Counterexamples in self-testing

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Counterexamples in self-testing. / Mančinska, Laura; Schmidt, Simon.

In: Quantum, Vol. 7, 2023, p. 1-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Mančinska, L & Schmidt, S 2023, 'Counterexamples in self-testing', Quantum, vol. 7, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051

APA

Mančinska, L., & Schmidt, S. (2023). Counterexamples in self-testing. Quantum, 7, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051

Vancouver

Mančinska L, Schmidt S. Counterexamples in self-testing. Quantum. 2023;7:1-22. https://doi.org/10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051

Author

Mančinska, Laura ; Schmidt, Simon. / Counterexamples in self-testing. In: Quantum. 2023 ; Vol. 7. pp. 1-22.

Bibtex

@article{a31c53c054984dad8b4142f239b93874,
title = "Counterexamples in self-testing",
abstract = "In the recent years self-testing has grown into a rich and active area of study with applications ranging from practical verification of quantum devices to deep complexity theoretic results. Self-testing allows a classical verifier to deduce which quantum measurements and on what state are used, for example, by provers Alice and Bob in a nonlocal game. Hence, self-testing as well as its noise-tolerant cousin—robust self-testing—are desirable features for a nonlocal game to have. Contrary to what one might expect, we have a rather incomplete understanding of if and how self-testing could fail to hold. In particular, could it be that every 2-party nonlocal game or Bell inequality with a quantum advantage certifies the presence of a specific quantum state? Also, is it the case that every self-testing result can be turned robust with enough ingeniuty and effort? We answer these questions in the negative by providing simple and fully explicit counterexamples. To this end, given two nonlocal games G1 and G2, we introduce the (G1 ∨ G2)-game, in which the players get pairs of questions and choose which game they want to play. The players win if they choose the same game and win it with the answers they have given. Our counterexamples are based on this game and we believe this class of games to be of independent interest.",
author = "Laura Man{\v c}inska and Simon Schmidt",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Authors.",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "1--22",
journal = "Quantum",
issn = "2521-327X",
publisher = "Verein zur F{\"o}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Counterexamples in self-testing

AU - Mančinska, Laura

AU - Schmidt, Simon

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Authors.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - In the recent years self-testing has grown into a rich and active area of study with applications ranging from practical verification of quantum devices to deep complexity theoretic results. Self-testing allows a classical verifier to deduce which quantum measurements and on what state are used, for example, by provers Alice and Bob in a nonlocal game. Hence, self-testing as well as its noise-tolerant cousin—robust self-testing—are desirable features for a nonlocal game to have. Contrary to what one might expect, we have a rather incomplete understanding of if and how self-testing could fail to hold. In particular, could it be that every 2-party nonlocal game or Bell inequality with a quantum advantage certifies the presence of a specific quantum state? Also, is it the case that every self-testing result can be turned robust with enough ingeniuty and effort? We answer these questions in the negative by providing simple and fully explicit counterexamples. To this end, given two nonlocal games G1 and G2, we introduce the (G1 ∨ G2)-game, in which the players get pairs of questions and choose which game they want to play. The players win if they choose the same game and win it with the answers they have given. Our counterexamples are based on this game and we believe this class of games to be of independent interest.

AB - In the recent years self-testing has grown into a rich and active area of study with applications ranging from practical verification of quantum devices to deep complexity theoretic results. Self-testing allows a classical verifier to deduce which quantum measurements and on what state are used, for example, by provers Alice and Bob in a nonlocal game. Hence, self-testing as well as its noise-tolerant cousin—robust self-testing—are desirable features for a nonlocal game to have. Contrary to what one might expect, we have a rather incomplete understanding of if and how self-testing could fail to hold. In particular, could it be that every 2-party nonlocal game or Bell inequality with a quantum advantage certifies the presence of a specific quantum state? Also, is it the case that every self-testing result can be turned robust with enough ingeniuty and effort? We answer these questions in the negative by providing simple and fully explicit counterexamples. To this end, given two nonlocal games G1 and G2, we introduce the (G1 ∨ G2)-game, in which the players get pairs of questions and choose which game they want to play. The players win if they choose the same game and win it with the answers they have given. Our counterexamples are based on this game and we believe this class of games to be of independent interest.

U2 - 10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051

DO - 10.22331/Q-2023-07-11-1051

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85168385019

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 22

JO - Quantum

JF - Quantum

SN - 2521-327X

ER -

ID: 390577992