. Pawłowski, A. Ca- bello, and M. Bourennane, Optica7, 123 (2020)

2020
[17]

Farkas and J

M. Farkas and J. Kaniewski, Phys. Rev. A99, 032316 (2019)

2019
[18]

Li, Z.-Q

H.-W. Li, Z.-Q. Yin, Y .-C. Wu, X.-B. Zou, S. Wang, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Phys. Rev. A84, 034301 (2011)

2011
[19]

H.-W. Li, M. Pawłowski, Z.-Q. Yin, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Phys. Rev. A85, 052308 (2012)

2012
[20]

Lunghi, J

T. Lunghi, J. B. Brask, C. C. W. Lim, Q. Lavigne, J. Bowles, A. Martin, H. Zbinden, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 150501 (2015)

2015
[21]

Mohan, A

K. Mohan, A. Tavakoli, and N. Brunner, New J. Phys.21, 083034 (2019)

2019
[22]

Miklin, J

N. Miklin, J. J. Borkała, and M. Pawłowski, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033014 (2020)

2020
[23]

S. S. Abhyoudai, S. Mukherjee, and A. K. Pan, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012411 (2023)

2023
[24]

Anwer, S

H. Anwer, S. Muhammad, W. Cherifi, N. Miklin, A. Tavakoli, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 080403 (2020)

2020
[25]

Tavakoli, M

A. Tavakoli, M. Smania, T. V´ertesi, N. Brunner, and M. Bouren- nane, Science Advances6, eaaw6664 (2020)

2020
[26]

Zhang, J

A. Zhang, J. Xie, H. Xu, K. Zheng, H. Zhang, Y .-T. Poon, V . Ve- dral, and L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 040402 (2020)

2020
[27]

Dall’Arno, S

M. Dall’Arno, S. Brandsen, and F. Buscemi, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences473, 20160721 (2017)

2017
[28]

Sekatski, J.-D

P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, S. Wagner, and N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 180505 (2018)

2018
[29]

Wagner, J.-D

S. Wagner, J.-D. Bancal, N. Sangouard, and P. Sekatski, Quan- tum4, 243 (2020)

2020
[30]

Sarkar, Phys

S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. A110, L020402 (2024)

2024
[31]

Magniez, D

F. Magniez, D. Mayers, M. Mosca, and H. Ollivier, inAu- tomata, Languages and Programming, edited by M. Bugliesi, B. Preneel, V . Sassone, and I. Wegener (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006) pp. 72–83

2006
[32]

Sarkar, Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently (2025), arXiv:2508.20185 [quant-ph]

S. Sarkar, Any gate of a quantum computer can be certified device-independently (2025), arXiv:2508.20185 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Nature496, 456 (2013)

2013
[34]

N ¨oller, N

J. N ¨oller, N. Miklin, M. Kliesch, and M. Gachechiladze, Quan- tum9, 1825 (2025)

2025
[35]

Quantum Random Access Codes with Shared Randomness

A. Ambainis, D. Leung, L. Mancinska, and M. Ozols, Quan- tum random access codes with shared randomness (2009), arXiv:0810.2937 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[36]

Tavakoli, A

A. Tavakoli, A. Hameedi, B. Marques, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 170502 (2015)

2015
[37]

Roy and A

P. Roy and A. K. Pan, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 375303 (2024)

2024
[38]

Hayashi, K

M. Hayashi, K. Iwama, H. Nishimura, R. Raymond, and S. Ya- mashita, New J. Phys.8, 129 (2006)

2006
[39]

R. W. Spekkens, D. H. Buzacott, A. J. Keehn, B. Toner, and G. J. Pryde, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 010401 (2009)

2009
[40]

Chailloux, I

A. Chailloux, I. Kerenidis, S. Kundu, and J. Sikora, New J. Phys.18, 045003 (2016)

2016
[41]

Hameedi, A

A. Hameedi, A. Tavakoli, B. Marques, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 220402 (2017)

2017
[42]

R. K. Singh, S. Sasmal, S. Nautiyal, and A. K. Pan, New Journal of Physics27, 114520 (2025)

2025
[43]

Pawłowski and M

M. Pawłowski and M. ˙Zukowski, Phys. Rev. A81, 042326 (2010)

2010
[44]

Muhammad, A

S. Muhammad, A. Tavakoli, M. Kurant, M. Pawłowski, M. ˙Zukowski, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. X4, 021047 (2014)

2014
[45]

Banik, S

M. Banik, S. S. Bhattacharya, A. Mukherjee, A. Roy, A. Am- bainis, and A. Rai, Phys. Rev. A92, 030103(R) (2015)

2015
[46]

Tavakoli, B

A. Tavakoli, B. Marques, M. Pawłowski, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. A93, 032336 (2016)

2016
[47]

Hameedi, D

A. Hameedi, D. Saha, P. Mironowicz, M. Pawłowski, and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. A95, 052345 (2017)

2017
[48]

Laplante, M

S. Laplante, M. Lauri `ere, A. Nolin, J. Roland, and G. Senno, Quantum2, 72 (2018)

2018
[49]

Tavakoli, A

A. Tavakoli, A. A. Abbott, M.-O. Renou, N. Gisin, and N. Brun- ner, Phys. Rev. A98, 052333 (2018)

2018
[50]

Ghorai and A

S. Ghorai and A. K. Pan, Phys. Rev. A98, 032110 (2018)

2018
[51]

A. K. Pan and S. S. Mahato, Phys. Rev. A102, 052221 (2020)

2020
[52]

A. K. Pan, Phys. Rev. A104, 022212 (2021)

2021
[53]

Roy and A

P. Roy and A. K. Pan, New J. Phys.25, 013040 (2023)

2023
[54]

R. Paul, S. Sasmal, and A. K. Pan, Phys. Rev. A110, 012444 (2024)

2024
[55]

Tavakoli, J

A. Tavakoli, J. Pauwels, E. Woodhead, and S. Pironio, PRX Quantum2, 040357 (2021)

2021
[56]

C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2881 (1992)

1992
[57]

Piveteau, J

A. Piveteau, J. Pauwels, E. Håkansson, S. Muhammad, M. Bourennane, and A. Tavakoli, Nature Communications13, 7878 (2022)

2022
[58]

Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp

P. Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

1994
[59]

L. K. Grover, inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1996) p. 212–219

1996
[60]

J. F. Fitzsimons and E. Kashefi, Phys. Rev. A96, 012303 (2017)

2017