Paper detail

Naturally restricted subsets of nonsignaling correlations: typicality and convergence

It is well-known that in a Bell experiment, the observed correlation between measurement outcomes -- as predicted by quantum theory -- can be stronger than that allowed by local causality, yet not fully constrained by the principle of relativistic causality. In practice, the characterization of the set $Q$ of quantum correlations is carried out, often, through a converging hierarchy of outer approximations. On the other hand, some subsets of $Q$ arising from additional constraints [e.g., originating from quantum states having positive-partial-transposition (PPT) or being finite-dimensional maximally entangled (MES)] turn out to be also amenable to similar numerical characterizations. How, then, at a quantitative level, are all these naturally restricted subsets of nonsignaling correlations different? Here, we consider several bipartite Bell scenarios and numerically estimate their volume relative to that of the set of nonsignaling correlations. Within the number of cases investigated, we have observed that (1) for a given number of inputs $n_s$ (outputs $n_o$), the relative volume of both the Bell-local set and the quantum set increases (decreases) rapidly with increasing $n_o$ ($n_s$) (2) although the so-called macroscopically local set $Q_1$ may approximate $Q$ well in the two-input scenarios, it can be a very poor approximation of the quantum set when $n_s>n_o$ (3) the almost-quantum set $\tilde{Q}_1$ is an exceptionally-good approximation to the quantum set (4) the difference between $Q$ and the set of correlations originating from MES is most significant when $n_o=2$, whereas (5) the difference between the Bell-local set and the PPT set generally becomes more significant with increasing $n_o$. This last comparison, in particular, allows us to identify Bell scenarios where there is little hope of realizing the Bell violation by PPT states and those that deserve further exploration.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.