pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30462 · v1 · pith:3UZO3WU6new · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Stable Qubit Readout and the Identifiability of Population Change

Dongdong Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 06:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords qubit readoutpopulation changeidentifiabilitybinary readoutsmeasurement calibrationcoherence sensitivityminimax interval
0
0 comments X

The pith

Calibrated measurement directions determine whether stable qubit readout data can identify the sign or range of population changes.

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

The paper analyzes finite collections of qubit states under binary readouts and asks when reproducible statistics certify the sign or magnitude of a computational-basis population change. It demonstrates that full calibration of measurement directions yields an exact closed-form interval containing all compatible population changes. The same data can support positive, zero, or negative interpretations when directions are not fully known, even if loop consistency holds. Under the weaker assumption of a trusted diagonal readout gain plus a bound on coherence sensitivity, the paper derives the sharp minimax interval together with the necessary and sufficient sign condition g greater than 2 chi.

Core claim

For a fully calibrated finite readout family the set of compatible population changes is given by an exact closed-form interval; when only a diagonal gain and coherence-sensitivity bound are trusted, the sharp minimax interval is obtained and the sign of the population change is identified if and only if g exceeds 2 chi.

What carries the argument

The exact closed-form interval of compatible population changes derived from the calibrated measurement directions, together with the minimax interval and sign condition g>2χ under partial calibration.

If this is right

  • Reproducible readout probabilities alone do not certify population change without calibration of measurement directions.
  • Identical probability records can be consistent with positive, zero, and negative population changes.
  • The condition g>2χ is necessary and sufficient for sign identification under the diagonal-gain plus coherence-bound model.
  • The derived intervals supply analytic benchmarks against which qubit readout calibration procedures can be tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Calibration protocols should therefore emphasize extraction of measurement directions rather than repeated stability checks.
  • In settings with incomplete calibration, population changes may remain ambiguous even when all standard consistency tests pass.
  • The same identifiability question arises for continuous or multi-outcome readouts and for multi-qubit systems.

Load-bearing premise

The physical device is accurately modeled by binary readouts acting on a finite set of qubit states whose measurement directions are either fully calibrated or limited to a diagonal gain plus a coherence-sensitivity bound.

What would settle it

An experiment in which the observed population change lies outside the derived interval for a fully calibrated family, or in which the sign is incorrectly identified when g is less than or equal to 2 chi under the partial-trust model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30462 by Dongdong Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Implementation stability and target identification require different evidence. The loop audits the declared substitutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Geometric content of Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Geometric content of Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stable readout statistics are often taken as evidence for a well-defined physical response, but stability alone need not identify which state quantity has changed. We analyze this issue for finite collections of qubit states measured by binary readouts, focusing on changes in computational-basis population. The central question is when reproducible response data certify the sign or range of an underlying population change. We show that the answer is controlled by the calibrated measurement directions, not by loop consistency alone. For a fully calibrated finite readout family, we derive an exact closed-form interval of all compatible population changes. We also construct a same-record, jointly measurable example in which identical probabilities and accepted loop checks admit positive, zero, and negative population interpretations. When only a diagonal readout gain and a bound on coherence sensitivity are trusted, we obtain the sharp minimax interval and the necessary-and-sufficient sign condition $g>2\chi$. These results separate implementation stability from population identifiability and provide analytic benchmarks for qubit readout calibration.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes when stable readout statistics for finite collections of qubit states under binary readouts certify the sign or range of changes in computational-basis population. It derives an exact closed-form interval of compatible population changes for a fully calibrated finite readout family, constructs a same-record jointly measurable counter-example admitting positive, zero, and negative interpretations despite identical probabilities and loop checks, and for the case trusting only a diagonal readout gain g plus coherence-sensitivity bound χ obtains the sharp minimax interval together with the necessary-and-sufficient sign condition g>2χ.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the results usefully separate readout stability from population identifiability and supply analytic benchmarks for qubit readout calibration. The closed-form interval, the explicit counter-example, and the minimax sign condition constitute concrete, falsifiable contributions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of an exact closed-form interval under full calibration and of the necessary-and-sufficient condition g>2χ under partial calibration are asserted, but the provided manuscript text contains no sections, equations, or explicit constructions, so the derivations, error handling, and scope of the finite readout family cannot be verified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the summary recognizing the separation of readout stability from population identifiability and the concrete contributions of the closed-form interval, counter-example, and minimax condition. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of an exact closed-form interval under full calibration and of the necessary-and-sufficient condition g>2χ under partial calibration are asserted, but the provided manuscript text contains no sections, equations, or explicit constructions, so the derivations, error handling, and scope of the finite readout family cannot be verified.

