pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25124 · v1 · pith:MQGPUPXAnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Self-testing Quantum Supermaps

Victor Barizien , Cyril Branciard , Alastair A. Abbott , Jean-Daniel Bancal , Pavel Sekatski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords self-testingquantum supermapsdevice-independentquantum combsindefinite causal orderquantum switchGrover algorithm
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum supermaps can be identified device-independently up to local equivalences from measurement statistics alone.

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

The paper demonstrates that quantum supermaps, which act on channels and may combine them with or without fixed causal order, can be certified solely from the observed statistics of uncharacterized devices placed in their slots. Two certification levels result from the known network structure: a single black box per slot yields identification up to local embedding combs, while multiple boxes per slot yields identification up to local extracting and injecting maps. The method is applied to concrete cases including the identity comb, an error-correcting comb, Grover's algorithm comb, and the quantum switch. This extends prior self-testing results for states, measurements, and channels to these higher-order objects, allowing verification of causal indefiniteness without trusting device internals.

Core claim

We show that quantum supermaps can be identified device-independently. Specifically, we obtain two levels of certification, depending on the network structure of the experiment: when each slot of the supermap accepts a single uncharacterized black box, identification up to local embedding combs is obtained; when several black boxes are inserted within each slot, identification up to local extracting and injecting maps is achieved. We illustrate our approach on four examples -- the identity comb, a bit-flip error-correcting comb, the comb describing Grover's algorithm, and the quantum switch -- providing in particular the first self-test of both a quantum algorithmic comb and a causally indef

What carries the argument

Device-independent self-testing of quantum supermaps using fixed network structure to distinguish identification up to local embedding combs versus up to local extracting and injecting maps.

If this is right

  • The quantum switch can be certified as causally indefinite solely from statistics without assumptions on device internals.
  • Grover's algorithm implemented as a comb becomes verifiable in a device-independent way.
  • Error-correcting combs such as the bit-flip version can be identified up to the stated equivalences.
  • Supermaps in general become subject to the same device-independent certification previously available for states and channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach may extend to certifying higher-order operations beyond supermaps if the slot structure remains known.
  • It supplies a route to device-independent verification of quantum algorithms realized through comb structures.
  • The distinction between the two certification levels could guide similar self-testing protocols in other quantum networks with known wiring.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental network structure, including whether one or multiple black boxes occupy each slot, is known and fixed in advance.

What would settle it

Measurement statistics that match those predicted for a target supermap such as the quantum switch, yet arise from a process that cannot be related to it by the allowed local maps, would falsify the identification claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25124 by Alastair A. Abbott, Cyril Branciard, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Pavel Sekatski, Victor Barizien.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By certifying quantum operations from measurement statistics directly, without any assumption on the internal workings of the devices involved, self-testing enables a uniquely reliable identification of quantum objects. While such device-independent characterization has been shown to be possible for states, measurements and channels, it has so far not been extended to quantum supermaps -- operations that act on quantum channels themselves and can combine them in either a well-defined causal order or also, remarkably, in an indefinite causal order. Here we show that quantum supermaps can be identified device-independently. Specifically, we obtain two levels of certification, depending on the network structure of the experiment: when each slot of the supermap accepts a single uncharacterized black box, identification up to local embedding combs is obtained; when several black boxes are inserted within each slot, identification up to local extracting and injecting maps is achieved. We illustrate our approach on four examples -- the identity comb, a bit-flip error-correcting comb, the comb describing Grover's algorithm, and the quantum switch -- providing in particular the first self-test of both a quantum algorithmic comb and a causally indefinite quantum process. Notably, in the latter case, this provides a new way to certify causal indefiniteness in a device-independent manner.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to extend self-testing to quantum supermaps, enabling device-independent identification from measurement statistics. Two certification regimes are distinguished by experimental network structure: single uncharacterized black box per slot yields identification up to local embedding combs; multiple black boxes per slot yields identification up to local extracting and injecting maps. Concrete illustrations are given for the identity comb, a bit-flip error-correcting comb, the comb for Grover's algorithm, and the quantum switch (providing the first self-test of an algorithmic comb and of a causally indefinite process).

