arxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 4 Jan 2019

Device inepenent witness of arbitrary imensional quantum systems employing binary outcome measurements Mikołaj Czechlewski, 1, Debashis Saha, 2, 3, Armin Tavakoli, 4, an Marcin Pawłowski 2, 1 Institute of Informatics, National Quantum Information Centre, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics an Informatics, University of Gańsk, Wita Stwosza 57, 80-308 Gańsk, Polan 2 Institute of Theoretical Physics an Astrophysics, National Quantum Information Centre, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics an Informatics, University of Gańsk, Wita Stwosza 57, 80-308 Gańsk, Polan 3 Center for Theoretical Physics, Polish Acaemy of Sciences, Al. Lotników 32/46, 02-668 Warsaw, Polan 4 Département e Physique Appliquée, Université e Genève, CH-1211 Genève, Switzerlan arxiv:1803.05245v4 [quant-ph] 4 Jan 2019 Device inepenent imension witnesses DW are a remarkable way to test the imension of a quantum system in a prepare-an-measure scenario imposing minimal assumptions on the internal features of the evices. However, as the imension increases, the major obstacle in the realization of DW arises ue to the requirement of many outcome quantum measurements. In this article, we propose a new variant of a wiely stuie communication task ranom access coe an take its average payoff as the DW. The presente DW applies to arbitrarily large quantum systems employing only binary outcome measurements. I. INTRODUCTION Realizing higher-imensional quantum systems with full control is one of the crucial barriers towars implementing many quantum information processing protocols an testing the founations of physics. While the process of quantum tomography allows us to reconstruct a quantum system, however, it requires the assumption of fully characterize measurement evices. The evice inepenent framework [1, 2] in a prepare-an-measure experiment provies a methoology to obtain a lower boun on the imension without assuming the internal features of the evices. Moreover, quantum avantages in information processing, for example, quantum communication complexity [3, 4] are linke to this approach. Despite its merits, implementing evice inepenent imension witnesses DWs for higher imensional quantum systems [5 9] faces several complications. One of the problems in many existing protocols is the requirement of outcome measurements. As the imension increases, performing many outcome measurements [10] becomes practically ifficult ue to the facts that, a measurement outcomes turn coarse-graine, b the system becomes more prone to ecoherence. In some cases, one may impose aitional assumptions, for instance simulating outcome measurements by many binary outcome measurements. However, this approach fails to fulfill the requirements of DWs in the strict sense. Another ifficulty arises from the fact that the number of ifferent preparations an measurements i.e. the total number of inputs in the evices also increases as one seeks to certify higher imensional system. As a result, the experimental errors grow large ue to the finite number of trials an imperfections in the experiment. Furthermore, the applicability of a esire figure of merit, mczechlewski@inf.ug.eu.pl saha@cft.eu.pl armin.tavakoli@unige.ch okmpa@univ.ga.pl use as DW, shoul not be limite by a particular imension. Rather, it shoul be applicable to test systems of an arbitrarily high imension. In this article, we overcome these challenges by proposing a class of DWs base on ranom access coes [11] for quantum systems of an arbitrary imension. In the simplest scenario, a DW can be interprete as a task carrie out by two parties. In each run of the task, the sener Alice obtains an input in the form of a classical variable a an communicates a system to the receiver Bob. Apart from the communicate message, Bob also receives an input y an prouces an output b. The figure of merit, enote by T, of the task coul be an arbitrary linear function of the statistics T = a,y,b pa, yt a, y, bpb a, y, where pb a, y[12] refers to the probability of obtaining the output b given the inputs a, y, an T a, y, b enotes the payoff to that event. Assuming the imension of the communicate system is, one can obtain the optimal value of the figure of merit, enote by T c, for a classical implementation. Obtaining a value greater than T c from the observe statistics certifies the communicate quantum system to be of at least imension. Quantum ranom access coes QRACs, a primitive quantum communication protocol [13 15], can be use for this purpose. The original stuy of QRACs was restricte to two-imensional systems [11] an was later generalize to higher imensions [16 18] yieling several interesting results