EPR correlations and EPW distributions revisited

It is shown that Bell's proof of violation of local realism in phase space is incorrect. Using Bell's approach, a violation can be derived also for nonnegative Wigner distributions. The error is found to lie in the use of an unnormalizable Wigner function.Comment: 7 pages, 1 figure, accepted to Phys. Lett.

Optimization of Bell's Inequality Violation For Continuous Variable Systems

Two mode squeezed vacuum states allow Bell's inequality violation (BIQV) for all non-vanishing squeezing parameter $(\zeta)$. Maximal violation occurs at $\zeta \to \infty$ when the parity of either component averages to zero. For a given entangled {\it two spin} system BIQV is optimized via orientations of the operators entering the Bell operator (cf. S. L. Braunstein, A. Mann and M. Revzen: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf68}, 3259 (1992)). We show that for finite $\zeta$ in continuous variable systems (and in general whenever the dimensionality of the subsystems is greater than 2) additional parameters are present for optimizing BIQV. Thus the expectation value of the Bell operator depends, in addition to the orientation parameters, on configuration parameters. Optimization of these configurational parameters leads to a unique maximal BIQV that depends only on $\zeta.$ The configurational parameter variation is used to show that BIQV relation to entanglement is, even for pure state, not monotonic.Comment: An example added; shows that the amount of Bell's inequality violation as a measure of entanglement is doubtfu

Optimal States for Bell inequality Violations using Quadrature Phase Homodyne Measurements

We identify what ideal correlated photon number states are to required to maximize the discrepancy between local realism and quantum mechanics when a quadrature homodyne phase measurement is used. Various Bell inequality tests are considered.Comment: 6 pages, 5 Figure

Why the Tsirelson bound?

Wheeler's question 'why the quantum' has two aspects: why is the world quantum and not classical, and why is it quantum rather than superquantum, i.e., why the Tsirelson bound for quantum correlations? I discuss a remarkable answer to this question proposed by Pawlowski et al (2009), who provide an information-theoretic derivation of the Tsirelson bound from a principle they call 'information causality.'Comment: 17 page

Maximal violation of Bell inequality for any given two-qubit pure state

In the case of bipartite two qubits systems, we derive the analytical expression of bound of Bell operator for any given pure state. Our result not only manifest some properties of Bell inequality, for example which may be violated by any pure entangled state and only be maximally violated for a maximally entangled state, but also give the explicit values of maximal violation for any pure state. Finally we point out that for two qubits systems there is no mixed state which can produce maximal violation of Bell inequality.Comment: 3 pages, 1 figure

Maximal Bell's Inequality Violation for Non Maximal Entanglement

Bell's inequality violation (BIQV) for correlations of polarization is studied for a {\it product} state of two two-mode squeezed vacuum (TMSV) states. The violation allowed is shown to attain its maximal limit for all values of the squeezing parameter, $\zeta$. We show via an explicit example that a state whose entanglement is not maximal allow maximal BIQV. The Wigner function of the state is non negative and the average value of either polarization is nil.Comment: 8 pages, latex, no figure

General criterion for the entanglement of two indistinguishable particles

We relate the notion of entanglement for quantum systems composed of two identical constituents to the impossibility of attributing a complete set of properties to both particles. This implies definite constraints on the mathematical form of the state vector associated with the whole system. We then analyze separately the cases of fermion and boson systems, and we show how the consideration of both the Slater-Schmidt number of the fermionic and bosonic analog of the Schmidt decomposition of the global state vector and the von Neumann entropy of the one-particle reduced density operators can supply us with a consistent criterion for detecting entanglement. In particular, the consideration of the von Neumann entropy is particularly useful in deciding whether the correlations of the considered states are simply due to the indistinguishability of the particles involved or are a genuine manifestation of the entanglement. The treatment leads to a full clarification of the subtle aspects of entanglement of two identical constituents which have been a source of embarrassment and of serious misunderstandings in the recent literature.Comment: 18 pages, Latex; revised version: Section 3.2 rewritten, new Theorems added, reference [1] corrected. To appear on Phys.Rev.A 70, (2004

Entangled qutrits violate local realism stronger than qubits - an analytical proof

In Kaszlikowski [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4418 (2000)], it has been shown numerically that the violation of local realism for two maximally entangled $N$-dimensional ($3 \leq N$) quantum objects is stronger than for two maximally entangled qubits and grows with $N$. In this paper we present the analytical proof of this fact for N=3.Comment: 5 page

Parallel Repetition of Entangled Games with Exponential Decay via the Superposed Information Cost

In a two-player game, two cooperating but non communicating players, Alice and Bob, receive inputs taken from a probability distribution. Each of them produces an output and they win the game if they satisfy some predicate on their inputs/outputs. The entangled value $\omega^*(G)$ of a game $G$ is the maximum probability that Alice and Bob can win the game if they are allowed to share an entangled state prior to receiving their inputs. The $n$-fold parallel repetition $G^n$ of $G$ consists of $n$ instances of $G$ where the players receive all the inputs at the same time and produce all the outputs at the same time. They win $G^n$ if they win each instance of $G$. In this paper we show that for any game $G$ such that $\omega^*(G) = 1 - \varepsilon < 1$, $\omega^*(G^n)$ decreases exponentially in $n$. First, for any game $G$ on the uniform distribution, we show that $\omega^*(G^n) = (1 - \varepsilon^2)^{\Omega\left(\frac{n}{\log(|I||O|)} - |\log(\varepsilon)|\right)}$, where $|I|$ and $|O|$ are the sizes of the input and output sets. From this result, we show that for any entangled game $G$, $\omega^*(G^n) \le (1 - \varepsilon^2)^{\Omega(\frac{n}{Q\log(|I||O|)} - \frac{|\log(\varepsilon)|}{Q})}$ where $p$ is the input distribution of $G$ and $Q= \frac{|I|^2 \max_{xy} p_{xy}^2 }{\min_{xy} p_{xy} }$. This implies parallel repetition with exponential decay as long as $\min_{xy} \{p_{xy}\} \neq 0$ for general games. To prove this parallel repetition, we introduce the concept of \emph{Superposed Information Cost} for entangled games which is inspired from the information cost used in communication complexity.Comment: In the first version of this paper we presented a different, stronger Corollary 1 but due to an error in the proof we had to modify it in the second version. This third version is a minor update. We correct some typos and re-introduce a proof accidentally commented out in the second versio

Determining Item Screening Criteria Using Cost-Benefit Analysis

Successful testing programs rely on high-quality test items to produce reliable scores and defensible exams. However, determining what statistical screening criteria are most appropriate to support these goals can be daunting. This study describes and demonstrates cost-benefit analysis as an empirical approach to determining appropriate screening criteria for a given testing program and purpose. Using a certification exam’s item pool and simulation we illustrate how to examine a wide range of screening criteria and reach an acceptable balance between the number of items screened out (cost) and pass/fail classification accuracy (benefit). Accessed 699 times on https://pareonline.net from April 09, 2019 to December 31, 2019. For downloads from January 1, 2020 forward, please click on the PlumX Metrics link to the right