Counterexamples in self-testing
Laura Man\v{c}inska, Simon Schmidt

TL;DR
This paper presents explicit counterexamples showing that not all nonlocal games with quantum advantage necessarily certify specific quantum states, challenging assumptions about the universality of self-testing.
Contribution
It introduces the $( ext{G}_1 ext{ or } ext{G}_2)$-game to demonstrate limitations of self-testing, providing the first explicit counterexamples in this area.
Findings
Not all nonlocal games with quantum advantage certify specific states
Some self-testing results cannot be made robust with simple modifications
The introduced game class is of independent theoretical interest
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms · Machine Learning and Algorithms · Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
