Strong quantum nonlocality for unextendible product bases in heterogeneous systems

Fei Shi,1, ∗ Mao-Sheng Li,2, 3, † Lin Chen,4, 5, ‡ and Xiande Zhang6, §

1
School of Cyber Security, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, People’s Republic of China
2
Department of Physics, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
3
Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
4
LMIB(Beihang University), Ministry of Education,
and School of Mathematical Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
5
International Research Institute for Multidisciplinary Science, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
6
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, People’s Republic of China
A set of multipartite orthogonal product states is strongly nonlocal if it is locally irreducible in
every bipartition, which shows the phenomenon of strong quantum nonlocality without entangle-
ment. It is known that unextendible product bases (UPBs) can show the phenomenon of quantum
nonlocality without entanglement. Thus it is interesting to investigate the strong quantum nonlo-
arXiv:2201.00085v1 [quant-ph] 1 Jan 2022

cality for UPBs. Most of the UPBs with the minimum size cannot demonstrate strong quantum
nonlocality. In this paper, we construct a series of UPBs with different large sizes in dA ⊗dB ⊗dC and
dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD for dA , dB , dC , dD ≥ 3, and we also show that these UPBs have strong quantum
nonlocality, which answers an open question given by Halder et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040403
(2019)] and Yuan et al. [Phys. Rev. A 102, 042228 (2020)] for any possible three and four-partite
systems. Furthermore, we propose an entanglement-assisted protocol to locally discriminate the
UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4, and it consumes less entanglement resource than the teleportation-based protocol.
Our results build the connection between strong quantum nonlocality and UPBs.
Keywords: strong quantum nonlocality, unextendible product bases, entanglement-assisted discrimination

I. INTRODUCTION

It is known that a set of nonorthogonal states cannot be perfectly distinguished, and a set of mutually orthogonal
states can be always distinguished by performing a global measurement [1]. However, when the composite quantum
system is distributed among several spatially separated parties, it is not always possible to distinguish the states by
performing local operations and classical communications (LOCC). These states are said to be locally indistinguish-
able. The local indistinguishability plays an important role in quantum data hiding [2–5] and quantum secret sharing
[6–8]. Bennett et al. first showed the phenomenon of quantum nonlocality without entanglement by constructing a
locally indistinguishable orthogonal product basis in a two qutrit system [9]. Consequently, the nonlocality here (or
the local distinguishability based nonlocality that we call) is very different from the most well-known form of quantum
nonlocality also known as Bell nonlocality [10, 11] which can only arise from entangled states. This leads us to explore
this kind of nonlocality. After that, locally indistinguishable sets have been widely investigated [12–30]. Unextendible
product bases (UPBs) are special kinds of locally indistinguishable sets [31, 32]. A UPB for a multipartite quantum
system is an incomplete orthogonal product basis whose complementary subspace contains no product state. The
UPBs can be used to construct positive-partial-transpose (PPT) entangled states and Peres sets [31, 33]. It is also
connected to bound entangled states, fermionic systems, Bell inequalities without quantum violation [12, 31, 34–
37]. Most of the constructions for UPBs are about UPBs with the minimum size [9, 12, 38–41]. It is interesting to
investigate UPBs with large sizes in multipartite systems.
Recently, Halder et al. proposed a strong form of nonlocality based on the concept of local irreducibility of quantum
states [42]. An orthogonal product set (OPS) is locally irreducible means that it is not possible to eliminate one or
more states from the set by orthogonality-preserving local measurements. Under this definition, a locally irreducible
set must be a locally indistinguishable set, while the converse is not true in general. Therefore, constructing locally
irreducible set of orthogonal quantum states is an efficient way to show the local distinguishability based nonlocality.
An OPS is said to be strongly nonlocal if it is locally irreducible in every bipartition. For further study this kind
of nonlocality, it is interesting to investigate the locally irreducibility and the strong quantum nonlocality for OPSs.
Halder et al. constructed two strongly nonlocal OPSs in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 and 4 ⊗ 4 ⊗ 4 respectively, which shows the
phenomenon of strong quantum nonlocality without entanglement [42]. In addition, there were several results about

∗ shifei@mail.ustc.edu.cn
† li.maosheng.math@gmail.com
‡ linchen@buaa.edu.cn
§ Corresponding author: drzhangx@ustc.edu.cn
2

strongly nonlocal OPSs. A strongly nonlocal OPS in d ⊗ d ⊗ d, d ⊗ d ⊗ (d + 1), 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 and 4 ⊗ 4 ⊗ 4 ⊗ 4 for d ≥ 3

was given in [43]. The authors in [44] constructed a strongly nonlocal OPS in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC , dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD , and
dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD ⊗ dE for dA , dB , dC , dD , dE ≥ 3. Both of Refs. [42, 43] propose an open question: whether one
can find strongly nonlocal UPBs? Specially, Ref. [43] indicates that most of the previous UPBs with the minimum
size cannot be used for building strongly nonlocal UPBs. In [45], the authors show that a strongly nonlocal UPB
with large size in d ⊗ d ⊗ d exists for d ≥ 3, where the UPB was constructed from [46]. However, we still do not
know whether there exist strongly nonlocal UPBs in multipartite systems with non-equal local dimensions. So it is
interesting to consider strongly nonlocal UPBs in general systems, like any possible three and four-partite systems.
Further, some strongly nonlocal orthogonal entangled sets were shown in [47, 48]
When a set of orthogonal states is not locally distinguishable, entanglement can be used as a resource for dis-
tinguishability of such states. This is called the entanglement-assisted discrimination, which was first proposed by
Cohen. In [49], Cohen showed that the tile UPB in 3⊗3 can be perfectly distinguished by using a two-qubit maximally
entangled state. Since then, entanglement-assisted discrimination has attracted a lot of interest [47, 49–57]. Since
a strongly nonlocal UPB is locally indistinguishable in any bipartition, a perfect discrimination of this set needs a
resource state that must be entangled in all bipartitions. In case of the teleportation-based protocol [58], any set of
orthogonal states in m ⊗ n (m ≤ n) can be perfectly distinguished by using an m ⊗ m maximally entangled state.
Then the teleportation-based protocol can perfectly distinguish the strongly nonlocal UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4 by using
3 ⊗ 3 maximally entangled states shared between any two pairs. Since entanglement is a costly resource in quantum
information, it is important to find a protocol using cheaper resources.
In this paper, we focus on the construction of strongly nonlocal UPBs in any possible three and four-partite systems.
The construction of strongly nonlocal UPBs is more difficult than the construction of strongly nonlocal OPSs, since it
is not easy to check that an OPS is a UPB usually. Thus, new method is required. By using the relation between OPSs
and grid representations, we successfully construct a series of UPBs with different large sizes in three and four-partite
systems. That is, for any 0 ≤ s ≤ b dA2−3 c, there exists a UPB of size dA dB dC − 8(s + 1) in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC and a UPB
of size dA dB dC dD − 16(s + 1) in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD for 3 ≤ dA ≤ dB ≤ dC ≤ dD . We also show that these UPBs
are strongly nonlocal by using the techniques from [45]. Further, we propose an entanglement-assisted protocol for
local discrimination of the strongly nonlocal UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4, which consumes less entanglement resource than the
teleportation-based protocol.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce preliminary knowledge. In Sec. III, we
construct tripartite UPBs and show that these UPBs are strongly nonlocal. In Theorem 3 of supplementary material
[59], we show a series of strongly nonlocal UPBs in four-partite systems. In Sec. IV, we consider the entanglement-
assisted discrimination for the strongly nonlocal UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4. Finally, we conclude in Sec. V.

II. PRELIMINARY

In this section, we introduce the preliminary knowledge and facts. Throughout this paper, we do not normalize
states and operators for simplicity, and we consider only pure states and positive operator-valued measure (POVM)
measurements. For any positive integer n ≥ 1, we denote Zn as the set {0, 1, · · · , n − 1}. Assume that {|ii}i∈Zm is
the computational basis of an m-dimensional Hilbert space. A bipartite state |ψi in m ⊗ n can be expressed by
X X
|ψi = ai,j |iiA |jiB . (1)
i∈Zm j∈Zn

Then |ψi corresponds to an m × n matrix,

M = (ai,j )i∈Zm ,j∈Zn . (2)

Note that |ψi is a product state if and only if rank(M ) = 1. Assume that |ψi i in m ⊗ n corresponds to an m × n
matrix Mi for i = 1, 2, then the inner product

hψ1 |ψ2 i = Tr(M1† M2 ). (3)