in quantum communication [19 22]. There are avantages of using RAC as DWs. The upper boun on T c can be obtaine for any. Besies, the number of inputs in the evices increases polynomially with. Note that one can exploit the quantum communication complexity tasks [4], which involve binary outcome measurement for imension witnessing, but in that case, the input size grows exponentially with. However, the generalize RAC requires outcome measurements. To tackle this issue we have introuce a version of RAC, namely, binary RAC. This involves only binary outcome measurements an provies a metho to obtain the upper boun of T c applicable to arbitrary. The paper is organize as follows: first, we escribe the generalization of -imensional RAC, along with the proof

2 of optimal classical protocols an bouns. Next, we propose the binary version i.e., the outcome b is binary of - imensional RAC taking into account a wier class of payoff function. Then, we erive a conition on the payoff function such that the optimal classical protocol is the same as in a stanar RAC. Further, we provie the classical boun an a quantum protocol that violates the propose DW for arbitrary. II. Alice STANDARD -DIMENSIONAL RANDOM ACCESS CODE a 0 a 1...a n 1 {0, 1,..., 1} n y {0, 1,..., n 1} m {0, 1,..., 1} Bob b = a y FIG. 1. Scheme of RAC. Alice gets the input a 0,... a n 1 an sens a message m to Bob. Besies the message, Bob also receives the input y {0,..., n 1}. His task is to give the output b, which obeys the relation b = a y. Stanar -imensional ranom access coes RAC are a natural generalization of two-imensional ranom access coe [11, 18]. Alice receives n numbers a 0,... a n 1, where a i {0,..., 1}. Then she sens a -value one it[23] message m {0,... 1} to Bob. Bob gets an input y {0,..., n 1}. He nees to give the output b, which obeys the relation b = a y figure 1. Specifically, we are intereste in the average success probability in the case of the inputs a, y being uniformly istribute an T a, y, b = δ b,ay, T S = 1 n n pb = a y a, y. 1 a,y Since the communicate message m is constraine to be - value, it is evient that achieving average success probability equals to 1 is impossible. The aim is to fin an optimal strategy for the parties, which gives the largest average success probability. Following the result in [11] for = 2, it has been mentione in [18] an shown later in [24] that coing by majority an ientity ecoing is an optimal strategy for RAC. In the next two subsections, we emonstrate an alternative shorter proof of this fact an subsequently provie an expression of the optimal average success probability. A. Optimal classical strategy Due to the linearity of the of figure of merit, it is sufficient to consier only eterministic encoing an ecoing strategies to maximize the average success probability. Let us enote the it-string a 0... a n 1 by a. Any encoing strategy can be escribe by a function E : {a} {0,..., 1} n {m} {0, 1,..., 1} an the probability of sening m for input a is δ m,ea. While any ecoing for Bob s input y is escribe as a function D y : {m} {0, 1,..., 1} {b} {0, 1,..., 1} an δ b,dym is the probability of outputting b when message m is receive. Thus, the classical average success probability in the stanar RAC is T c S = 1 n n pb = a y a, y 2 a,y = 1 n n δ m,ea δ ay,d ym m a,y = 1 n n δ m,ea m,a y 1 n n max m a y δ ay,d ym δ ay,d ym From the above expression, one can observe that for given ecoing strategy D y m the optimal encoing will be the following δ m,ea = 1 if 3 m {0,..., 1} y δ ay,d ym y. δ ay,d ym. We can reuce the possibility of all ecoing functions into two ways: a ientity ecoing i.e. y, m, D y m = m, b not ientity ecoing, y, m such that Dm m. Here the mapping D y coul be one-to-many in general. Lemma 1. There exists an optimal classical strategy with ientity ecoing a. Proof. We will show that for the case escribe in b, there exists a strategy obtaining the same average success probability like for the ientity ecoing a. Let Dy b be the omain of b, i.e., the set of m such that D y m = b. If b oes not exist in the range of D y, we efine Dy b = b. We enote Dy a is the set of it string a a 0... a n 1 such that D y a y = a y. Thus, Dy a acts on the y-th it of the it string. If there is a classical strategy, having an encoing function E an ecoing functions D y where D y m m for some y, m, we can construct new encoing an ecoing functions as follows E D 0 D 1... D n 1a = Ea 4 y, m, D ym = m. Now, if the strategy E, D y gives the correct answer for the input a, y then the moifie strategy E, D y gives the correct answer for at least one of the inputs D 0... D n 1a, y. Thus, the average success probability for the moifie strategy E, D is equal or greater than the strategy E, D.