Significance. If the technical derivations hold, the result is significant: it supplies the first device-independent certification of quantum supermaps, including those with indefinite causal order, and thereby a new route to certifying causal indefiniteness without device assumptions. The concrete examples (especially the quantum switch) make the claim falsifiable and potentially useful for quantum information protocols that rely on supermaps.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Abstract and §1: the two certification levels are applied only after the experimenter fixes and knows the slot occupancy (single vs. multiple black boxes per slot) and causal wiring. No device-independent procedure is supplied to certify this classical network structure from the observed statistics, so the device-independent guarantee remains conditional on an external assumption that is not derived from the data.
  2. [Abstract] The central claim of 'identification up to local embedding combs' (single-box case) and 'up to local extracting/injecting maps' (multi-box case) therefore inherits the same limitation; if the network structure itself cannot be certified, the self-testing statements are not fully device-independent.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for embedding combs and extracting/injecting maps should be introduced with an explicit diagram or equation reference in the main text to avoid ambiguity when comparing the two regimes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the significance of our results and for the detailed comments on the scope of device-independence. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §1] Abstract and §1: the two certification levels are applied only after the experimenter fixes and knows the slot occupancy (single vs. multiple black boxes per slot) and causal wiring. No device-independent procedure is supplied to certify this classical network structure from the observed statistics, so the device-independent guarantee remains conditional on an external assumption that is not derived from the data.

    Authors: We agree that the classical network structure—including slot occupancy (single versus multiple black boxes per slot) and causal wiring—is assumed known to the experimenter. This is standard in device-independent protocols, where the classical experimental configuration is fixed while the quantum devices remain uncharacterized. The self-testing statements certify the supermap conditional on this known structure. We will add explicit clarification of this assumption in the abstract and Section 1. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim of 'identification up to local embedding combs' (single-box case) and 'up to local extracting/injecting maps' (multi-box case) therefore inherits the same limitation; if the network structure itself cannot be certified, the self-testing statements are not fully device-independent.

    Authors: The abstract claims are to be read in the context of a known network structure, consistent with the conventional interpretation of device-independence (e.g., Bell tests assume a known bipartite setup). We will revise the abstract and introduction to state this assumption explicitly, thereby preventing any overstatement of the device-independent guarantee. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: theoretical certification derived from standard quantum information assumptions without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The abstract and provided text present a derivation of device-independent identification of supermaps via two regimes (single vs. multiple black boxes per slot), leading to identification up to local embedding combs or extracting/injecting maps. No quoted equations, self-citations, or steps reduce the central claims to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or prior author work by construction. The network structure is stated as a known experimental input rather than a derived output, but this is an explicit assumption, not a circularity in the mathematical chain. The result is self-contained against external quantum information benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. Full manuscript would be needed to enumerate any hidden modeling choices or background assumptions about quantum operations and causal structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1125 out tokens · 17759 ms · 2026-06-25T23:20:13.048702+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. D. and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quan- tum Info. Comput.4, 273 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    ˇSupi´ c and J

    I. ˇSupi´ c and J. Bowles, Self-testing of quantum systems: a review, Quantum4, 337 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969). 16

    1969

  4. [4]

    Kaniewski, J., Analytic and nearly optimal self-testing bounds for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt and Mermin inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 070402 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Coladangelo, K

    A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, All pure bi- partite entangled states can be self-tested, Nature Com- mun.8, 15485 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Balanz´ o-Juand´ o, A

    M. Balanz´ o-Juand´ o, A. Coladangelo, R. Augusiak, A. Ac´ ın, and I. ˇSupi´ c, All pure multipartite entangled states of qubits can be self-tested, Nature Commun.17, 4463 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    R. Chen, L. Manˇ cinska, and J. Volˇ ciˇ c, All real projective measurements can be self-tested, Nature Phys.20, 1642 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Storz, A

    S. Storz, A. Kulikov, J. D. Sch¨ ar, V. Barizien, X. Val- carce, F. Berterotti` ere, N. Sangouard, J.-D. Bancal, and A. Wallraff, Complete Self-Testing of a System of Remote Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 030801 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Magniez, D

    F. Magniez, D. Mayers, M. Mosca, and H. Ollivier, Self- testing of quantum circuits, inAutomata, Languages and Programming, edited by M. Bugliesi, B. Preneel, V. Sas- sone, and I. Wegener (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006) pp. 72–83

    2006

  10. [10]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, S. Wagner, and N. Sangouard, Certifying the building blocks of quantum computers from bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 180505 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Wagner, J.-D

    S. Wagner, J.-D. Bancal, N. Sangouard, and P. Sekatski, Device-independent characterization of quantum instru- ments, Quantum4, 243 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Trans- forming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps, Eu- rophys. Lett.83, 30004 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    de Wolf, Quantum computing: Lecture notes (2023), arXiv:1907.09415 [quant-ph]

    R. de Wolf, Quantum computing: Lecture notes (2023), arXiv:1907.09415 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  15. [15]

    Oreshkov, F

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum cor- relations with no causal order, Nature Commun.3, 1092 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Costa, G