An unextendible product basis (UPB) for a multipartite quantum system is an incomplete orthogonal product basis
whose complementary subspace contains no product state. For example, the SHIFTS UPB in 2 ⊗ 2 ⊗ 2 is as follows
[31],

|ψ0 i = |0iA |1iB |+iC , |ψ1 i = |1iA |+iB |0iC ,

|ψ2 i = |+iA |0iB |1iC , |ψ3 i = |−iA |−iB |−iC ,
 3
√
where |±i = (|0i ± |1i)/ 2.
A local measurement performed to distinguish a set of multipartite mutually orthogonal states is called an
orthogonality-preserving local measurement, if the postmeasurement states keep being mutually orthogonal. Spe-
cially, a measurement is trivial if all the POVM elements are proportional to the identity operator. In [42], the
authors proposed the concept of strong quantum nonlocality. An orthogonal product set (OPS) is said to be strongly
nonlocal if it is locally irreducible in every bipartition. Note that an OPS is a locally irreducible set means that it
is not possible to eliminate one or more states from the set by orthogonality-preserving local measurements. There
exists an efficient way to check whether an OPS is strongly nonlocal [45]. Assume that an OPS {|ψi} ⊂ ⊗ni=1 HAi .
Let B1 = {A2 A3 . . . An }, B2 = {A3 . . . An A1 }, B3 = {A4 . . . An A1 A2 }, . . . , Bn = {A1 . . . An−1 }. If the party Bi can
only perform a trivial orthogonality-preserving POVM for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the OPS {|ψi} is strongly nonlocal.
In this paper, we show a series of strongly nonlocal UPBs in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC and dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD for any
dA , dB , dC , dD ≥ 3 respectively. Without loss of generality, we always assume that 3 ≤ dA ≤ dB ≤ dC ≤ dD . In
[44], the authors gave a decomposition for the outermost layer of 3,4-dimensional hypercubes, and our construction of
UPBs in this paper is inspired by this decomposition. Since any OPS in 2 ⊗ n is locally reducible [12, 33], a strongly
nonlocal UPB in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC and dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC ⊗ dD must satisfy dA , dB , dC , dD ≥ 3. Our construction achieves
the minimum quantum system necessary for the existence of such a UPB.
Next, we introduce two basic lemmas from [45], which are useful for showing strong quantum nonlocality. Let Hn be
an n-dimensional Hilbert space. Assume that the computational basis of Hn is {|0i, |1i, · · · , |n−1i}. For any operator
E on Hn , we denote the matrix E as the matrix representation of the operator E under the computational Pn−1 Pn−1 basis. In
general, we do not distinguish the operator E and the matrix E. Given any n × n matrix E := i=0 j=0 ai,j |iihj|,
for S, T ⊆ {|0i, |1i, · · · , |n − 1i}, we define
X X
S ET := as,t |siht|.
|si∈S |ti∈T

It means that S ET is a submatrix of E with row coordinates S and column coordinates T . In the case S = T , we
denote ES := S ES for simplicity. Given a set S ⊆ {|0i, |1i, · · · , |n − 1i}, an orthogonal set {|ψi i}i∈Zs is spanned by
S, if for any i ∈ Zs , |ψi i is a linear combination of the states from S.

Lemma 1 (Block Zeros Lemma [45]) Let an n × n matrix E = (ai,j )i,j∈Zn be the matrix representation of an
operator E = M † M under the basis B = {|0i, |1i, . . . , |n − 1i}. Given two nonempty disjoint subsets S and T of
B, assume that {|ψi i}i∈Zs , {|φj i}j∈Zt are two orthogonal sets spanned by S and T respectively, where s = |S|, and
t = |T |. If hψi |E|φj i = 0 for any i ∈ Zs and j ∈ Zt , then S ET = 0 and T ES = 0.

Lemma 2 (Block Trivial Lemma [45]) Let an n × n matrix E = (ai,j )i,j∈Zn be the matrix representation of an
operator E = M † M under the basis B = {|0i, |1i, . . . , |n − 1i}. Given a nonempty subset S := {|u0 i, |u1 i, . . . , |us−1 i}
of B, let {|ψj i}j∈Zs be an orthogonal set spanned by S. Assume that hψi |E|ψj i = 0 for any i 6= j ∈ Zs . If there exists
a state |ut i ∈ S, such that {|ut i} ES\{|ut i} = 0 and hut |ψj i =
6 0 for any j ∈ Zs , then ES ∝ IS .

III. STRONGLY NONLOCAL TRIPARTITE UPBS

In this section, we construct strongly nonlocal tripartite UPBs. In Example 3, we show a UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4. Then
we generalize this UPB to the space dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC in Proposition 4, and prove its strong quantum nonlocality in
Proposition 5.√ In fact, we show a series of strongly nonlocal UPBs of different sizes in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC in Theorem 6.
2π −1
Let wn = e n be the n-th unit root, and let sum(M ) be the sum of all entries of the matrix M .
First, we consider a simple example in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4. Let
A1 := {|ψ1 (i, k)i = |ξi iA |0iB |ηk iC : (i, k) ∈ Z2 × Z3 \ {(0, 0)}},
A2 := {|ψ2 (i, j)i = |ξi iA |ηj iB |3iC : (i, j) ∈ Z2 × Z2 \ {(0, 0)}},
A3 := {|ψ3 (j, k)i = |2iA |ξj iB |ηk iC : (j, k) ∈ Z2 × Z3 \ {(0, 0)}},
A4 := {|ψ4 i = |2iA |2iB |3iC },
B1 := {|φ1 (i, k)i = |ηi iA |2iB |ξk iC : (i, k) ∈ Z2 × Z3 \ {(0, 0)}}, (4)
B2 := {|φ2 (i, j)i = |ηi iA |ξj iB |0iC : (i, j) ∈ Z2 × Z2 \ {(0, 0)}},
B3 := {|φ3 (j, k)i = |0iA |ηj iB |ξk iC : (j, k) ∈ Z2 × Z3 \ {(0, 0)}},
B4 := {|φ4 i = |0iA |0iB |0iC },
F := {|ϕ(k)i = |1iA |1iB |βk iC : k ∈ Z2 \ {0}},
4

2
!  2

3
!
X X X
|Si := |ii  |ji |ki ,
i=0 A j=0 k=0 C
B
P2
where |ηs iX = |0iX + (−1)s |1iX , |ξs iX = |1iX + (−1)s |2iX for s ∈ Z2 , X ∈ {A, B}, |ηs iC = t=0 w3st |tiC , |ξs iC =
P2 st s
t=0 w3 |t + 1iC for s ∈ Z3 and |βs iC = |1iC + (−1) |2iC for s ∈ Z2 .
The state |Si is called a “stopper” state. It is easy to see that ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} is an OPS, and ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪
Bi ) ∪ F ∪3i=1 {|ψi (0, 0)i, |φi (0, 0)i} ∪ {|ψ4 i} ∪ {|φ4 i} ∪ {|ϕ(0)i} is a complete orthogonal basis in C3 ⊗ C3 ⊗ C4 . The
nine subsets Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and F in A|BC bipartition correspond to the nine blocks of 3 × 12 grid in Fig. 1.
For example, A1 corresponds to the 2 × 3 grid {(1, 2) × (00, 01, 02)}. Moreover, Ai is symmetrical to Bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4.
If we delete A4 , B4 , and add the “stopper” state |Si, we can obtain a UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4.

2 𝒜3 𝒜4
𝒜1 𝒜2
A 1 𝓕
ℬ2 ℬ1
0 ℬ4 ℬ3
00 01 02 03 13 11 12 10 20 21 22 23
BC
FIG. 1: The corresponding 3 × 12 grid of Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and F (Eq. (4)) in A|BC bipartition. For example, A1
corresponds to the 2 × 3 grid {(1, 2) × (00, 01, 02)}. Moreover, Ai is symmetrical to Bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4.

Example 3 In 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4, the set of states ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} given by Eq. (4) is a UPB of size 28.
Proof. Let H be the space spanned by the states in ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si}. For any state |ψi ∈ H⊥ , we only
need to show that |ψi must be an entangled state. We prove it by contradiction. Assume there exists a product state
|ψi ∈ H⊥ . Let H1 be the space spanned by the states in ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F. Since H1 ⊂ H, we have H⊥ ⊂ H1⊥ .
Moreover,

H1⊥ = span{|ψ1 (0, 0)i, |ψ2 (0, 0)i, |ψ3 (0, 0)i, |ψ4 i, |φ1 (0, 0)i, |φ2 (0, 0)i, |φ3 (0, 0)i, |φ4 i, |ϕ(0)i}.

Then |ψi can be expressed by

|ψi = a0 |ψ1 (0, 0)i + b0 |ψ2 (0, 0)i + c0 |ψ3 (0, 0)i + d0 |ψ4 i + a1 |φ1 (0, 0)i + b1 |φ2 (0, 0)i + c1 |φ3 (0, 0)i + d1 |φ4 i + e|ϕ(0)i,

where a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 , a1 , b1 , c1 , d1 , e ∈ C. By assumption, |ψi is a product state, and hS|ψi = 0.

Next, we consider the matrix form of |ψi in A|BC bipartition. It corresponds to the 3 × 12 matrix M in A|BC
bipartition, where

𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑏0 𝑏0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑑0 2

𝑀 = 𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑏0 𝑏0 𝑒 𝑒 𝑏1 𝑏1 𝑎1 𝑎1 𝑎1 1 A
𝑑1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑏1 𝑏1 𝑎1 𝑎1 𝑎1 0

00 01 02 03 13 11 12 10 20 21 22 23

BC

and

rank(M ) = 1. (5)

Note that M has a similar structure as Fig. 1. It means that x0 is symmetrical to x1 for x ∈ {a, b, c, d}. The state
|Si corresponds to the matrix S in A|BC bipartition, where
 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S =  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  , Tr(S † M ) = sum(M ) = 0. (6)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 5

Every element of M has coordinate (A, BC). For example, d0 has coordinate (2, 23). If we consider AB|C biparti-
tion, then we can rearrange the first row of M to a 3 × 4 matrix, denoted by M2 through (AB, C) coordinates. For
example, d0 has coordinate (22, 3) in M2 . Similarly, we can rearrange the last row of M to a 3 × 4 matrix, denoted
by M0 through (AB, C) coordinates. Thus we obtain M2 and M0 , where

𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑑0 22 𝑏1 𝑎1 𝑎1 𝑎1 02

𝑀2 = 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑐0 𝑏0 21 AB
,
𝑀0 = 𝑏1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 01
AB.
𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑎0 𝑏0 20 𝑑1 𝑐1 𝑐1 𝑐1 00

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
C C

Since |ψi is seperable in AB|C bipartition, we must have

rank M2 = 0 or 1, (7)

rank M0 = 0 or 1. (8)

Assume a0 6= 0. Since rank(M ) = 1, we have c1 = d1 , and c0 = e = b1 = a1 = d0 .