    Authors: The full manuscript (arXiv:2606.30462) contains dedicated sections beyond the abstract that supply the explicit derivations of the closed-form interval for any fully calibrated finite readout family, the same-record jointly measurable counter-example admitting multiple population interpretations, and the sharp minimax interval together with the necessary-and-sufficient sign condition g>2χ when only diagonal gain g and coherence-sensitivity bound χ are trusted. These sections include all equations, the precise scope over finite collections of qubit states under binary readouts, and error-handling considerations for the calibrated measurement directions. The referee's own summary accurately captures these elements, indicating the body text was available. If the reviewed version appeared incomplete, this may reflect a viewing or formatting issue; the complete paper provides the required constructions and proofs. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations start from standard calibrated models and produce intervals directly

full rationale

The abstract and reader's summary indicate that the central results—an exact closed-form interval for fully calibrated readouts and the minimax interval plus sign condition g>2χ under diagonal gain plus coherence bound—are derived from the calibrated measurement directions and trusted parameters. No equations or steps are shown that reduce a claimed prediction back to a fitted quantity defined in terms of the target result, nor any load-bearing self-citation chain. The construction of the jointly measurable counter-example is presented as an explicit example, not a renaming or self-definition. This matches the default case of a self-contained derivation from modeling assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum measurement theory and probability; the two main cases introduce the parameters g and χ as given bounds rather than fitted quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • g
    Diagonal readout gain treated as a trusted parameter in the second case.
  • χ
    Upper bound on coherence sensitivity treated as a trusted parameter in the second case.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Readouts are binary and act on finite collections of qubit states.
    Stated as the setting for the analysis of population change identifiability.
  • domain assumption Measurement directions are either fully calibrated or limited to diagonal gain plus coherence bound.
    Defines the two regimes in which the intervals and sign condition are derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5687 in / 1324 out tokens · 28269 ms · 2026-06-30T06:11:56.908672+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

72 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    an implementation certificate, such as Eqs.(14) and (15), for the registered source–readout family

  2. [2]

    a population interval or lower bound derived from one declared measurement-information regime in Table III. On a simultaneous confidence event, a positive popula- tion response with marginζ is supported only when the implementation certificate passes and min i zi,L ≥ζ,(100) where zi,L iscomputedfromthefullycalibratedfamily, the bounded-coherence formula, ...

  3. [3]

    Since ∥X∥1 = 2r for the above trace-zero qubit operator, this impliesr≤1

    State-difference ball Every trace-zero Hermitian qubit operator can be writ- ten as X= −z w ∗ w z ! ,q= (z,Rew,Imw) T.(A1) Its eigenvalues are±r, where r= p z2 +|w| 2 =∥q∥ 2 .(A2) If X = ρ−σ for density operators, then∥X∥1 ≤ 2. Since ∥X∥1 = 2r for the above trace-zero qubit operator, this impliesr≤1. Conversely, ifr≤1, then ρ= I+X 2 , σ= I−X 2 (A3) are po...

  4. [4]

    9 68 − 3 √ 191 340 , 9 68 + 3 √ 191 340 # ,(B12) z(0+) ∈

    Connection with the established span criterion Let Herm0(d)be the real Hilbert space of trace-zero Hermitian operators on a d-dimensional Hilbert space, equipped with the Hilbert–Schmidt inner product ⟨X, Y⟩= Tr(XY). The response map associated with effectsF1, . . . , Fm is M(X) = (Tr(F1X), . . . ,Tr(FmX)).(A6) For a trace-zero target observableT, the val...

  5. [5]

    Support-function derivation For fixedz, Eq.(20)implies |w| ≤ √ 1−z 2. Optimizing over the phase and magnitude ofcgives max |c|≤χ,|w|≤ √ 1−z2 2 Re(cw) = 2χ p 1−z 2.(D1) Thus the lower endpoint is the smallestz for which the observed response can be generated at all, namely the smallest solution of g≤κz+ 2χ p 1−z 2.(D2) At the lower endpoint, equality holds...