3 From 3 we conclue that optimal encoing is as follows a 0 a 1...a n 1 y, k δ m,ea = 1 such that 5 m {0,..., 1} y δ ay,m y δ ay,m. In other wors, the optimal strategy for Alice is to communicate the majority it of the input string an b = m. Alice m {0, 1,..., 1} Bob G {0, 1} B. Average success probability Now we calculate the classical average success probability for an n it string. The total number of possible inputs is n n. In the n it string, which is given to Alice, the i-th it i {0, 1, 2,..., n 1} appears n i times in the string a. The number of ways it may occur is the same as the number of solutions in non-negative integers of the equation n 0 + n 1 + n 2 + + n 1 = n. 6 The above equation 6 is a special case of the equation c 0 n 0 + c 1 n 1 + c 2 n 2 + + c 1 n 1 = n, 7 with all coefficients {c 0, c 1, c 2,..., c 1 } equal 1. The equation 7 is known in number theory as the Diophantine equation of Frobenius an it is connecte with the Frobenius coin problem an Frobenius number [25, 26]. The total number of possible solutions of 6 is n+ 1 1 [27]. For each solution Alice will communicate max{n 0, n 1,..., n 1 } to Bob. So the number of successful inputs is given by n! n 0!n 1!...n 1! max{n n! 0, n 1,..., n 1 }, as n 0!n 1!...n 1! is the number of possible combinations for an n it string with a given set of n i s, an max{n 0, n 1,..., n 1 } is the number of times where Bob will guess the correct it. Therefore, the average success probability is given by T c S = 1 n n n! n 0!n 1!... n 1! max{n 0, n 1,..., n 1 }, where the summation is over all n+ 1 1 possible solutions of 6. III. BINARY RANDOM ACCESS CODE A binary ranom access coe figure 2 is a communication complexity problem base on the stanar RAC. Two parties, Alice an Bob, are given the following task: Alice receives n its a = a 0,... a n 1 same as in the stanar RAC. She sens a -value message to Bob. However, Bob gets two inputs y {0, 1,..., n 1} an k {0, 1,..., 1}. He nees to answer the question: is a y = k? Bob encoes his answer in a variable G which is 0 when his guess is YES an 1 for NO. 8 FIG. 2. Scheme of binary RAC BRAC. Alice gets the input a 0,... a n 1 an sens the message m to Bob. Besies the message Bob receives two inputs y {0, 1,..., n 1} an k {0, 1,..., 1}. His task is to guess whether a y = k or not. His answer is encoe in G, which is 0 when his guess is YES an 1, when it is NO. A. Defining average payoff function We are free to rewar the parties with any number of points, specifie by a payoff function T a, y, k, G. Therefore, for simplicity we assume that this function oes not epen on the values of numbers a i in the input a with inices ifferent than y. Hence, we assign T only two values { TY T a y, k, G = ES when G = 0 an a y = k 9 1 when G = 1 an a y k. We are intereste in the average payoff function, which is a linear combination of payoffs for all possible uniformly istribute inputs. Without loss of generality, we can normalize average payoff such that it takes the value within [0, 1]. Thus, for binary RAC with payoffs efine in 9 we have T B = 1 [ n n T a,y,k + pg = 1 a, y, k, a y k ], pg = 0 a, y, k, a y = kt Y ES + where T = T Y ES + 1 such that T B is normalize. B. Optimal classical strategy for Bob 10 For fining the optimal classical strategy for Bob, first we split him into two parts B I initial Bob an B F final Bob. B I gets the message m from Alice, receives input y an forwars long bit string b = b 0,..., b 1 to B F. Each of the bits in the string represents the given answer of B F for a ifferent question rule by k. Thus, when B F gets k an the bit string b he returns G = b k figure 3. This splitting in no way reuces the generality of Bob s behavior since the whole information processing part is one locally by B I. B F only returns one of the values from a table provie by B I. Notice that before receiving Alice s message Bob knows nothing about the string a, so his entropy Ha = n log

