slug: orthey-augusiak-2025-steering-power-preservation-refutation
bibkey: ortheyaugusiak2025steering
doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/adda73
url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20477v2
triage: theorem
motivation_gids:
  - D5/S3/Quantum/Measurements/SteeringPowerPreservationRefutation.result

The steering substitution need not preserve powers

Problem

A. C. Orthey Jr and R. Augusiak, Certifying classes of $d$-outcome measurements with quantum steering, New J. Phys. 27, 064501 (2025), arXiv:2410.20477v2, Appendix “Robust self-testing”, Conjecture 1:

For any prime $d$, we have that ${\tilde{B}}_k^{(n)}={\tilde{B}}_k^n$, for every $n\in \{1,\dots ,d-1\}$. Note that this statement is true for $d=3$.

This quotation is from the downloaded v2 source main2.tex, line 1272, MD5 b3c5b40a34f721352981dcf58659087e. Its projective setting is explicit at line 1263:

For simplicity, we will assume that the state is pure and the measurements performed by Bob are projective.

Write $\omega =e^{2\pi \mathrm{i}/d}$ and let $\oplus$ denote addition modulo $d$. The coefficients and substitution of lines 204–206 and 246–249 are

${\gamma }_{yk}^{(n)}=\frac{1}{d}{\omega }^{kn(n-1)/2}{\sum }_{l=0}^{d-1}{e}^{-\mathrm{i}{\sum }_{m=1}^n{\varphi }_{l\oplus m,y}}{\omega }^{knl}$,

${\tilde{B}}_k^{(n)}={\sum }_y{\gamma }_{yk}^{(n)}{B}_y^n$, with ${\tilde{B}}_k={\tilde{B}}_k^{(1)}$ in the projective setting of lines 293–305.

Issue #21069 fixes the following reading. For every prime $d$, every real phase array $\varphi$ satisfying ${\sum }_j{\varphi }_{j,y}=0$ for every $y$ and

${\sum }_k\overline{{\gamma }_{y^{\prime }k}^{(n)}}{\gamma }_{yk}^{(n)}={\delta }_{y{y}^{\prime }}$

for every $1\le n\le d-1$ and every $y,y^{\prime }$, every family of unitary $d\times d$ complex matrices $B_y$ with $B_y^d=I$, every $k\in \{0,\dots ,d-1\}$ and every $1\le n\le d-1$, the identity ${\tilde{B}}_k^{(n)}=({\tilde{B}}_k^{(1)}{)}^n$ holds. This is claim; result refutes it. The definitions and source locators are also given in the literature note.

Motivation

The substitution transfers the source’s reference Heisenberg–Weyl operators into operators formed from Bob’s unknown measurements. Identifying the independently transformed powers with powers of one operator is the step used in the appendix’s robustness argument at lines 1331–1337. Whether this identification follows from phase admissibility and projectivity determines whether that argument applies to arbitrary prime dimensions under those assumptions.

Gap

The bounded literature check recorded in #21069 reports:

• arXiv:2410.20477v2 retains Conjecture 1;
• OpenAlex W4410488541 and Crossref report zero citing works;
• the related works arXiv:2607.04035v2 and arXiv:2606.21362v3 do not treat the conjecture;
• MathDB, google-deepmind/formal-conjectures, and the repository search contain no settlement of this conjecture.

not-found-in-searched-scope. Only the source-paper reading is independently reproduced here; the other search readings remain attributed to #21069.

Route

All witness objects below are the module’s fixed five-dimensional objects. Put $\omega =\mathrm{windowRoot}(5)$, $X=\mathrm{shift}$ and $Z=\mathrm{clock}$, where $X{e}_j=e_{j+1}$ modulo five and $Z{e}_j={\omega }^j{e}_j$. For every $y\in \{0,\dots ,4\}$, set

${\varphi }_{\cdot ,y}=\frac{2\pi }{5}(-6y,0,y-1,1+2y,3y)$,

$R_y={\sum }_{k=0}^4\overline{{\gamma }_{yk}^{(1)}}X{Z}^k$, and $B_0=\omega R_0$, $B_y=R_y$ for $y\ne 0$.