  6. [6]

    Monotonicity on the positive branch Assume g > 2χ and g < R . Write b = 2χ and define angles cosα= g R ,cosϕ= κ R ,(D6) sinϕ= b R , R 2 =κ 2 +b 2.(D7) Then the lower endpoint can be written as z− = cos(α+ϕ)>0.(D8) For fixed g, increasing b increases both α and ϕ, and therefore decreases z−. Increasing κ increases α and decreases ϕ, but on the positive bra...

  7. [7]

    X. Rong, M. Wang, J. Geng, X. Qin, M. Guo, M. Jiao, Y. Xie, P. Wang, P. Huang, F. Shi, Y.-F. Cai, C. Zou, and J. Du, Searching for an exotic spin-dependent interaction with a single electron-spin quantum sensor, Nat. Commun. 9, 739 (2018), arXiv:1706.03482 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt,The Quantum Theory of Measurement, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  9. [9]

    A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quan- tum Theory, 2nd ed., Publications of the Scuola Normale Superiore (Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    M. G. A. Paris and J. Řeháček, eds.,Quantum State Estimation, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 649 (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation, Phys. Rev. A55, R1561 (1997)

    1997

  13. [13]

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Measurement of qubits, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  14. [14]

    Fiurášek, Maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurement, Phys

    J. Fiurášek, Maximum-likelihood estimation of quantum measurement, Phys. Rev. A64, 024102 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    G. M. D’Ariano, M. G. A. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Quan- tum tomography, inAdvances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Vol. 128, edited by P. W. Hawkes (Elsevier, Am- sterdam, 2003) pp. 205–308, arXiv:quant-ph/0302028

    work page arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    Y. S. Teo, J. Řeháček, and Z. Hradil, Informationally incomplete quantum tomography, Quantum Meas. Quan- tum Metrol.1, 57 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric informationally complete quantum mea- surements, J. Math. Phys.45, 2171 (2004)

    2004

  18. [18]

    A. J. Scott, Tight informationally complete quantum measurements, J. Phys. A39, 13507 (2006)

    2006

  19. [19]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi, Quan- tum indirect estimation theory and joint estimate of all moments of two incompatible observables, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052108 (2008), arXiv:0708.3960

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    Probing quantum state space: does one have to learn everything to learn something?

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, J. Schultz, and A. Toigo, Prob- ing quantum state space: Does one have to learn every- thing to learn something?, Proc. R. Soc. A473, 20160866 (2017), arXiv:1611.04388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    A. C. Keith, C. H. Baldwin, S. Glancy, and E. Knill, Joint quantum-state and measurement tomography with incom- plete measurements, Phys. Rev. A98, 042318 (2018), arXiv:1803.08245

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Christandl and R

    M. Christandl and R. Renner, Reliable quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 120403 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Zambrano, D

    L. Zambrano, D. Farina, E. Pagliaro, M. M. Taddei, and A. Acin, Certification of quantum state functions under partial information, Quantum8, 1442 (2024), arXiv:2311.06094

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. Córcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Steffen, Self-consistent quantum process tomography, Phys. Rev. A87, 062119 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    S. J. van Enk and R. Blume-Kohout, When quantum tomography goes wrong: Drift of quantum sources and other errors, New J. Phys.15, 025024 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Stark, Self-consistent tomography of the state- measurement gram matrix, Phys

    C. Stark, Self-consistent tomography of the state- measurement gram matrix, Phys. Rev. A89, 052109 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    Detecting correlated errors in SPAM tomography

    C. Jackson and S. J. van Enk, Detecting correlated errors in state-preparation-and-measurement tomography, Phys. Rev. A92, 042312 (2015), arXiv:1508.05633

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Introduction to Quantum Gate Set Tomography

    D. Greenbaum, Introduction to quantum gate set tomog- raphy (2015), arXiv:1509.02921

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    A. F. McCormick, S. J. van Enk, and M. Beck, Ex- perimental demonstration of loop state-preparation-and- measurement tomography, Phys. Rev. A95, 042329 (2017), arXiv:1701.06498

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Probing context-dependent errors in quantum processors

    K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, D. Langharst, M. Sarovar, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Probing context- dependent errors in quantum processors, Phys. Rev. X9, 021045 (2019), arXiv:1810.05651