(i) If c0 = 0, then b0 = 0 by Eq. (7), and c1 = 0 by Eq. (8), which is impossible by Eq. (6).
(ii) If c0 6= 0, then c0 = a0 = b0 by Eq. (7), and c0 = c1 by Eq. (8), which is impossible by Eq. (6).
Thus we have a0 = 0. By the symmetry of M , we must have a1 = 0.
Assume b0 6= 0. Since rank(M ) = 1, we have c1 = d1 = 0, and c0 = e = b1 = a1 = d0 = 0. This is impossible by
Eq. (6). So we must have b0 = b1 = 0.
Assume d1 6= 0. Since rank(M ) = 1, we have e = c0 = d0 = 0. By Eq. (8), we obtain c1 = 0. This is impossible by
Eq. (6). So we must have d0 = d1 = 0.
Assume c1 6= 0. Since rank(M ) = 1, we have e = c0 = 0. This is impossible by Eq. (6). So we have c0 = c1 = 0.
Since sum(M ) = 0, we must have e = 0, which contradicts rank(M ) = 1.
Thus |ψi must be an entangled state, and the set of states ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} is a UPB. t
u

Next, we generalize the above UPB to the space dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC . Let

A1 := {|ξi iA |0iB |ηk iC : (i, k) ∈ ZdA −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}},

A2 := {|ξi iA |ηj iB |dC − 1iC : (i, j) ∈ ZdA −1 × ZdB −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
A3 := {|dA − 1iA |ξj iB |ηk iC : (j, k) ∈ ZdB −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
A4 := {|dA − 1iA |dB − 1iB |dC − 1iC },
B1 := {|ηi iA |dB − 1iB |ξk iC : (i, k) ∈ ZdA −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
B2 := {|ηi iA |ξj iB |0iC : (i, j) ∈ ZdA −1 × ZdB −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(9)
B3 := {|0iA |ηj iB |ξk iC : (j, k) ∈ ZdB −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
B4 := {|0iA |0iB |0iC },
F := {|βi iA |βj iB |βk iC : (i, j, k) ∈ ZdA −2 × ZdB −2 × ZdC −2 \ {(0, 0, 0)}},
! d −1  !
A −1
dX X
B C −1
dX
|Si := |ii  |ji |ki ,
i=0 A j=0 k=0 C
B
PdX −2 st PdX −2 st
where |ηs iX = t=0 wdX −1 |tiX , and |ξs iX = t=0 wdX −1 |t + 1iX for s ∈ ZdX −1 , and X ∈ {A, B, C}, |βs iX =
PdX −3 st
t=0 w dX −2 |t + 1i X for s ∈ Z dX −2 , and X ∈ {A, B, C}.
Note that {|ηs iX }s∈ZdX −1 , {|ξs iX }s∈ZdX −1 , and {|βs iX }s∈ZdX −2 are three orthogonal sets, X ∈ {A, B, C}, which are
X −2 X −1 dX −2
spanned by {|tiX }dt=0 , {|tiX }dt=1 , and {|tiX }t=1 , respectively. This extends the definitions of states in 3⊗3⊗4 in
Eq. (4). The nine subsets Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and F in A|BC bipartition correspond to the nine blocks of dA × dB dC
grid in Fig. 2. Then we have the following proposition.
6

(𝒅𝑪−𝟏) (𝒅𝑩−𝟏) (𝒅𝑩 − 𝟏 )(𝒅𝑪−𝟏) 𝟏

𝒜3 𝒜4
(𝒅𝑨−𝟏) 𝒜1 𝒜2
𝓕
ℬ2 ℬ1
𝟏 ℬ4 ℬ3
FIG. 2: The corresponding dA × dB dC grid of Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and F (Eq.(9)) in A|BC bipartition. Moreover,
Ai is symmetrical to Bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4.

Proposition 4 In dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC , 3 ≤ dA ≤ dB ≤ dC , the set of states ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} given by Eq. (9) is
a UPB of size dA dB dC − 8.
The proof of Proposition 4 is given in Appendix A. Next, we consider the strong quantum nonlocality for UPBs.

Proposition 5 In dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC , 3 ≤ dA ≤ dB ≤ dC , the UPB ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} given by Eq. (9) is strongly
nonlocal.
Proof. Denote U := ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪Bi )∪F ∪{|Si}. Let B and C come together to perform a joint orthogonality-preserving
POVM {E = M † M }, where E = (aij,k` )i,k∈ZdB ,j,`∈ZdC . Then the postmeasurement states {IA ⊗ M |ψi : |ψi ∈ U}
should keep being mutually orthogonal. Assume that |ψ1 iA |ψ2 iB |ψ3 iC , |ϕ1 iA |ϕ2 iB |ϕ3 iC ∈ U. Then

A hψ1 |B hψ2 |C hψ3 |IA ⊗ E|ϕ1 iA |ϕ2 iB |ϕ3 iC = hψ1 |ϕ1 iA (B hψ2 |C hψ3 |E|ϕ2 iB |ϕ3 iC ) = 0. (10)
If hψ1 |ϕ1 iA 6= 0, then B hψ2 |C hψ3 |E|ϕ2 iB |ϕ3 iC = 0. By using this property, we need to show that E ∝ I. If we can
show that E ∝ I, then it means that BC can only perform a trivial orthogonality-preserving POVM. Since the nine
subsets Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F in any bipartition of {A|BC, C|AB, B|CA} correspond to a similar grid as Fig. 2,
this implies that any of the party {BC, AB, CA} can only perform a trivial orthogonality-preserving POVM. Then
we obtain that the UPB U is strongly nonlocal. More details for showing E ∝ I are given in Appendix B. t
u

Note that the states in Ai or Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) in Eq. (9) are defined by the outermost layer of a dA × dB × dC cube,
and the states in F are just defined by all inner cells. By observing this, we can construct more strongly nonlocal
UPBs in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC by continuing to decompose F in Fig. 2 by the similar tiling method. Suppose we are on the
n-th layer from outside to inside, 0 ≤ n ≤ b dA2−3 c. Let Xn := dX − 2n for X ∈ {A, B, C}. Then we can define the
following states,
(n) (n) (n)
A1 := {|ξi iA |niB |ηk iC : (i, k) ∈ ZAn −1 × ZCn −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(n) (n) (n)
A2 := {|ξi iA |ηj iB |dC − 1 − niC : (i, j) ∈ ZAn −1 × ZBn −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(n) (n) (n)
A3 := {|dA − 1 − niA |ξj iB |ηk iC : (j, k) ∈ ZBn −1 × ZCn −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(n)
A4 := {|dA − 1 − niA |dB − 1 − niB |dC − 1 − niC },
(n) (n) (n)
B1 := {|ηi iA |dB − 1 − niB |ξk iC : (i, k) ∈ ZAn −1 × ZCn −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(n) (n) (n)
B2 := {|ηi iA |ξj iB |niC : (i, j) ∈ ZAn −1 × ZBn −1 \ {(0, 0)}}, (11)
(n) (n) (n)
B3 := {|niA |ηj iB |ξk iC : (j, k) ∈ ZBn −1 × ZCn −1 \ {(0, 0)}},
(n)
B4 := {|niA |niB |niC },
(n) (n) (n) (n)
F := {|βi iA |βj iB |βk iC : (i, j, k) ∈ ZAn −2 × ZBn −2 × ZCn −2 \ {(0, 0, 0)}},
! d −1  !
A −1
dX X
B dXC −1

|Si = |ii  |ji |ki ,

i=0 A j=0 k=0 C
B
(n) PXn +n−2 s(t−n) (n) PXn +n−2 s(t−n)
where |ηs iX = t=n w |tiX , and |ξs iX = t=n wXn −1 |t + 1iX , for s ∈ ZXn −1 , and X ∈ {A, B, C},
(n) PXn +n−3 s(t−n) Xn −1
|βs iX = t=n wXn −2 |t + 1iX for s ∈ ZXn −2 , and X ∈ {A, B, C}.
 7

(n) (n) (n)

Note that {|ηs iX }s∈ZXn −1 , {|ξs iX }s∈ZXn −1 , and {|βs iX }s∈ZXn −2 are three orthogonal sets, X ∈ {A, B, C},
Xn +n−2 Xn +n−1 Xn +n−2
which are spanned by {|tiX }t=n , {|tiX }t=n+1 , and {|tiX }t=n+1 , respectively. This extends the definition of
(0) (0)
states in Eq. (9) from n = 0 to general n. Specially, Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F (0) are Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F of Eq. (9)
(0) (0) (1) (1)
exactly, which correspond to Fig. 2 in A|BC bipartition. Next, when dA ≥ 5, Ai , Bi , Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F (1)
correspond to Fig. 3 in A|BC bipartition. Then we have the following theorem.