    F. Costa, G. Rubino, C. Branciard, ˇC. Brukner, and M. T. Quintino, Indefinite quantum causality (2026), arXiv:2606.19438 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Val- iron, Quantum computations without definite causal structure, Phys. Rev. A88, 022318 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Ara´ ujo, F

    M. Ara´ ujo, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner, Computational Advantage from Quantum-Controlled Ordering of Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250402 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    A. A. Abbott, M. Mhalla, and P. Pocreau, Quantum query complexity of Boolean functions under indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Research6, L032020 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    P. A. Gu´ erin, A. Feix, M. Ara´ ujo, andˇC. Brukner, Expo- nential communication complexity advantage from quan- tum superposition of the direction of communication, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 100502 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Memory effects in quantum channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 180501 (2008)

    2008

  22. [22]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Optimal strategies of quantum metrology with a strict hierarchy, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 070803 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Bavaresco, P

    J. Bavaresco, P. Lipka-Bartosik, P. Sekatski, and M. Mehboudi, Designing optimal protocols in Bayesian quantum parameter estimation with higher-order opera- tions, Phys. Rev. Research6, 023305 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Taranto, S

    P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi, A guide to higher-order quantum operations, PRX Quantum (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Hossenfelder and T

    S. Hossenfelder and T. Palmer, Rethinking superdeter- minism, Frontiers Phys.8, 139 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Barizien, P

    V. Barizien, P. Sekatski, and J.-D. Bancal, Custom Bell inequalities from formal sums of squares, Quantum8, 1333 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Bancal, N

    J.-D. Bancal, N. Sangouard, and P. Sekatski, Noise- Resistant Device-Independent Certification of Bell State Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 250506 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    M. O. Renou, J. Kaniewski, and N. Brunner, Self-Testing Entangled Measurements in Quantum Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 250507 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    ˇSupi´ c, J

    I. ˇSupi´ c, J. Bowles, M.-O. Renou, A. Ac´ ın, and M. J. Hoban, Quantum networks self-test all entangled states, Nature Phys.19, 670 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports Math

    A. Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports Math. Phys.3, 275 (1972)

    1972

  31. [31]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, M. Ioannou, M. Afzelius, and N. Brunner, Toward the device-independent certification of a quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 170802 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    M. Bock, P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, S. Kucera, T. Bauer, N. Sangouard, C. Becher, and J. Eschner, Calibration- independent bound on the unitarity of a quantum chan- nel with application to a frequency converter, npj Quan- tum Inf.10, 63 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Neves, L

    S. Neves, L. dos Santos Martins, V. Yacoub, P. Lefebvre, I. ˇSupi´ c, D. Markham, and E. Diamanti, Experimentally certified transmission of a quantum message through an untrusted and lossy quantum channel via Bell’s theorem, PRX Quantum6, 030312 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Heinosaari and M

    T. Heinosaari and M. Ziman,The mathematical language of quantum theory: from uncertainty to entanglement (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  35. [35]

    M. T. Quintino, Q. Dong, A. Shimbo, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, Probabilistic exact universal quantum circuits for transforming unitary operations, Phys. Rev. A100, 062339 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Coladangelo, Parallel self-testing of (tilted) EPR pairs via copies of (tilted) CHSH and the magic square game, Quantum Inf

    A. Coladangelo, Parallel self-testing of (tilted) EPR pairs via copies of (tilted) CHSH and the magic square game, Quantum Inf. Comput.17, 831 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Sarkar, D

    S. Sarkar, D. Saha, J. Kaniewski, and R. Augusiak, Self- testing quantum systems of arbitrary local dimension with minimal number of measurements, npj Quantum Inf.7, 151 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    U. I. Meyer, I. ˇSupi´ c, F. Grosshans, and D. Markham, Robustly self-testing all maximally entangled states in every finite dimension (2025), arXiv:2508.01071 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Skotiniotis, F. Froewis, and B. Kraus, Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 080801 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    Sekatski, M

    P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Ko lody´ nski, and W. D¨ ur, Quantum metrology with full and fast quantum control, Quantum1, 27 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Sekatski, Y

    P. Sekatski, Y. Guryanova, N. B. T. Kothakonda, and M. Skotiniotis, Cloning quantum channels (2025), 17 arXiv:2509.08059 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Zalka, Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is opti- mal, Phys

    C. Zalka, Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is opti- mal, Phys. Rev. A60, 2746 (1999)

    1999

  43. [43]

    Chiribella, Perfect discrimination of no-signalling channels via quantum superposition of causal structures, Phys

