4.6 Article

Ruling out bipartite nonsignaling nonlocal models for tripartite correlations

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.012210

关键词

-

资金

  1. Louisiana Board of Regents
  2. LEQSF [(2019-22)-RD-A-27]
  3. NSF [1839223]
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) [1839223] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a rigorous framework for analyzing tripartite correlations that can be simulated by bipartite-only networks. The expected properties of these correlations, such as no-signaling, are confirmed to hold, and the framework is used to derive Bell-inequality-type constraints that can be robustly violated by tripartite quantum systems. Additionally, the framework is used to rederive a version of a constraint previously described in a paper by Chao and Reichardt.
Many three-party correlations, including some that are commonly described as genuinely tripartite nonlocal, can be simulated by a network of underlying subsystems that display only bipartite nonsignaling nonlocal behavior. Quantum mechanics predicts three-party correlations that admit no such simulation, suggesting there are versions of nonlocality in nature transcending the phenomenon of bipartite nonsignaling nonlocality. This paper introduces a rigorous framework for analyzing tripartite correlations that can be simulated by bipartite-only networks. We confirm that expected properties of so-obtained correlations, such as no-signaling, indeed hold, and show how to use the framework to derive Bell-inequality-type constraints on these correlations that can be robustly violated by tripartite quantum systems. In particular, we use this framework to rederive a version of one such constraint previously described in a paper of Chao and Reichardt, Test to separate quantum theory from non-signaling theories [arXiv:1706.02008 (2017)].

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

4.6
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