Paper detail

More Randomness from the Same Data

Correlations that cannot be reproduced with local variables certify the generation of private randomness. Usually, the violation of a Bell inequality is used to quantify the amount of randomness produced. Here, we show how private randomness generated during a Bell test can be directly quantified from the observed correlations, without the need to process these data into an inequality. The frequency with which the different measurement settings are used during the Bell test can also be taken into account. This improved analysis turns out to be very relevant for Bell tests performed with a finite collection efficiency. In particular, applying our technique to the data of a recent experiment [Christensen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130406 (2013)], we show that about twice as much randomness as previously reported can be potentially extracted from this setup.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.