4 a 0 a 1...a n 1 Alice m y Bob I b 0...b 1 k Bob F FIG. 3. Scheme of binary RAC. Bob is split into two parts B Iinitial Bob an B F final Bob. we assume Alice s inputs are uniformly istribute. After receiving the message, Bob s entropy for each a i is reuce to Hi m = Ha i m. These two entropies are relate by information causality principle [28] n 1 Ha H i C, 11 i=0 where H i = 1 m=0 pmhm i is the average conitional Shannon entropy an C is a capacity of a classical channel. Hence, from 11 one obtains the lower boun for H i, which is etermine by two establishe quantities: entropy Ha an the channel capacity C. Besies the message m, B I receives the input y, which makes him intereste in the particular it a y from the string a. Let us introuce the following probability istribution p j = pa y = j m, y, where j {0,..., 1}, which represents B I s knowlege about it y. Firstly, one sees that the entropy Hi=y m can be presente in terms of this probability istribution 1 Hi=y m = p j log p j. 12 Seconly, one notices that epening on the payoff function, there exists a critical value of probability p crit such that if p j > p crit then sening b j = 0 leas to larger average payoff than b j = 1. We erive a formula for p crit in the following way. One knows that sening b j = 0 leas to the answer G = 0 for j = k. This gives T Y ES points with probability p j. For b j = 1 one gets 1 point with 1 p j. The first option is better if T Y ES p j 1 p j, so p j 1 T Y ES + 1 = p crit. 13 Furthermore, let us analyze the average payoff T = T m, y for a message set m, given encoing strategy E, the input y an T efine in 10 T = 1 1 T Y ES pb j = 0 m, ypa y = j m, y 14 T + pb j = 1 m, ypa y j m, y. G We introuce a variable x as the number of bits in the string b for which the optimal strategy sets to 0 for the probability istribution pb j m, y. In other wors x is the number of p j s, which are greater than p crit. Using x one can rewrite the entropy Hi=y m 12 in the following way x 1 1 Hi=y m = p j log p j p j log p j. 15 j=x Aitionally, without loss of generality, we may assume that p j are orere in such way that p j p j+1. Then the average payoff becomes [ T = 1 x 1 ] 1 T Y ES p j + 1 p j. 16 T j=x Because the value of T 16 epens only on the sums x 1 p j an 1 j=x p j an not on the iniviual elements of the sums, we can choose that all the elements in each sum are equal because this makes the entropy Hi=y m 15 largest without changing T. In other wors the probability istribution p j becomes a step function: the values of all p j for j = {0,..., x 1} are uniform enote by p an the values of the remaining p j for j = {x,..., 1} are uniform as well an, accoring to the normalization conition j p j = 1, they must be equal to 1 xp x. Obviously, we assume that the encoing strategy E reaches p > 1. Due to above assumptions one can express T as a function of x an p ] T = 1 T [x[t Y ES p 1 p] + 1. 17 The entropy 15 from now note by H x can also be expresse by these parameters H x = xp log p 1 xp log 1 xp x. 18 Imposing 13 we substitute T Y ES in 17 an fin p = T + p crit[t 1 2T + x + 1]. 19 x One can further plug the above expression into 18 to get the entropy H x as a function of, T, x an p crit. C. Optimal x for our case It has been shown in the section II A that the majority encoing is optimal in the stanar RAC scenario, where Alice is allowe to sen only one it of information to Bob. To employ this result in the binary RAC protocol in this case B I sens to B F a bit string b 0... b 1 with exactly one 0 in the establishe position an 1s in the others one must put the restriction that for any T, probability p for x = 1 is always greater than any p for x 1 19. To make it, one must fin a lower boun of p crit such that the entropy H x=1 is always

