4.8 Article

Tight Analytic Bound on the Trade-Off between Device-Independent Randomness and Nonlocality

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 129, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.150403

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC via the Quantum Communications Hub
  2. [EP/T001011/1]
  3. [EP/SO23607/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two parties sharing entangled quantum systems can generate nonlocal correlations, which can be used for device-independent random number generation, and the upper bound of certifiable randomness can be quantified using the CHSH value.
Two parties sharing entangled quantum systems can generate correlations that cannot be produced using only shared classical resources. These nonlocal correlations are a fundamental feature of quantum theory but also have practical applications. For instance, they can be used for device-independent random number generation, whose security is certified independently of the operations performed inside the devices. The amount of certifiable randomness that can be generated from some given nonlocal correlations is a key quantity of interest. Here, we derive tight analytic bounds on the maximum certifiable randomness as a function of the nonlocality as expressed using the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) value. We show ffiffithat for every CHSH value greater than the local value (2) and up to 3 p /2 approximate to 2.598 there exist quantum 3 correlations with that CHSH value that certify a maximal two bits of global randomness. Beyond this CHSH value the maximum certifiable randomness drops. We give a second family of Bell inequalities p ffiffifor CHSH values above 3 3 /2, and show that they certify the maximum possible randomness for the given CHSH value. Our work hence provides an achievable upper bound on the amount of randomness that can be certified for any CHSH value. We illustrate the robustness of our results, and how they could be used to improve randomness generation rates in practice, using a Werner state noise model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据