(0) (0)
𝒜3 𝒜4
(1) (1)
(0) (0) (1) (1)
𝒜3 𝒜4
2 𝒜1 𝒜2 𝒜1 𝒜2 (1) (1) (1) (0) (0)
𝓕 𝓑2 𝓑1 𝓑2 𝓑1
(1) (1)
number of equations 𝓑4
should be 𝓑
reduced by, for instance, moving them to the appendices or
(0) (0) 3
𝓑4 wrapping them up into a single formula
𝓑3 with many indices. In fact, it would be enough to state
the main result of this section as a (0)
theorem
(0) with(1)a sketch of the (1)
(1) proof, and move the detailed
FIG. 3: The corresponding dA × dB dC grid of Ai , Bi , Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F (Eq. (11)) in A|BC bipartition,
considerations to the appendix.
where dA ≥ 5.
Reply: We thank the referee for these relevant comments. We added several sentences in first
Theoremparagraph
6 In dAof⊗ Sec.
dB ⊗ dIV for
C, 3 ≤d the
A ≤description
dB ≤ dC , forof anythe
0 ≤entanglement-assisted
n ≤ b dA2−3 c, the set discrimination problem.
“Local quantum state discrimination refers to the act in a quantum system, consisting of several
parts held by separated observers, whereby
Un := ∪nt=0 (∪3 (t) a state
(t) secretly
(n) chosen from a set of prespecified
i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi )) ∪ F ∪ {|Si}
orthogonal quantum states is shared by these parties, and the goal is to identify in which
given state (11) system
by Eq. the is a strongly nonlocal
is, only of size dA
UPBLOCC.
using dC −
IfdBthe 8(nof+ 1).
set states is locally indistinguishable, then
Theitproof
needs additional
of Theorem entanglement
6 is given in Appendixresources
C. By now,forwe perfect
have showndiscrimination.
strongly nonlocalThis
UPBsprocess is called
exist in any three-
partiteentanglement-assisted
systems. For four-partitediscrimination.”
systems, strongly nonlocal UPBs are shown to exist in Supplementary material [59]
by using the similar method. In [44], the authors gave a decomposition of the 5-dimensional hypercube, which may
Weforalso
be used the extended
constructing the
strongly notations
nonlocal UPBsinin the
any second paragraph
five-partite systems. of Sec. IV.
However, “The configuration
it requires of
more calculations.
entanglement
We leave question.can be described by {(p, |Φ(d1 )i)a,b , (q, |Φ(d2 )i)a,c , (r, |Φ(d3 )i)b,c } [5, 6].
resources
this as an open
Here, (p, |Φ(d1 )i)a,b means that an amount p of the maximally entangled state |Φ(d1 )i is shared
by Alice and Bob;IV. (q, |Φ(d 2 )i)a,c means that an amount
ENTANGLEMENT-ASSISTED
q of the maximally entangled state
DISCRIMINATION
|Φ(d2 )i is shared by Alice and Charlie; (r, |Φ(d3 )i)b,c means that an amount r of the maximally
P
entangled
In this state
section, we |Φ(d3 )ithe
investigate is local
shared by Bob and
discrimination Charlie,
of the stronglywhere |Φ(d)i
nonlocal = 3 ⊗ d−1
in 3 ⊗
UPB X,Y 4 in |ki
k=0 X |kiY 3 for
Example by
using X,
entanglement as a resource. In a protocol of local quantum state discrimination, a multipatite
Y ∈ {a, b, c}. It consumes p log2 d1 + q log2 d2 + r log2 d3 ebits of entanglement resource.” quantum system
is prepared with a state which is secretly chosen from a known set, and the purpose is to determine in which state the
systemFor the
is by convenience
using LOCC only. of readers,
If the we also
set of states added
is locally Fig. 1 for ourthen
indistinguishable, configuration of entanglement-
additional entanglement resources
assisted
can assist discrimination.
for perfect discrimination. This process is called entanglement-assisted discrimination [49].

Alice

(p, |Φ(d1 )i)A,B (q, |Φ(d2 )i)A,C

Bob Charlie
(r, |Φ(d3 )i)B,C
FIG.
FIG. 4:1: Entanglement-assisted
Entanglement-assisted discrimination.
discrimination. A A strongly
strongly nonlocal
nonlocal tripartite
tripartite UPB
UPB is is shared
shared by
by Alice,
Alice, Bob
Bob and
and
Charlie. Their aim is to distinguish these states in the UPB by using LOCC only. For
Charlie. Their aim is to distinguish these states in the UPB by using LOCC only. For perfect discrimination perfect discrimination of the
of
UPB,
the UPB,an amount
an amount p ofp the maximally
of the maximally entangled
entangledstate |Φ(d
state 1 )iA,B
|Φ(d is shared by Alice and Bob; an amount q of the
1 )ia,b is shared by Alice and Bob; an amount q of the
maximally
maximally entangled state |Φ(d
entangled state |Φ(d22)i
)iA,C is shared by Alice and Charlie, and
a,c is shared by Alice and Charlie, P
and an
an amount
amount rr of
of the
the maximally
maximally entangled
entangled
state |Φ(d 2 )i B,C is shared by Bob and Charlie, where |Φ(d)i X,Y = P d−1
d−1|kiX |kiY for X, Y ∈ {A, B, C}. It consumes
state |Φ(d2 )ib,c is shared by Bob and Charlie, where |Φ(d)iX,Y = k=0 |kiX |kiY for X, Y ∈ {a, b, c}. It consumes
k=0
pp log
log2 dd1 +
+ qq log
log2 dd2 +
+ rr log
log2 dd3 ebits
ebits of
of entanglement
entanglement resource.
resource.
2 1 2 2 2 3

We moved the proof of Proposition 7 to Appendix D.

3. English should be considerably improved. Below I provide a sample of expressions and sentences
that are to be corrected.
8

Assume a strongly nonlocal tripartite UPB is shared by Alice, Bobs and Charlie. Since a strongly nonlocal
UPB is locally indistinguishable in any bipartition, a perfect discrimination of this set needs a resource state
that must be entangled in all bipartitions. The configuration of entanglement resources can be described by
{(p, |Φ(d1 )i)A,B , (q, |Φ(d2 )i)A,C , (r, |Φ(d3 )i)B,C } [47, 55]. Here, (p, |Φ(d1 )i)A,B means that an amount p of the maxi-
mally entangled state |Φ(d1 )i is shared by Alice and Bob; (q, |Φ(d2 )i)A,C means that an amount q of the maximally
entangled state |Φ(d2 )i is shared by Alice and Charlie; (r, |Φ(d3 )i)B,C means that an amount r of the maximally entan-
Pd−1
gled state |Φ(d3 )i is shared by Bob and Charlie, where |Φ(d)iX,Y = k=0 |kiX |kiY for X, Y ∈ {A, B, C}. It consumes
p log2 d1 +q log2 d2 +r log2 d3 ebits of entanglement resource. See Fig. 4 for this configuration of entanglement-assisted
discrimination. Now, we give a discrimination protocol for the strongly nonlocal UPB given by Eq. (4).

Proposition 7 In 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4, the strongly nonlocal UPB ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} given by Eq. (4) can be locally
distinguished by using {(1, |Φ(2)i)A,B , (0, |Φ(d2 )i)A,C , (1, |Φ(2)i)B,C } for any positive d2 , which consumes 2 ebits of
entanglement resource.
The proof of Proposition 7 is given in Appendix D. If we only use the teleportation-based pro-
tocol [55, 58], the strongly nonlocal UPB given by Eq. (4) can be locally distinguished by using
{(1, |Φ(3)i)A,B , (0, |Φ(d2 )i)A,C , (1, |Φ(3)i)B,C }, which consumes 2 log2 3 ebits of entanglement resource. Thus the
protocol in Proposition 7 consumes less entanglement resource than the teleportation-based protocol.

V. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In this work, we have constructed a series of strongly nonlocal UPBs of different sizes in any possible three and
four-partite systems. We have also proposed an entanglement-assisted protocol for local discrimination of the strongly
nonlocal UPB in 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 4. All of our UPBs of large sizes can be used to construct PPT entangled states with small
dA dB dC −8
rank. For example, in Proposition 4, for a normalized UPB {|ψi i}i=1 in dA ⊗ dB ⊗ dC for 3 ≤ dA ≤ dB ≤ dC ,
the mixed state
B dC −8
dA dX
1
ρ= (I − |ψi ihψi |)
8 i=1

is a PPT entangled state with rank 8. Further our UPBs of large sizes can be also used for low-rank noisy bound
entangled states which satisfy the range criterion [60]. Bipartite noisy bound entangled states that satisfy the range
criterion were shown in [61]. There are some open questions left. Whether UPBs with the minimum size can show
strong quantum nonlocality? Whether one can generalize our constructions on d1 ⊗ d2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ dn for n ≥ 5?

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for providing many useful suggestions which have greatly improved
the presentation of our paper. F.S. and X.Z. were supported by the NSFC under Grants No. 11771419 and No.
12171452, the Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies under Grant No. AHY150200, and the National
Key Research and Development Program of China 2020YFA0713100. M.-S.L. was supported by NSFC (Grants No.
12005092) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2020M681996). L.C. was supported by the NNSF of China
(Grant No. 11871089), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. ZG216S2005).