5 greater than any entropy H x 1 for any given value of T from the relevant range. Hence, in the beginning, we efine a function i in the following way i 1 i = H x=1 H x=i. 20 Notice that the symmetry of the entropy H x = H x for x {1,..., 1} causes that it is sufficient to check the conition 20 only for i, i {2, 3,..., 2 }. Let us outline the methoology of obtaining the minimum value of p crit for which i > 0. Clearly, i is a function of, T, p crit. We first fin the range of T in terms of an p crit within which i is well-efine. After that, we fix the value of an p crit, an obtain the minimum value of i within the relevant range of T for all i. If the minimum value of i is non-positive for some i {2,..., 2 }, we know such value of p crit is not suitable. We repeat the evaluation of i for another value of p crit increase by a small interval than before. Once we fin that i is positive for all i {2,..., 2 }, we conclue that the taken value of p crit is approximately same as the esire value. Firstly, for every i we must etermine the range of T. The lower limit of the range is the value of T for which H x=1 is maximal. Accoring to 18 H x=1 takes maximum for p = 1. Putting it in 19 gives an analytical expression for the lower limit T 0 = 1 + 2p crit + 2p crit. 21 On the other han, the upper limit of the range is the value of T > T 0 for which H x takes the boun. The boun is establishe by putting xp = 1 in 18, so it strictly epens on x. Hence, setting p = 1 x in 19 gives T x=i 1 = 1 + p crit i 1 1 + 2p crit. 22 Thus, for every i there is a ifferent range [T 0, T x=i 1 ]. We have foun p crit numerically using a metho escribe by the following algorithm: 1. For a chosen imension, fix p crit = 1 an ε p crit which is its numerical increase. 2. Substitute p crit := p crit + ε pcrit. 3. Calculate T 0 from 21. 4. Fix variable i := 2. 5. Calculate T x=i 1 from 22. 6. Calculate i for T 0, T1 x=i an fin the minimal value of i in the range [T 0, T1 x=i ] if the minimal value oes not exist o not take it into account. If i 0 for at least one of these three or two points then go to the point 2. Otherwise, i := i + 1. 7. Check if i 2. If it is fulfille then go to the point 5. Otherwise return p crit. Obviously, the accuracy of our metho epens strictly on ε pcrit.the smaller it is the more precise is the result. Aitionally, it is noteworthy that the criteria for optimal encoing is erive from Hi=y m 12 which is vali for all y {0,..., n 1} an thus it is inepenent on n. To illustrate the proceure escribe above we plot the epenence of H on T for some small p crit an ifferent values of x in figures 4 an 5. Obtaine values of p crit along with 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 H x=4 x=3 x=2 T 0 T 1 T 1 T 1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 T FIG. 4. Depenence of H on T for = 8, x = 1, 2, 3, 4 an p crit = 0.14. We note that the entropy for the strategy with x = 1 is not always the largest in the establishe ranges of T. Accoring to the numerical proceure, this is an example in which at the point 6 i 0 an our algorithm skips from the point 6 to the point 2. Vertical lines inicate limits of the ranges [T 0, T1 x=i ]. 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 H x=4 x=3 x=2 T 0 T 1 T 1 T 1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 T FIG. 5. Depenence of H on T for = 8, x = 1, 2, 3, 4 an p crit = 0.18495. Largest entropy is obtaine with exactly one strategy for which x = 1. Accoring to our proceure, this is an example in which at the point 6 i > 0 for every i {2, 3,..., } an our 2 algorithm returns p crit. Vertical lines inicate the limits of ranges [T 0, T1 x=i ]. their corresponing T Y ES are shown in figure 6 an the values for some particular imensions are mentione in table I. D. The average classical an quantum payoff function for n = 2 an arbitrary imension Now we calculate the average classical an quantum payoff 10 for binary RAC. Firstly, for a given imension, we must x=1 x=2 x=3 x=4 x=1 x=2 x=3 x=4