    G. Chiribella, Perfect discrimination of no-signalling channels via quantum superposition of causal structures, Phys. Rev. A86, 040301(R) (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    L. A. Rozema, T. Str¨ omberg, H. Cao, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, and P. Walther, Experimental aspects of indefinite causal order in quantum mechanics, Nature Rev. Phys.6, 483 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Branciard, M

    C. Branciard, M. Ara´ ujo, A. Feix, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner, The simplest causal inequalities and their violation, New J. Phys.18, 013008 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    Oreshkov and C

    O. Oreshkov and C. Giarmatzi, Causal and causally sep- arable processes, New J. Phys.18, 093020 (2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    Ara´ ujo, C

    M. Ara´ ujo, C. Branciard, F. Costa, A. Feix, C. Giar- matzi, and ˇC. Brukner, Witnessing causal nonseparabil- ity, New J. Phys.17, 102001 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Branciard, Witnesses of causal nonseparability: an introduction and a few case studies, Sci

    C. Branciard, Witnesses of causal nonseparability: an introduction and a few case studies, Sci. Rep.6, 26018 (2016)

    2016

  49. [49]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Ara´ ujo, ˇC. Brukner, and M. T. Quintino, Semi-device-independent certification of indef- inite causal order, Quantum3, 176 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Dourdent, A

    H. Dourdent, A. A. Abbott, N. Brunner, I. ˇSupi´ c, and C. Branciard, Semi-device-independent certification of causal nonseparability with trusted quantum inputs, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 090402 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Gogioso and N

    S. Gogioso and N. Pinzani, The geometry of causality (2023), arXiv:2303.09017 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    van der Lugt, J

    T. van der Lugt, J. Barrett, and G. Chiribella, Device- independent certification of indefinite causal order in the quantum switch, Nature Commun.14, 5811 (20223)

  53. [53]

    van der Lugt and N

    T. van der Lugt and N. Ormrod, Possibilistic and maxi- mal indefinite causal order in the quantum switch, Quan- tum8, 1543 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Dourdent, A

    H. Dourdent, A. A. Abbott, I. ˇSupi´ c, and C. Branciard, Network-device-independent certification of causal non- separability, Quantum8, 1514 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Vilasini and R

    V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Fundamental limits for real- izing quantum processes in spacetime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 080201 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  57. [57]

    Ara´ ujo, A

    M. Ara´ ujo, A. Feix, M. Navascu´ es, andˇC. Brukner, A purification postulate for quantum mechanics with in- definite causal order, Quantum1, 10 (2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    Baumeler and S

    ¨A. Baumeler and S. Wolf, The space of logically con- sistent classical processes without causal order, New J. Phys.18, 013036 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    Coopmans, J

    T. Coopmans, J. Kaniewski, and C. Schaffner, Robust self-testing of two-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A99, 052123 (2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    Valcarce, J

    X. Valcarce, J. Zivy, N. Sangouard, and P. Sekatski, Self- testing two-qubit maximally entangled states from gen- eralized Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt tests, Phys. Rev. Research4, 013049 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Bancal, M

    J.-D. Bancal, M. Navascu´ es, V. Scarani, T. V´ ertesi, and T. H. Yang, Physical characterization of quantum de- vices from nonlocal correlations, Phys. Rev. A91, 022115 (2015)

    2015

  62. [62]

    Y. Wang, X. Wu, and V. Scarani, All the self-testings of the singlet for two binary measurements, New J. Phys. 18, 025021 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    Barizien and J.-D

    V. Barizien and J.-D. Bancal, Quantum statistics in the minimal Bell scenario, Nature Phys.21, 577 (2025). Appendix A: Self-testing the Choi channels In this section we present the self-testing results for the Choi channels of the supermaps introduced in Section IV following the scheme proposed for channel self-testing presented in Section II C and summar...

    2025

  64. [64]

    Constructing the extraction map In the first subsection we start by presenting a general construction of a local extraction map that is tailored to the situation where the reference measurements ¯Aa|x of a party are complementary qubit measurements witha, x= 0,1. This map applies to all examples discussed in the main text and presented afterwards and can ...

  65. [65]

    Self-testing the sources We start by treating the latter for all examples together. Indeed, when the local dimension is 2 (qubit case), the state Φ+ can be self-tested using the maximal violation of the CHSH inequality [3] in a bipartite Bell scenario as per the following lemma. Lemma A.1(Section 4 of [2]).CHSH self-test. Let’s consider a bipartite Bell s...

  66. [66]

    Self-testing the SWAP In this section, we propose a self-testing result for the qubitSwapoperation, seen as a channel acting on two systems. This amounts to self-test both the product of two maximally entangled qubits states Φ + A(1)B(1) ⊗Φ + A(2)B(2) as well as the Choi stateC(Swap) obtained by applying theSwapoperator on the partiesB (1), B(2), i.e.C(Sw...