Appendix A: The proof of Proposition 4

Proof. For the same discussion as Example 3, we can assume that |ψi is a product state in the complementary
space of the space spanned by the states in ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si}. Then we consider the matrix form of |ψi in
A|BC and AB|C bipartitions. First, we consider A|BC bipartition. We have
 
a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 e ··· e b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
 . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. ..
M =
 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,
 (A1)
a a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 e ··· e b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
0
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1
 9

and

rank(M ) = 1, sum(M ) = 0. (A2)

Then we consider AB|C bipartition. We can rearrange the first row of M to the dB × dC matrix M(dA −1) through
(AB, C) coordinates of M , and rearrange the last row of M to the dB × dC matrix M0 through (AB, C) coordinates
of M , where
 
c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 c0 c0 · · · c0 b0 
. . . . .. .. 
M(dA −1) =
 .. .. . . 
. , rank(M(dA −1) ) = 0 or 1, (A3)
c c · · · c0 b 
0 0 0
a0 a0 · · · a0 b0

and
 
b1 a1 · · · a1 a1
 b1 c1 · · · c1 c1 
. . . . .. .. 
M0 = 
 .. .. . . 
. , rank(M0 ) = 0 or 1. (A4)
b c · · · c1 c 
1 1 1
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1

For the same proof as Example 3, we can show that M do not exist by Eqs. (A2), (A3) and (A4). Thus |ψi must be
an entangled state, and ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si} is a UPB. t
u

Appendix B: The proof of Proposition 5

Proof. First of all, we need to introduce some notations which have been introduced by [45]. Let S =
{|ψ1 iA |ψ2 iB |ψ3 i} be a tripartite orthogonal product set. Define

S(|ψiA ) := {|ψ2 iB |ψ3 iC : |ψiA |ψ2 iB |ψ3 iC ∈ S}.

Moreover, define S (A) = {|jiB |kiC : j, k ∈ Zn } as the support of S(|ψiA ) which spans S(|ψiA ). For ex-
ample, in Eq. (4), A1 := {|ξi iA |0iB |ηj iC : (i, j) 6= (0, 0) ∈ Z2 × Z3 }. Then A1 (|ξ1 iA ) = {|0iA |ηj iC }j∈Z3 ,
(A) (A) (A) (A)
A1 = {|0iB |0iC , |0iB |1iC , |0iB |2iC }, and A1 (|ξ1 iA ) is spanned by A1 . Actually, Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F (A)
in Eq. (4) can be easily observed by Fig. 1. They are the projection sets of Ai , Bi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), F in BC party in
Fig. 1. Now, we give three steps for the proof.
Step 1 Since hξ1 |η1 iA 6= 0, applying Block Zeros Lemma to any two elements of {A1 (|ξ1 iA ), A2 (|ξ1 iA ), B2 (|η1 iA ),
B1 (|η1 iA )}, we obtain

Ai
(A) EA(A) = 0, (A)
Ai
EB(A) = 0, Bk
(A) EB(A) = 0, Bk
(A) EA(A) = 0, (B1)
j k ` i

for 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 2, 1 ≤ k 6= ` ≤ 2. Note that if dA = 3, |βi iA must be |β0 iA in F. So we can not apply Block Zeros
Lemma to F(|β1 iA ) and A1 (|ξ1 iA ). In order to obtain F (A) EA(A) = 0, we consider A3 (|dA − 1iA ) and A1 (|ξ1 iA ).
1
Then for (j, k) ∈ ZdB −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}, and i ∈ ZdC −1 , we have
! ! !
B −2
dX C −2
dX C −2
dX

B hξj |C hηk |E|0iB |ηi iC = B wd−jt 1

B −1
ht1 + 1| C wd−kt 2
C −1
ht2 | E|0iB wditC3 −1 |t3 i = 0. (B2)
t1 =0 t2 =0 t3 =0 C

We have shown that B hj + 1|C h0|E|0iB |iiC = 0 for j ∈ ZdB −1 , i ∈ ZdC −1 , and B hdB − 1|C hk + 1|E|0iB |iiC = 0 for
k, i ∈ ZdC −1 by Eq. (B1). Then Eq. (B2) can be expressed by
! ! !
B −3
dX C −2
dX dXC −2
−jt1
B wdB −1 ht1 + 1| C wd−kt 2
C −1
ht2 | E|0iB wditC3 −1 |t3 i = 0,
t1 =0 t2 =1 t3 =0 C
10

i.e.
B −3 dX
dX C −2 dX
C −2

wd−jt 1
B −1
wd−kt 2
C −1
wditC3 −1 B ht1 + 1|C ht2 |E|0iB |t3 iC = 0,
t1 =0 t2 =1 t3 =0

for any 0 ≤ j ≤ dB − 3, 1 ≤ k ≤ dC − 2, 0 ≤ i ≤ dC − 2. It means that

[H1† ⊗ H2† ⊗ H3 ]X = 0,

where
   (d −2) 
1 1 ··· 1 wdC −1 wd2C −1 · · · wdCC−1
1 w · · · wdBB−1 
(d −3)  2 2(dC −2) 
 dB −1   wdC −1 wd4C −1 · · · wdC −1 
H1 = 
 .. .. .. .. ,


H2 =  .. .. .. .. ,

. . . .   . . . . 
2
(d −3) (d −3) (dC −2) 2(dC −2) (dC −2)2
1 wdBB−1 · · · wdBB−1 wdC −1 wdC −1 · · · wdC −1

H3 = (wdijC −1 )i,j∈ZdC −1 and X is a column vector,

X = (B ht1 + 1|C ht2 |E|0iB |t3 iC ){0≤t1 ≤dB −3, 1≤t2 ≤dC −2, 0≤t3 ≤dC −2} .

Since H1 , H2 , H3 are all full-rank matrices, it implies that H1† ⊗ H2† ⊗ H3 is a full-rank matrix. Then X = 0, i.e.

B ht1 + 1|C ht2 |E|0iB |t3 iC = 0, for 0 ≤ t1 ≤ dB − 3, 1 ≤ t2 ≤ dC − 2, 0 ≤ t3 ≤ dC − 2.

It also means that

F (A) EA(A) = 0. (B3)

1

By using A3 (|dA − 1iA ) and A2 (|ξ1 iA ), we can also show that

F (A) EA(A) =0 (B4)

2

by the similar discussion as above. Further, by the symmetry of Fig. 2, we can also obtain that

F (A) EB(A) = 0, F (A) EB(A) = 0. (B5)

1 2

Thus, by Eqs. (B1), (B3), (B4) and (B5), E is a block diagonal matrix. It can be expressed by

E = EA(A) ⊕ EA(A) ⊕ EF (A) ⊕ EB(A) ⊕ EB(A) . (B6)

1 2 2 1

Step 2 Considering |Si and {|β0 iA |βj iB |βk iC }(j,k)∈ZdB −2 ×ZdC −2 \{(0,0)} ⊂ F, where dC ≥ 4, then by Eq. (B6), we
have
! ! ! !
B −1
dX C −1
dX B −2
dX C −2
dX

B hi1 | C hi2 | E|βj iB |βk iC = B hi1 | C hi2 | E|βj iB |βk iC = 0,

i1 =0 i2 =0 i1 =1 i2 =1

for (j, k) ∈ ZdB −2 × ZdC −2 \ {(0, 0)}. Moreover, we have

! !
B −2
dX C −2
dX
|i1 i |i2 i = |β0 iB |β0 iC .
i1 =1 B i2 =1 C

Therefore, by using the states in {|Si} ∪ {|β0 iA |βj iB |βk iC }(j,k)∈ZdB −2 ×ZdC −2 \ {(0, 0)}, we obtain

B hβi |C hβj |E|βk iB |β` iC = 0, for (i, j) 6= (k, `) ∈ ZdB −2 × ZdC −2 . (B7)

By Eq. (B7), there exists a real number es,t (E † = E) for (s, t) ∈ ZdB −2 × ZdC −2 , such that
B −3 dX
dX C −3

EF (A) = es,t |βs iB hβs | ⊗ |βt iC hβt |. (B8)

s=0 t=0
 11

Note that Eq. (B8) also holds for dC = 3 (in this case, EF (A) = e0,0 |β0 iB hβ0 | ⊗ |β0 iC hβ0 |, and |β0 iX = |1iX for
X ∈ {B, C}). Next, by using the states in A1 (|ξ1 iA ), we have

B h0|C hηi |E|0iB |ηj iC = 0, for i 6= j ∈ ZdC −1 .

Then there exists a real number as for s ∈ ZdC −1 such that

C −2
dX
EA(A) = as |0iB h0| ⊗ |ηs iC hηs |.
1
s=0

In the same way, there exist real numbers as , bs , ct , dt , es,t such that the operator
C −2
dX B −2
dX B −3 dX
dX C −3

E= as |0iB h0| ⊗ |ηs iC hηs | + bs |ηs iB hηs | ⊗ |dC − 1iC hdC − 1| + es,t |βs iB hβs | ⊗ |βt iC hβt |
s=0 s=0 s=0 t=0
(B9)
B −2
dX C −2
dX
+ ct |ξt iB hξt | ⊗ |0iC h0| + dt |dB − 1iB hdB − 1| ⊗ |ξt iC hξt |.
t=0 t=0

By using those states {|0iA |ηi iB |ξj iC }(i,j)∈ZdB −1 ×ZdC −1 \{(0,0)} = B3 , we can show that

B hηk |C hξ` |E|ηi iB |ξj iC = 0, for (k, `) 6= (i, j) ∈ ZdB −1 × ZdC −1 \ {(0, 0)}.