6 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 P crit T yes 12 10 8 6 4 2 200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000 FIG. 6. Numerical calculation of values of minimal p crit an correspoing to it maximal T Y ES as a function of imension with accuracy ε pcrit = 10 5. p crit T Y ES 3 0.33340 1.99940 8 0.18495 4.40687 10 0.17021 4.87510 50 0.11180 7.94454 200 0.08885 10.25490 700 0.07524 12.29080 1000 0.07121 13.04300 TABLE I. Values of minimal p crit an corresponing to it maximal T Y ES for chosen imensions. etermine the value of T Y ES corresponing to x = 1 as it was presente in the previous section. It follows that the optimal encoing strategy is sening the majority it same as for the stanar RAC 5. Further, it can be reaily seen that given an encoing E the optimal ecoing is 0 if δ m,ea δ m,ea G = a a y=k a a y k 23 1 otherwise. Therefore, in the case of majority encoing, Bob returns G = 0 if the receive message m = k, otherwise 1. Given an input a the total payoff over all possible y, k is T ñ + 2n ñ, 24 where we enote ñ = max{n 0, n 1,..., n 1 }. This is ue to the fact that if y is such that n y is the maximum, i.e. a y is the majority it, then Bob gives the correct answer for all k, obtaining the maximum payoff T. Such event occurs ñ times. In the other n ñ cases Bob returns the correct answer only if k a y an k Ea, obtaining 2 payoff. Subsequently, the average payoff is given by T c B = 1 n n T n! n 0!n 1!... n 1! 25 [ñt Y ES + 1 + n 2], where the summation is over all n+ 1 1 possible solutions of 6. Imposing the expression of the average payoff of RAC 8, T c B simplifies to T c B = T Y ES + 1T c S + 2. 26 T Y ES + 1 For n = 2, one can fin T c S = 1 2 + 1 2, an substituting this in 26 leas to T c B = 1 [ ] TY ES + 1 + 2 + T Y ES 3. 27 T 2 Let us consier a quantum strategy base on the quantum RAC presente in [18]. Alice coes her input a 0 a 1 in - imensional quantum state as follows ψ a0a 1 = 1 N 2, a 0 + 1 1 ω ja1 a 1 + j, 28 where N 2, = 2 + 2 is the normalization factor an ω = e 2πi is quantum Fourier transform factor. For the ecoing Bob uses the following projective measurements M y k, epening on input y, k, M 0 k = {P 0 k, I P 0 k }, M 1 k = {P 1 k, I P 1 k }. 29 Here, Pk 0 = k k an Pk 1 = k k taking k = 1 1 k=0 ωk k k correspon to the outcome G = 0. Simple calculations lea to the quantum average payoff T q B = 1 [ TY ES + 1 + ] 2 + T Y ES 3 T 2. 30 The ifference between 30 an 27 is given by T q B T c B = 1 T [ TY ES + 1 1 2 ], 31 which is always greater than zero for 2. Thus, the binary version of RAC provies a evice inepenent way to test arbitrary imensional quantum system employing only binary outcome measurements. IV. SUMMARY The primary feature of this article is to present a DW applicable to test arbitrarily large quantum systems implementing only binary outcome measurements. We propose a new variant of RAC an take the average payoff of this communication task as the inicator of the imension. We have provie the optimal classical boun for the binary version of the generalize RAC. In contrast to the other quantum communication complexity problems in which the number of prepare states grows exponentially with imension, the propose DW requires 2 ifferent preparations an 2 measurements. In the future, it woul be interesting to prove the optimality of the quantum strategy for binary RAC an look for more robust DWs retaining the aforementione significant features.