1. Admissibility. phases_zero gives the zero phase sum for every $y\in \mathrm{Fin}5$. coefficient_orthogonality gives the required row orthogonality for natural $n$ with $1\le n\le 4$ and every $y,y^{\prime }\in \mathrm{Fin}5$. Its finite identities use coefficient_formula and the fixed-root identities of root_relations: ${\omega }^5=1$, $1+\omega +{\omega }^2+{\omega }^3+{\omega }^4=0$, and $\overline{\omega }={\omega }^4$. Together these give phases_admissible : Admissible 5 phases.
2. Projectivity. For every $y,i,j\in \mathrm{Fin}5$, reference_entry gives $(R_y{)}_{ij}=0$ unless $i=j+1$ modulo five, and at that entry gives ${\omega }^{(a_j+yj)\mathrm{mod}5}$, where $a=(0,4,1,0,0)$. With the fixed unitary $U=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,{\omega }^4,1,1)$, reference_factorization gives $R_y=U(X{Z}^y)U^{\ast }$ for every $y\in \mathrm{Fin}5$. reference_projective gives unitarity and $R_y^5=I$ for each such $y$, using the reused Weyl displacement power law. witness_projective gives IsProjectiveFamily 5 B, including the scalar modification at $y=0$.
3. The two required reconstructions. For these fixed phases and $R_y$, reconstruction gives ${\sum }_y{\gamma }_{y0}^{(1)}{R}_y=X$ and ${\sum }_y{\gamma }_{y0}^{(2)}{R}_y^2=X^2$. These statements concern only $k=0$ and powers $1,2$. With the fixed $g=(3+\omega +{\omega }^4)/5$, special_coefficients gives ${\gamma }_{00}^{(1)}={\gamma }_{00}^{(2)}=g$. Consequently transformed_one and transformed_two give ${\tilde{B}}_0^{(1)}=X+(\omega -1)g{R}_0$ and ${\tilde{B}}_0^{(2)}=X^2+({\omega }^2-1)g{R}_0^2$ for this witness.
4. A nonzero entry. For this same witness, defect_entry identifies the $(0,3)$ entry of $({\tilde{B}}_0^{(1)}{)}^2-{\tilde{B}}_0^{(2)}$ with $g(g-1)(\omega -1{)}^2$. g_nontrivial gives $g\ne 0,1$, using $(\omega +{\omega }^4{)}^2+(\omega +{\omega }^4)=1$; primitivity gives $\omega \ne 1$. Applying claim at the prime $d=5$, these admissible phases, this projective family, $k=0$, and $n=2$ with $1\le 2\le 4$ would force this entry to vanish. This contradiction is result : ¬ claim.

The named witness lemmas are private, consumed helpers of result.

Falsifier

A discrepancy between the formal coefficients, admissibility conditions, or measurement model and the source would invalidate the intended settlement. The module uses the source’s phase indices $l\oplus m$ with $m=1,\dots ,n$, the conjugated row indexed by $y^{\prime }$ in coefficient orthogonality, and projective Fourier components $B_{n|y}=B_y^n$. It requires both unitarity and $B_y^d=I$ for every $y$.

The module restricts Bob’s Hilbert space to ${\mathbb{C}}^d$, a subcase of the source’s arbitrary Bob space. Its claim has no shared-state or steering-violation hypothesis. The settlement addresses the unconditional operator identity preregistered in #21069; it does not assert a counterexample to a robustness bound under an additional near-maximal-violation hypothesis.

Evidence

The canonical source is D5/S3/Quantum/Measurements/SteeringPowerPreservationRefutation.lean (339 lines).

• Proof. It proves result : ¬ claim.
• Definitions. coeff, Admissible, IsProjectiveFamily, transformed, and claim encode the coefficients, hypotheses, substitution, and universal identity above.
• Axioms. It uses only the standard axioms propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound; no sorry, native_decide, or new axiom.
• Escape registrations. result is the designated refutation result of the utility header and is exempt. The module has no other public theorem.

Frozen state: Golden/Frozen/state/D5/S3/Quantum/Measurements/SteeringPowerPreservationRefutation.lean.json, statement sha256:da7d239d5d7d5c3218aa534cddba8cffb465ed7ce2bd72c10ad9cd468f13d20d.