Assume k = 0, ` 6= 0, i 6= 0, j = 0. By Eq. (B9), we have

0 =B hη0 |C hξ` |E|ηi iB |ξ0 iC

C −2
dX B −3 dX
dX C −3

= as hη0 |0iB h0|ηi iB hξ` |ηs iC hηs |ξ0 iC + es,t hη0 |βs iB hβs |ηi iB hξ` |βt iC hβt |ξ0 iC
s=0 s=0 t=0 (B10)
C −2
dX
= as hξ` |ηs iC hηs |ξ0 iC + wd` C −1 (dB − 2)(dC − 2)e0,0 .
s=0

There are three cases for the terms in the summation of the last equality.
(a) If s = 0, then
C −2
dX
−(n−1)`
hξ` |η0 iC hη0 |ξ0 iC = (dC − 2) wdC −1 = −(dC − 2)wd` C −1 .
n=1

(b) If s = `, then
C −2
dX
hξ` |η` iC hη` |ξ0 iC = − wd` C −1 = −(dC − 2)wd` C −1 .
n=1

(c) If s 6= 0, `, then
C −2
dX C −2
dX
ns−(n−1)` (s−`)n
hξ` |ηs iC hηs |ξ0 iC = − wdC −1 = −wd` C −1 wdC −1 = wd` C −1 .
n=1 n=1

Thus by Eq. (B10), we have

C −2
dX
as − (dC − 1)(a0 + a` ) + (dB − 2)(dC − 2)e0,0 = 0. (B11)
s=0

Since ` 6= 0 ∈ ZdC −1 , we must have a1 = a2 = · · · = adC −2 . Then Eq. (B11) can be expressed by

− (dC − 2)a0 − a1 + (dB − 2)(dC − 2)e0,0 = 0. (B12)

12

Further, by using the states |Si, |0iA |η1 iB |ξ0 i ∈ B3 and Eq. (B9) we obtain
! !
B −1
dX B −1
dX

B hi1 | C hi2 | E|η1 iB |ξ0 iC = (dC − 1)(dC − 2)a0 − (dB − 2)(dC − 2)2 e0,0 = 0,
i1 =0 i2 =0

i,e.

(dC − 1)a0 − (dB − 2)(dC − 2)e0,0 = 0. (B13)

Then, by Eqs. (B12) and (B13), it implies a0 = a1 . Thus a0 = a1 = . . . = adC −2 = k. It means that the operator

C −2
dX
EA(A) = k |0iB h0| ⊗ |ηs iC hηs |,
1
s=0

which is equivalent to

EA(A) = kIA(A) . (B14)

1 1

Step 3 Considering |Si and {|0iA |ηi iB |ξj iC }(i,j)∈ZdB −1 ×ZdC −1 \{(0,0)} = B3 . By using Eqs. (B6) and (B14), we have
! ! ! !
B −1
dX C −1
dX B −2
dX C −1
dX

B hi1 | C hi2 | E|ηi iB |ξj iC = B hi1 | C hi2 | E|ηi iB |ξj iC = 0.

i1 =0 i2 =0 i1 =0 i2 =1

Moreover, we have
! !
B −2
dX C −1
dX
|i1 i |i2 i = |η0 iB |ξ0 iC .
i1 =0 B i2 =1 C

Therefore, by using the states {|Si} ∪ {|0iA |ηi iB |ξj iC }(i,j)∈ZdB −1 ×ZdC −1 \{(0,0)} , we have

B hηk |C hξ` |E|ηi iB |ξj iC = 0, for (k, `) 6= (i, j) ∈ ZdB −1 × ZdC −1 .

(A) (A)
For any |jiB |kiC ∈ A1 ∩ B3 , we have {|jiB |kiC } EB(A) \{|jiB |kiC } = 0 by Eqs. (B6) and (B14). Applying Block
3
Trivial Lemma to {|ηi iB |ξj iC }(i,j)∈ZdB −1 ×ZdC −1 , we have

EB(A) = k1 IB(A) . (B15)

3 3

(A) (A)
Since A1 ∩ B3 6= ∅, it implies k = k1 . Thus, by Eqs. (B14) and (B15), we obtain

EA(A) ∪B(A) = kIA(A) ∪B(A) .

1 3 1 3

By the symmetry of Fig. 2, we can obtain E = kI. Thus, E is trivial. t

u

Appendix C: The proof of Theorem 6

Proof. First, we need to show that U is a UPB. For the same discussion as Proposition 4, we can obtain the
matrices,
 
a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 c0 ··· c0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
 .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. ..
M (dA )
=
 . . . . . . . M (dA −2) . . . . . . .
,

a a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
0
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 c1 ··· c1 b1 · · · b1 a1 . . . a1 a1
 13
 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 c0 ··· c0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
 . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. 
M (dA −2) =
 .. . . . . . .. M (dA −4) . . . . . .. .
,

 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 b1 b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 c1 ··· c1 b1 · · · b1 a1 . . . a1 a1

..
.

 (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)

a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) 
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 e(s) · · · e(s) b1 · · · b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
 .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. 
M (dA −2s) =
 . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .
,

 (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) 
 a0 a0 · · · a0 b0 · · · b0 e(s) · · · e(s) b1 b1 a1 · · · a1 a1 
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 c1 · · · c1 b1 · · · b1 a1 . . . a1 a1

where M (dA −2s) is similar to M of Eq. (A1) in Proposition 4. Next, we have

rank(M (dA ) ) = 1, sum(M (dA ) ) = 0. (C1)

Then we consider AB|C bipartition. We can rearrange the first row of M (dA ) to the dB × dC matrix M(dA −1) through
(AB, C) coordinates of M (dA ) , and rearrange the last row of M (dA ) to the dB × dC matrix M0 through (AB, C)
coordinates of M (dA ) , where
 
c0 c0 · · · c0 d0
 c0 c0 · · · c0 b0 
. . . . .. .. 
M(dA −1) =
 .. .. . . 
. , rank(M(dA −1) ) = 0 or 1, (C2)
c c · · · c0 b 
0 0 0
a0 a0 · · · a0 b0

and
 
b1 a 1 · · · a1 a1
 b1 c1 · · · c1 c1 
. . . . .. .. 
M0 = 
 .. .. . . 
. , rank(M0 ) = 0 or 1. (C3)
b c · · · c1 c 
1 1 1
d1 c1 · · · c1 c1

For the same proof of Example 3, we can show that a0 = a1 = b0 = b1 = c0 = c1 = d0 = d1 = 0 by Eqs. (C1), (C2),
and (C3). Then we obtain that

rank(M (dA −2) ) = 1, sum(M (dA −2) ) = 0. (C4)

We can rearrange the second row of M (dA ) to the dB × dC matrix M(dA −2) through (AB, C) coordinates of M (dA ) ,
and rearrange the last but two row of M (dA ) to the dB × dC matrix M1 through (AB, C) coordinates of M (dA ) , where
 
0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0
0 c(1) c(1) · · · c(1) d(1) 0
 0 0 0 0 
 (1) (1) (1) (1) 
0 c0 c0 · · · c0 b0 0
. . .. . . . .. .. 
M(dA −2) = 
 .. .. . . .. 
. .  , rank(MdA −2 ) = 0 or 1, (C5)
 (1) (1) (1) (1) 
0 c0 c0 · · · c0 b0 0
 
0 a(1) a(1) · · · a(1) b(1) 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0
14

and
 
0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0
0 (1)
b0 a0
(1) (1)
· · · a0
(1)
a0 0
 
 (1) (1) (1) (1) 
0 b0 c0 · · · c0 c0 0
. .. .. .. . .. .. 
M1 = 
 .. . . . .. .

. , rank(M1 ) = 0 or 1. (C6)
 (1) (1) (1) (1) 
0 b0 c0 · · · c0 c0 0
 
0 (1)
d0 c0
(1) (1)
· · · c0
(1)
c0 0
0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Similarly, we can also show that a0 = a1 = b0 = b1 = c0 = c1 = d0 = d1 = 0 by Eqs. (C4), (C5), and (C6).
Repeating this process s times, then we obtain that
rank(M (dA −2s) ) = 1, sum(M (dA −2s) ) = 0. (C7)
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
Since M (dA −2s) is similar to M of Eq. (A1) in Proposition 4, and we can show that a0 = a1 = b0 = b1 = c0 =
(s) (s) (s)
c1 = d0 = d1 = e(s) = 0 by the proof of Proposition 4. Thus we obtain that M (dA ) is a zero matrix, and it is
impossible for rank(M (dA ) ) = 1.
We can obtain that U is strongly nonlocal by induction on t along with Proposition 5. t
u