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Máté Farkas an Egar A. Aguilar for helpful iscussions an comments. We are also grateful to Egar A. Aguilar for the revision of the manuscript. This work was supporte by FNP programme First TEAM Grant No. First TEAM/2016-1/5, First TEAM/2017-4/31, NCN grants 2014/14/E/ST2/00020 an 2016/23/N/ST2/02817. [1] S. Wehner, M. Christanl, an A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. A 78, 062112 2008. [2] R. Gallego, N. Brunner, C. Haley, an A. Acín, Physical Review Letters 105, 230501 2010. [3] G. Brassar, Founations of Physics 33, 1593 2003. [4] H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, an R. e Wolf, Rev. Mo. Phys. 82, 665 2010. [5] J. Ahrens, P. Baziag, A. Cabello, an M. Bourennane, Nature Physics 8, 592 2012. [6] M. Henrych, R. Gallego, M. Mičua, N. Brunner, A. Acín, an J. P. Torres, Nature Physics 8, 588 2012. [7] V. D Ambrosio, F. Bisesto, F. Sciarrino, J. F. Barra, G. Lima, an A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140503 2014. [8] J. Ahrens, P. Baziag, M. Pawłowski, M. Żukowski, an M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140401 2014. [9] E. A. Aguilar, M. Farkas, D. Martínez, M. Alvarao, J. Cariñe, G. B. Xavier, J. F. Barra, G. Cañas, M. Pawłowski, an G. Lima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230503 2018. [10] A. Tavakoli, M. Pawłowski, M. Żukowski, an M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. A 95, 020302R 2017. [11] A. Ambainis, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, an M. Ozols 2008, arxiv0810.2937. [12] Note1, pa, y coul be absorbe into T a, y, b. Nevertheless, the state form provies a simple intuition. [13] S. Wiesner, SIGACT News 15, 78 88 1983. [14] A. Ambainis, A. Nayak, A. Ta-Shma, an U. Vazirani, Proceeings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC 99 p. 376 383 1999. [15] A. Nayak, Proceeings of the 40th IEEE Symposium on Founations of Computer Science FOCS 99 p. 369 376 1999. [16] E. Galvão, PhD thesis 2002. [17] A. Casaccino, E. F. Galvão, an S. Severini, Physical Review A 78, 022310 2008. [18] A. Tavakoli, A. Hameei, B. Marques, an M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 170502 2015. [19] A. Hameei, D. Saha, P. Mironowicz, M. Pawłowski, an M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052345 2017. [20] A. Hameei, B. Marques, P. Mironowicz, D. Saha, M. Pawłowski, an M. Bourennane 2015, arxiv1511.06179v2. [21] E. A. Aguilar, J. J. Borkała, P. Mironowicz, an M. Pawłowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 050501 2018. [22] M. Farkas an J. Kaniewski 2018, arxiv1803.00363v2. [23] Note2, by it we mean -imensional classical system. [24] A. Ambainis, D. Kravchenko, an A. Rai 2015, arxiv1510.03045. [25] P. Erős an L. R. Graham, Acta Arithmetica 21, 339 1972. [26] J. Dixmier, Journal of Number Theory 34, 198 1990. [27] J. H. van Lint an R. M. Wilson, A course in combinatorics. Secon eition Cambrige University Press, 2001. [28] M. Pawłowski, T. Paterek, D. Kaszlikowski, V. Scarani, A. Winter, an M. Żukowski, Nature 461, 1101 2009.