Declaration statements:

• result: sha256:73a149a006ead24883e04715d35fc248207f8e73b825c0f0f8f42a956f4e330b;
• claim: sha256:2985db26f8f1a0f930ef162ff2498ec73923e6071220be3a125a850a84cd3847.

Triage

Tier 1 explicit conjecture of Orthey and Augusiak (2025; arXiv:2410.20477v2), preregistered in issue #21069 before any Lean. theorem; resolution refuted.

The module is admitted under the open-problem-resolution basis of CLAUDE.md §3.2; the per-declaration proof shapes are listed in the delivery PR. The refutation is a certified instance with basis refutes. There is no digestion atom.

What the settlement shows

Proved by result: it is false that for every prime $d$, every admissible phase array, every projective family of $d\times d$ complex matrices, every $k\in \mathrm{Fin}d$, and every natural $n$ with $1\le n\le d-1$, the transformed $n$th operator equals the $n$th power of the first transformed operator. Here admissibility includes zero phase sums and coefficient row orthogonality at every such power, and projectivity includes unitarity and $B_y^d=I$ for every $y$.

Argued, not formalized.

• Mechanism and missing structure. For fixed $k$, write $c_y={\gamma }_{yk}^{(1)}$. Expanding the square gives ${\sum }_y{c}_y^2{B}_y^2+{\sum }_{y\ne z}{c}_y{c}_z{B}_y{B}_z$, whereas the separately transformed second operator is ${\sum }_y{\gamma }_{yk}^{(2)}{B}_y^2$. Coefficient row orthogonality does not impose this product identity for arbitrary projective $B_y$. For the fixed five-dimensional witness, transformed_one, transformed_two, and defect_entry, with precisely the phases and matrices of Route, isolate the uncancelled contribution. Multiplying $R_0$ by $\omega$ preserves its fifth power and unitarity but changes the two transformed expressions incompatibly.
• A sufficient repair. For a fixed prime $d$ and fixed $k$, suppose additionally that some $y_0$ and scalar $\lambda$ with ${\lambda }^d=1$ satisfy ${\gamma }_{yk}^{(n)}={\lambda }^n{\delta }_{y,y_0}$ for every $y$ and every $1\le n\le d-1$. Then ${\tilde{B}}_k^{(n)}={\lambda }^n{B}_{y_0}^n=(\lambda B_{y_0}{)}^n=({\tilde{B}}_k^{(1)}{)}^n$. This is a sufficient extra compatibility condition, not a consequence of admissibility established here. A classification of weaker sufficient conditions is open.
• Nearby cases. The $n=1$ identity is immediate from the definition for every input. For the fixed unmodified reference family $B_y=R_y$ in dimension five, reconstruction establishes the identity at $k=0$ for powers $1,2$ only. The module does not settle the source’s assertion for all admissible qutrit phases, nor classify primes beyond five.
• Effect on the source. Orthey and Augusiak’s appendix explicitly assumes Conjecture 1 at lines 1275–1276 and uses it at lines 1331–1337. Its proposed extension to arbitrary prime $d>3$ therefore lacks the claimed unconditional identity; that step needs an additional hypothesis or a replacement estimate. This refutation alone does not disprove the resulting robustness inequalities under their steering-violation hypotheses. The main text’s robustness theorem is restricted to $d=3$ (lines 528–544), which is not settled here. The exact self-testing theorems at maximal violation (lines 311–377) concern additional state-dependent hypotheses; result supplies no counterexample to them.

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

The bounded literature check in #21069 does not establish exhaustive worldwide novelty or priority. Its OpenAlex/Crossref citation counts, readings of arXiv:2607.04035v2 and arXiv:2606.21362v3, and MathDB, google-deepmind/formal-conjectures, and repository no-hit searches were reported there and are not independently reproduced here. The directly reproduced source is arXiv:2410.20477v2; the journal PDF and other arXiv versions were not compared with it.

The general arguments explicitly labelled “not formalized” are not additional Lean theorems. The preregistration’s separate floating-point readings for 162 discretized qutrit phase arrays and random projective observables were not reproduced and supply no universal qutrit conclusion here. A complete qutrit classification, a classification in other prime dimensions, weaker repair hypotheses, and whether a replacement argument proves the source’s higher-dimensional robustness bounds remain open in this dossier. No robustness theorem or physical noise model is formalized by this module.