Appendix D: The proof of Proposition 7

Proof. We denote |Φ(2)iA,B as |Φ(2)ia,b1 , and |Φ(2)iB,C as |Φ(2)ib2 ,c . Assume that |Φ(2)ia,b1 is distributed
between Alice and Bob, and |Φ(2)ib2 ,c is distributed between Bob and Charlie. The initial states are
|ψiA,B,C (|0ia |0ib1 + |1ia |1ib1 )(|0ib2 |0ic + |1ib2 |1ic ), (D1)
for |ψiA,B,C ∈ ∪3i=1 (Ai ∪ Bi ) ∪ F ∪ {|Si}, where a is the ancillary system of Alice, b1 and b2 are
the ancillary systems of Bob, and c is the ancillary system of Charlie. Denote P [|ii♠ ] := |iihi|♠ ,
P [(|i1 i, |i2 i, . . . , ir )♠ ; (|j1 i, |j2 i, . . . , |js i)♣ ; (|k1 i, |k2 i, . . . , |kt i)♦ ] := (|i1 ihi1 |+|i2 ihi2 |+· · ·+|ir ihir |)♠ ⊗(|j1 ihj1 |+|j2 ihj2 |+
· · · + |js ihjs |)♣ ⊗ (|k1 ihk1 | + |k2 ihk2 | + · · · + |kt ihkt |)♦ . Now the discrimination protocol proceeds as follows.
Step 1. Alice performs the measurement {M1 := P [(|0i, |1i)A ; |0ia ] + P [|2iA ; |1ia ], M1 := I − M1 }. Charlie performs
the measurement {L1 := P [(|1i, |2i, |3i)C ; |0ic ] + P [|0iC ; |1ic ], L1 := I − L1 }. If M1 and L1 clicks (it means that the
operators M1 and L1 act on the states in Eq. (D1)), the resulting postmeasurement states are
|ψ1 (0, 1)i →|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ |1iA |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (0, 2)i →|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ |1iA |0iB (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA |0iB (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 0)i →|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic − |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ |1iA |0iB (|1i + |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic − |2iA |0iB (|1i + |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 1)i →|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic − |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ |1iA |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic − |2iA |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 2)i →|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic − |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic (D2)
+ |1iA |0iB (w32 |1i
+ w3 |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic − |2iA |0iB (w32 |1i
+ w3 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ2 (0, 1)i →|1iA (|0i − |1i)B |3iC |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA (|0i − |1i)B |3iC |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ2 (1, 0)i →|1iA (|0i + |1i)B |3iC |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic − |2iA (|0i + |1i)B |3iC |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ2 (1, 1)i →|1iA (|0i − |1i)B |3iC |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic − |2iA (|0i − |1i)B |3iC |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ3 (0, 1)i →|2iA (|1i + |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|1i + |2i)B (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ3 (0, 2)i →|2iA (|1i + |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|1i + |2i)B (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ3 (1, 0)i →|2iA (|1i − |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|1i − |2i)B (|1i + |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ3 (1, 1)i →|2iA (|1i − |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|1i − |2i)B (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
 15

|ψ3 (1, 2)i →|2iA (|1i − |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|1i − |2i)B (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ1 (0, 1)i →(|0i + |1i)A |2iB (|1i + w3 |2i + w32 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ1 (0, 2)i →(|0i + |1i)A |2iB (|1i + w32 |2i + w3 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ1 (1, 0)i →(|0i − |1i)A |2iB (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ1 (1, 1)i →(|0i − |1i)A |2iB (|1i + w3 |2i + w32 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ1 (1, 2)i →(|0i − |1i)A |2iB (|1i + w32 |2i + w3 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ2 (0, 1)i →(|0i + |1i)A (|1i − |2i)B |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic ,
|φ2 (1, 0)i →(|0i − |1i)A (|1i + |2i)B |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic ,
|φ2 (1, 1)i →(|0i − |1i)A (|1i − |2i)B |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic ,
|φ3 (0, 1)i →|0iA (|0i + |1i)B (|1i + w3 |2i + w32 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ3 (0, 2)i →|0iA (|0i + |1i)B (|1i + w32 |2i + w3 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ3 (1, 0)i →|0iA (|0i − |1i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ3 (1, 1)i →|0iA (|0i − |1i)B (|1i + w3 |2i + w32 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|φ3 (1, 2)i →|0iA (|0i − |1i)B (|1i + w32 |2i + w3 |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ϕ(1)i →|1iA |1iB (|1i − |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|Si →(|0i + |1i)A (|0i + |1i + |2i)B |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +
(|0i + |1i)A (|0i + |1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic
+|2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic .

Step 2. Bob performs the measurement {M2,1 := P [|2iB ; |0ib1 ; |0ib2 ], M2,2 := P [(|1i − |2i)B ; |0ib1 ; |1ib2 ], M2,3 :=
P3
P [(|1i + |2i)B ; |0ib1 ; |1ib2 ], M2 := I − j=1 M2,j }. If M2,1 clicks (it means that the operator M2,1 acts on the states
in Eq. (D2)), then the postmeasurement states are {|φ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , and |Si → (|0i + |1i)A |2iB (|1i +
|2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic . Then Alice performs the measurement {M2,1,1 := P [(|0i − |1i)A ], M2,1,1 = I − M2,1,1 }.
If M2,1,1 clicks (it means that the operator M2,1,1 acts on the states {|φ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 and |Si), then
the postmeasurement states are {|φ1 (1, j)i}j∈Z3 , which are locally distinguishable; if M2,1,1 clicks, then the post-
measurement states are {|φ1 (0, j)i}j6=0∈Z3 and |Si that are locally distinguishable. Next, if M2,2 clicks, then
the postmeasurement states are {|φ2 (i, 1)i}i∈Z2 that are locally distinguishable; if M2,3 clicks, then the postmea-
surement states are |φ2 (1, 0)i and |Si → (|0i + |1i)A (|1i + |2i)B |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic that are locally distinguish-
able; if M2 clicks, then the postmeasurement states are {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|ψ2 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z2 ,
{|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|φ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si → (|0i + |1i)A |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +
|2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + (|0i + |1i)A (|0i + |1i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA (|0i +
|1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic .
Step 3. Alice performs the measurement {M3 := P [|0iA ], M3 = I − M3 }. If M3 clicks
(it means that the operator M3 acts on the states {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|ψ2 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z2 ,
{|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|φ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si), then the postmeasurement states are
{|φ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 and |Si → |0iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +|0iA (|0i+|1i)B (|1i+|2i+|3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
which are locally distinguishable; if M3 clicks, then the postmeasurement states are {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 ,
{ψ2 (i, j)}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z2 , {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i, and |Si → |1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA (|0i +
|1i + |2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |1iA (|0i + |1i)B (|1i + |2i + |3i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i +
|3i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic .
Step 4. Charlie performs the measurement {M4 := P [|3iC ], M4 = I − M4 }. If M4 clicks (it means that the
operator M4 acts on the states {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|ψ2 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z2 , {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 ,
|ϕ(1)i and |Si), then then the postmeasurement states are {ψ2 (i, j)}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z2 , and |Si → |1iA (|0i +
|1i)B |3iC |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B |3iC |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic , which are locally distinguishable; if M4
clicks, then the postmeasurement states are {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si →
|1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +|2iA (|0i+|1i+|2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +|1iA (|0i+|1i)B (|1i+|2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic +
|2iA (|0i + |1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic .
Step 5. Bob performs the measurement {M5 := P [|0iB ], M5 = I − M5 }. If M5 clicks (it means that the operator
M5 acts on the states {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si), then the postmeasure-
ment states are {|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 and |Si → |1iA |0iB |0iC |0ia |0ib1 |1ib2 |1ic + |2iA |0iB |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +
|1iA |0iB (|1i + |2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA |0iB (|1i + |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic . Then, Alice performs the measurement
{M5,1 := P [(|0i + |1i)a ], M5,1 = P [(|0i − |1i)a ]}. Bob performs the measurement {M5,2 := P [(|0i + |1i)b1 ], M5,2 =
16

P [(|0i − |1i)b1 ]}. If M5,1 and M5,2 clicks (It means that the operators M5,1 and M5,2 act on the states
{|ψ1 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 and |Si ), then the postmeasurement states are

|ψ1 (0, 1)i →(|1i + |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i + |2i)A |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (0, 2)i →(|1i + |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i + |2i)A |0iB (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 0)i →(|1i − |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i − |2i)A |0iB (|1i + |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 1)i →(|1i − |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i − |2i)A |0iB (w3 |1i + w32 |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|ψ1 (1, 2)i →(|1i − |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i − |2i)A |0iB (w32 |1i + w3 |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,
|Si →(|1i + |2i)A |0iB |0iC (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |1ib2 |1ic
+ (|1i + |2i)A |0iB (|1i + |2i)C (|0i + |1i)a (|0i + |1i)b1 |0ib2 |0ic ,

which can be easily locally distinguished. All other cases obtain a similar protocol. If M5 clicks, then the postmea-
surement states are {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si → |2iA (|1i+|2i)B |0iC |1ia |1ib1 |1ib2 |1ic +|1iA |1iB (|1i+
|2i)C |0ia |0ib1 |0ib2 |0ic + |2iA (|1i + |2i)B (|1i + |2i)C |1ia |1ib1 |0ib2 |0ic .
Step 6. Alice performs the measurement {M6 := P [|0iA ], M6 = I − M6 }. If M6 clicks (it means that the
operator M6 acts on the states {|ψ3 (i, j)i}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 , |ϕ(1)i and |Si), then the postmeasurement states are
{ψ3 (i, j)}(i,j)6=(0,0)∈Z2 ×Z3 and |Si that are locally distinguishable. If M6 clicks, then the postmeasurement state is
|ϕ(1)i.
All other cases in step 1 obtain a similar protocol. This completes the proof. t
u