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    O. D. Matteo, J. Gamble, C. Granade, K. Rudinger, and N. Wiebe, Operational, gauge-free quantum tomography, Quantum4, 364 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Blume-Kohout, K

    R. Blume-Kohout, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, T. Proctor, and K. Young, Wildcard error: Quantifying unmodeled errors in quantum processors (2020), arXiv:2012.12231

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Nielsen, J

    E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, Gate set tomography, Quantum5, 557 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Rudinger, G

    K. Rudinger, G. J. Ribeill, L. C. G. Govia, M. Ware, E. Nielsen, K. Young, T. A. Ohki, R. Blume-Kohout, and T. Proctor, Characterizing midcircuit measurements on a superconducting qubit using gate set tomography, Phys. Rev. Applied17, 014014 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Cattaneo, M

    M. Cattaneo, M. A. C. Rossi, K. Korhonen, E.-M. Borrelli, G. Garcia-Perez, Z. Zimboras, and D. Cavalcanti, Self- consistent quantum measurement tomography based on semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. Research5, 033154 (2023), arXiv:2212.10262

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Jayakumar, S

    A. Jayakumar, S. Chessa, C. Coffrin, A. Y. Lokhov, M. Vuffray, and S. Misra, Universal framework for si- multaneous tomography of quantum states and SPAM noise, Quantum8, 1426 (2024), arXiv:2308.15648

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Blume-Kohout, T

    R. Blume-Kohout, T. Proctor, and K. Young, Quan- tum characterization, verification, and validation (2025), arXiv:2503.16383

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Hashim, L

    A. Hashim, L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, R. K. Naik, T. Chistolini, J. Hines, J. P. Marceaux, Y. Kim, 18 P. Gokhale, T. Tomesh, S. Chen, L. Jiang, S. Ferracin, K. Rudinger, T. Proctor, K. C. Young, I. Siddiqi, and R. Blume-Kohout, A practical introduction to benchmark- ing and characterization of quantum computers, PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025), arXi...

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    J. Lin, J. J. Wallman, I. Hincks, and R. Laflamme, Inde- pendent state and measurement characterization for quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033285 (2021), arXiv:1910.07511

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    M. Q. Khan, L. M. Norris, and L. Viola, Separate and efficient characterization of state-preparation and mea- surement errors using single-qubit operations, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025051 (2026), arXiv:2509.19448

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    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, Tomography of quantum detectors, Nat. Phys.5, 27 (2009)

    2009

  42. [42]

    Feito, J

    A. Feito, J. S. Lundeen, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, J. Eisert, M.B.Plenio,andI.A.Walmsley,Measuringmeasurement: Theory and practice, New J. Phys.11, 093038 (2009)

    2009

  43. [43]

    Mapping coherence in measurement via full quantum tomography of a hybrid optical detector

    L. Zhang, H. B. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, A. Datta, G. Puentes, J. S. Lundeen, X.-M. Jin, B. J. Smith, M. B. Plenio, and I. A. Walmsley, Mapping coherence in mea- surement via full quantum tomography of a hybrid optical detector, Nat. Photonics6, 364 (2012), arXiv:1204.1893

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Y. Chen, M. Farahzad, S. Yoo, and T.-C. Wei, Detector tomography on IBM quantum computers and mitigation of an imperfect measurement, Phys. Rev. A100, 052315 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Cimini, I

    V. Cimini, I. Gianani, M. Sbroscia, J. Sperling, and M. Barbieri, Measuring coherence of quantum mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Research1, 033020 (2019), arXiv:1903.01173

    work page arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Zhang, J

    A. Zhang, J. Xie, H. Xu, K. Zheng, H. Zhang, Y.- T. Poon, V. Vedral, and L. Zhang, Experimental self- characterization of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 040402 (2020), arXiv:1907.07536

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    H. Xu, F. Xu, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, Z.-W. Liu, N. Yu, M. B. Plenio, and L. Zhang, Experimental quantification of coherence of a tunable quantum detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 060404 (2020), arXiv:1910.08779