  67. [67]

    IV B of the main text

    Self-testing the Choi channel of the error-correcting comb In this section we propose a self-testing result for the Choi channelJ( ¯WEC) of the error-correcting comb, discussed in Sec. IV B of the main text. This amounts to certifying ¯Ψ = Φ+ A(1)B(1) ⊗Φ + A(2)B(2) ,(A9) when the channel is not applied, which can be done using Lemma A.2, and the Choi stat...

  68. [68]

    (A12) Reaching the Tsirelson bound of this inequality self-test the following reference realization: |G0⟩ ⟨G0|:= GHZ 4 GHZ 4 , A(1) 0 =A (2) 0 =B (1) 0 =σ z, A (1) 1 =A (2) 1 =B (1) 1 =σ x, B(2) 0 = σz +σ x√ 2 , B (2) 1 = σz −σ x√ 2 . (A13) Now notice that measuring the state|G 1⟩=σ A(1) x GHZ 4 with the same measurements will give the same correla- tions...

  69. [69]

    (A14) The Tsirelson bound of this inequality self-tests the state|G 1⟩ ⟨G1|:=σ A(1) x GHZ 4 GHZ 4 σA(1) x and the measure- ments of Eq.(A13). Note that both self-testing results implies the existence of local maps onA (1), A(2), B(1), B(2) that extract the target state (either|G 0⟩ ⟨G0|or|G 1⟩ ⟨G1|) from any state achieving the quantum bound. Since the me...

  70. [70]

    channel-free

    Self-testing the Choi channel of Grover’s algorithm In this section we propose a self-testing result for the Choi channel of Grover’s algorithm. As discussed in Sec- tion IV C, this amounts to certifying the state preparation – when the channel is not applied, and the Choi state of the channel – when the channel is applied. The former state, product of (M...

  71. [71]

    nullifiers

    Find a complete set of “nullifiers”{ ˆNi}of the target state|ψ⟩, i.e. operators such that ˆNi |ψ⟩= 0 and∩ i ker ˆNi = Vect(|ψ⟩)

  72. [72]

    Make a choice (or a parametrization) of measurements and express the nullifiers in terms of the measurements operators

  73. [73]

    Lift the nullifers to the formal polynomial algebra (where commutation rules specific to the ideal Hilbert space are omitted) and compute there SOS: P i N 2 i

  74. [74]

    non-measurable

    Check wether it is possible to cancel all “non-measurable” terms in the SOS, i.e. all terms whose local degree is strictly larger than 1. The Bell inequality and its SOS bound are then obtained by looking at measurable terms and identity terms respectively. We present below how we apply this method to the state in Eq. (A16). Step 1: In order to find the n...

  75. [75]

    (A16) and CHSH measurements Eq

    Since the ideal realization (with state Eq. (A16) and CHSH measurements Eq. (A6)) saturates this bounds, this is indeed the quantum bound of this operator. We can now move to our main result. Theorem A.6.Self-testing|ψ G⟩ ⟨ψG|. Let us consider a 2n-partite Bell scenario where each party performs two binary measurements. Consider the Bell expression Eq.(A2...

  76. [76]

    It thus suffices to show that the only qubit realization that can reach 3n/ √ 2 is the reference one up to local unitaries. From now on, we thus assume that|ψ⟩is a normalized 2nqubit state and every measurement can be expressed as a norm 1 linear combination of the Pauli operators, i.e.A (i) x =a (i) x ·σwithσ= (σ x, σy, σz) and|a (i) x |= 1 (likewise for...

  77. [77]

    Self-testing the Choi channel of the quantum switch In this section we propose a self-testing result for the Choi channelJ( ¯WSwitch). This amounts to certifying ¯Ψ = Φ+ A(C) B(C) ⊗Φ + A(T) B(T) ⊗Φ + A(1)B(1) ⊗Φ + A(2)B(2) ,(A36) when the channel is not applied, which can be done using Lemma A.2, and the Choi stateC(J( ¯WSwitch)) =|ψ out⟩ ⟨ψout|, where |ψ...

  78. [78]

    channel- free

    Since the ideal realization (with state Eq. (A37) and CHSH measurements Eq. (A6)) saturates this bounds, this is indeed the quantum bound of this polynomial. We can now move to our main result. Theorem A.7.Self-testingC(J( ¯WSwitch)). Let us consider an 8-partite Bell scenario where each party performs two binary measurements. For every “channel- free” sy...