[1] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK, 2004.
[2] B. M. Terhal, D. P. Divincenzo, and D. Leung, “Hiding bits in bell states.” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 86, no. 25, pp. 5807–5810,
2001.
[3] D. P. Divincenzo, D. Leung, and B. M. Terhal, “Quantum data hiding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, no. 3, pp.
580–598, 2002.
[4] T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, “Hiding classical data in multipartite quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 89, no. 9, p.
097905, 2002.
[5] W. Matthews, S. Wehner, and A. Winter, “Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements
with an application to quantum data hiding,” Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 291, no. 3, pp. p.813–843, 2009.
[6] D. Markham and B. C. Sanders, “Graph states for quantum secret sharing,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 144–144,
2008.
[7] M. Hillery, V. Buzek, and A. Berthiaume, “Quantum secret sharing,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 59, p. 1829, 1999.
[8] R. Rahaman and M. G. Parker, “Quantum scheme for secret sharing based on local distinguishability,” Phys. Rev. A,
vol. 91, p. 022330, 2015.
[9] C. H. Bennett, D. P. Divincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters,
“Quantum nonlocality without entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1070–1091, 1999.
[10] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Reviews of modern physics,
vol. 81, no. 2, p. 865, 2009.
[11] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 86,
no. 2, p. 419, 2014.
[12] D. P. Divincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, “Unextendible product bases, uncompletable
product bases and bound entanglement,” Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 238, no. 3, pp. 379–410, 2003.
[13] Y. Feng and Y. Shi, “Characterizing locally indistinguishable orthogonal product states,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55,
no. 6, pp. p.2799–2806, 2009.
[14] J. Niset and N. J. Cerf, “Multipartite nonlocality without entanglement in many dimensions,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 74, p.
052103, 2006.
[15] Y. Yang, F. Gao, G. Tian, T. Cao, and Q. Wen, “Local distinguishability of orthogonal quantum states in a 2⊗2⊗2
system,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 88, no. 2, p. 024301, 2013.
 17

[16] S. Halder, “Several nonlocal sets of multipartite pure orthogonal product states,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 98, p. 022303, 2018.
[17] G. Xu, Q. Wen, F. Gao, S. Qin, and H. Zuo, “Local indistinguishability of multipartite orthogonal product bases,” Quantum
Inf. Process., vol. 16, no. 11, p. 276, 2017.
[18] Y.-L. Wang, M.-S. Li, Z.-J. Zheng, and S.-M. Fei, “The local indistinguishability of multipartite product states,” Quantum
Inf. Process., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017.
[19] Z.-C. Zhang, K.-J. Zhang, F. Gao, Q.-Y. Wen, and C. H. Oh, “Construction of nonlocal multipartite quantum states,”
Phys. Rev. A, vol. 95, p. 052344, 2017.
[20] S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, and D. Sarkar, “Distinguishability of maximally entangled states,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 70, p.
022304, 2004.
[21] H. Fan, “Distinguishability and indistinguishability by local operations and classical communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.,
vol. 92, p. 177905, 2004.
[22] M. Nathanson, “Distinguishing bipartitite orthogonal states using locc: Best and worst cases,” J. Math. Phys, vol. 46,
no. 6, p. 062103, 2005.
[23] N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, “Any 2 ⊗ n subspace is locally distinguishable,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 84, p. 012304, 2011.
[24] R. Duan, Y. Feng, Z. Ji, and M. Ying, “Distinguishing arbitrary multipartite basis unambiguously using local operations
and classical communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 98, p. 230502, 2007.
[25] S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Ghosh, and G. Kar, “Locc distinguishability of unilaterally transformable quantum states,” New J.
Phys., vol. 13, no. 12, p. 123013, 2011.
[26] A. Cosentino, “Positive-partial-transpose-indistinguishable states via semidefinite programming,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 87,
no. 1, 2013.
[27] N. Yu, R. Duan, and M. Ying, “Four locally indistinguishable ququad-ququad orthogonal maximally entangled states,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 109, no. 2, p. 020506, 2012.
[28] S. Bandyopadhyay, “Entanglement, mixedness, and perfect local discrimination of orthogonal quantum states,” Phys. Rev.
A, vol. 85, p. 042319, 2012.
[29] Y.-L. Wang, M.-S. Li, Z.-J. Zheng, and S.-M. Fei, “Nonlocality of orthogonal product-basis quantum states,” Phys. Rev.
A, vol. 92, p. 032313, 2015.
[30] M.-S. Li, Y.-L. Wang, F. Shi, and M.-H. Yung, “Local distinguishability based genuinely quantum nonlocality without
entanglement,” arXiv:2011.10286, 2020.
[31] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, “Unextendible product bases and
bound entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 82, no. 26, p. 5385, 1999.
[32] S. De Rinaldis, “Distinguishability of complete and unextendible product bases,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 70, no. 2, p. 022309,
2004.
[33] S. Halder, M. Banik, and S. Ghosh, “Family of bound entangled states on the boundary of the Peres set,” Physical Review
A, vol. 99, no. 6, p. 062329, 2019.
[34] J. Tura, R. Augusiak, P. Hyllus, M. Kuś, J. Samsonowicz, and M. Lewenstein, “Four-qubit entangled symmetric states
with positive partial transpositions,” Physical Review A, vol. 85, no. 6, p. 060302, 2012.
[35] J. Chen, L. Chen, and B. Zeng, “Unextendible product basis for fermionic systems,” Journal of Mathematical Physics,
vol. 55, no. 8, 2014.
[36] R. Augusiak, T. Fritz, M. Kotowski, M. Kotowski, M. Pawlowski, M. Lewenstein, and A. Acin, “Tight bell inequalities
with no quantum violation from qubit unextendible product bases,” Physical Review A, vol. 85, no. 4, p. 042113, 2012.
[37] R. Augusiak, J. Stasińska, C. Hadley, J. Korbicz, M. Lewenstein, and A. Acin, “Bell inequalities with no quantum violation
and unextendable product bases,” Physical review letters, vol. 107, no. 7, p. 070401, 2011.
[38] N. Alon and L. Lovász, “Unextendible product bases,” Journal of combinatorial theory. Series A, vol. 95, no. 1, pp.
169–179, 2001.
[39] K. Feng, “Unextendible product bases and 1-factorization of complete graphs,” Discrete Appl. Math., vol. 154, pp. 942–949,
2006.
[40] N. Johnston, “The minimum size of qubit unextendible product bases,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.1604, 2013.
[41] J. Chen and N. Johnston, “The minimum size of unextendible product bases in the bipartite case (and some multipartite
cases),” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 333, no. 1, pp. 351–365, 2013.
[42] S. Halder, M. Banik, S. Agrawal, and S. Bandyopadhyay, “Strong quantum nonlocality without entanglement,” Phys. Rev.
Lett., vol. 122, no. 4, p. 040403, 2019.
[43] P. Yuan, G. Tian, and X. Sun, “Strong quantum nonlocality without entanglement in multipartite quantum systems,”
Phys. Rev. A, vol. 102, p. 042228, 2020.
[44] F. Shi, M.-S. Li, M. Hu, L. Chen, M.-H. Yung, Y.-L. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Strong quantum nonlocality from hypercubes,”
arXiv:2110.08461, 2021.
[45] ——, “Strongly nonlocal unextendible product bases do exist,” arXiv:2101.00735v2, 2021.
[46] S. Agrawal, S. Halder, and M. Banik, “Genuinely entangled subspace with all-encompassing distillable entanglement across
every bipartition,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, no. 3, 2019.
[47] F. Shi, M. Hu, L. Chen, and X. Zhang, “Strong quantum nonlocality with entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 102, p.
042202, 2020.
[48] Y.-L. Wang, M.-S. Li, and M.-H. Yung, “Graph connectivity based strong quantum nonlocality with genuine entanglement,”
Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 1, p. 012424, 2021.
[49] S. M. Cohen, “Understanding entanglement as resource: Locally distinguishing unextendible product bases,” Phys. Rev.
A, vol. 77, no. 1, p. 012304, 2008.
18

[50] S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, A. Sen, U. Sen et al., “Distinguishability of bell states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 87, no. 27, p.
277902, 2001.
[51] S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Halder, and M. Nathanson, “Entanglement as a resource for local state discrimination in multipartite
systems,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 022311, 2016.
[52] Z.-C. Zhang, F. Gao, T.-Q. Cao, S.-J. Qin, and Q.-Y. Wen, “Entanglement as a resource to distinguish orthogonal product
states,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2016.
[53] Ö. Güngör and S. Turgut, “Entanglement-assisted state discrimination and entanglement preservation,” Phys. Rev. A,
vol. 94, no. 3, p. 032330, 2016.
[54] Z.-C. Zhang, Y.-Q. Song, T.-T. Song, F. Gao, S.-J. Qin, and Q.-Y. Wen, “Local distinguishability of orthogonal quantum
states with multiple copies of 2⊗2 maximally entangled states,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 97, no. 2, p. 022334, 2018.
[55] S. Rout, A. G. Maity, A. Mukherjee, S. Halder, and M. Banik, “Genuinely nonlocal product bases: Classification and
entanglement-assisted discrimination,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 100, no. 3, p. 032321, 2019.
[56] Z.-C. Zhang, X. Wu, and X. Zhang, “Locally distinguishing unextendible product bases by using entanglement efficiently,”
Phys. Rev. A, vol. 101, no. 2, p. 022306, 2020.
[57] F. Shi, X. Zhang, and L. Chen, “Unextendible product bases from tile structures and their local entanglement-assisted
distinguishability,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 101, no. 6, p. 062329, 2020.
[58] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum
state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,” vol. 70, no. 13, 1993, p. 1895.
[59] F. Shi, M.-S. Li, L. Chen, and X. Zhang, “Supplementary material: strongly nonlocal four-partite UPBs,” 2021. [Online].
Available: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/∼drzhangx/papers/UPBnonunisupp.pdf
[60] P. Bej and S. Halder, “Unextendible product bases, bound entangled states, and the range criterion,” Physics Letters A,
vol. 386, p. 126992, 2021.
[61] S. Halder and R. Sengupta, “Construction of noisy bound entangled states and the range criterion,” Physics Letters A,
vol. 383, no. 17, pp. 2004–2010, 2019.