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    L. Xu, H. Xu, T. Jiang, F. Xu, K. Zheng, B. Wang, A. Zhang, and L. Zhang, Direct characterization of quan- tum measurements using weak values, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180401 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    L. Xu, H. Xu, J. Xie, H. Li, L. Zhou, F. Xu, and L. Zhang, Directly characterizing the coherence of quantum detec- tors by sequential measurement, Adv. Photonics3, 066001 (2021), arXiv:2111.10325

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Experimental measurement-device-independent quantum random number generation

    Y.-Q. Nie, J.-Y. Guan, H. Zhou, Q. Zhang, X. Ma, J. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental measurement- device-independent quantum random-number generation, Phys. Rev. A94, 060301(R) (2016), arXiv:1612.02114 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    S. Tang, C. Zheng, and K. Wang, Detecting and eliminat- ing quantum noise of quantum measurements, Phys. Scr. 99, 105129 (2024), arXiv:2206.13743

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Coherence Response in Noisy Quantum Measurements

    Z. Malik, Q. Langfitt, and Z. Saleem, Coherence response in noisy quantum measurements (2025), arXiv:2512.13949 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    K. Baek, A. Sohbi, J. Lee, J. Kim, and H. Nha, Quanti- fying coherence of quantum measurements, New J. Phys. 22, 093019 (2020), arXiv:2008.03999

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimborás, and M. Oszmaniec, Miti- gation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, Quantum4, 257 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quan- tum computers, PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    A. S. Aasen, A. D. Giovanni, H. Rotzinger, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Gärttner, Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits, Commun. Phys.7, 301 (2024), arXiv:2312.04211

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Barbera-Rodriguez, L

    J. Barbera-Rodriguez, L. Zambrano, A. Acin, and D. Fa- rina, Boosting projective methods for quantum process and detector tomography, Phys. Rev. Research7, 013208 (2025), arXiv:2406.11646

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Zambrano, S

    L. Zambrano, S. Ramos-Calderer, and R. Kueng, Fast quantum measurement tomography with dimension- optimal error bounds (2025), arXiv:2507.04500

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    A. Das, S. K. Yung, L. O. Conlon, O. Erkilic, A. Walsh, Y.-S. Kim, P. K. Lam, S. M. Assad, and J. Zhao, Precision bounds for characterising quantum measurements, Nat. Commun.17, 1821 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    Rosset, R

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

    2012

  61. [61]

    Morelli, H

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

    2022

  62. [62]

    Tavakoli, Quantum steering with imprecise mea- surements, Phys

    A. Tavakoli, Quantum steering with imprecise mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 070204 (2024), arXiv:2308.15356

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Svegborn, N

    E. Svegborn, N. d’Alessandro, O. Gühne, and A. Tavakoli, Imprecision plateaus in quantum steering, Phys. Rev. A 111, L020404 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Zambrano, T

    L. Zambrano, T. Parella-Dilme, A. Acin, and D. Farina, Certification of quantum properties with imperfect mea- surements (2026), arXiv:2601.16570

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Faking entanglement with imperceptible measurement deviations

    J. Moreno, E. Svegborn, S. Morelli, M. Hiekkamäki, L. Kopf, R. Fickler, and A. Tavakoli, Faking entangle- ment with imperceptible measurement deviations (2026), arXiv:2606.20396 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    C.-T. Chu, S. u. Lee, H. Zheng, S. Chen, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, and L. Jiang, Learning mid-circuit measurement backaction from three repeated measurements (2026), arXiv:2606.00433 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Notes on Joint Measurability of Quantum Observables

    T. Heinosaari, D. Reitzner, and P. Stano, Notes on Joint Measurability of Quantum Observables, Found. Phys.38, 1133 (2008), arXiv:0811.0783 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [68]

    Yu, N.-L

    S. Yu, N.-L. Liu, L. Li, and C. H. Oh, Joint measurement of two unsharp observables of a qubit, Phys. Rev. A81, 062116 (2010)

    2010

  69. [69]

    Gühne, E

    O. Gühne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonpää, and R. Uola, Colloquium: Incompatible measurements in quantum information science, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 011003 (2023), arXiv:2112.06784

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  71. [71]

    Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J

    W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.58, 13 (1963)

    1963

  72. [72]

    Z.-Y. Ding, H. Yang, D. Wang, H. Yuan, J. Yang, and L. Ye, Experimental investigation of entropic uncertainty relations and coherence uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. A101, 032101 (2020), arXiv:1912.08457 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020