2022
DOI: 10.1103/physreva.105.032202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Witnessing Bell violations through probabilistic negativity

Abstract: Bell's theorem shows that no hidden-variable model can explain the measurement statistics of a quantum system shared between two parties, thus ruling out a classical (local) understanding of nature. In this work we demonstrate that by relaxing the positivity restriction in the hidden-variable probability distribution it is possible to derive quasiprobabilistic Bell inequalities whose sharp upper bound is written in terms of a negativity witness of said distribution. This provides an analytic solution for the a… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 43 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The idea of studying anomalous weak values from the perspective of anomalous quasi-probabilities has also appeared before in a less general description. From a rather broad view, negative joint quasi-probabilities are always capable of reproducing experimental data in quantum theory [27,28], but there are many such distributions capable of reproducing the strongest possible quantum correlations [29][30][31][32], a fact that somewhat disfavours those as good explanations due to fine-tuning arguments. Ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The idea of studying anomalous weak values from the perspective of anomalous quasi-probabilities has also appeared before in a less general description. From a rather broad view, negative joint quasi-probabilities are always capable of reproducing experimental data in quantum theory [27,28], but there are many such distributions capable of reproducing the strongest possible quantum correlations [29][30][31][32], a fact that somewhat disfavours those as good explanations due to fine-tuning arguments. Ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%