arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 23 Nov 2011

Transcription

1 Generalized Bell Inequality Experiment and Computation arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 23 Nov 2011 Matty J. Hoban, 1, 2 Joel J. Wallman, 3 and Dan E. Browne 1 1 Department of Phyic and Atronomy, Univerity College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. 2 Department of Computer Science, Univerity of Oxford, Wolfon Building, Park Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, United Kingdom. 3 School of Phyic, The Univerity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wale 2006, Autralia. (Dated: Augut 13, 2018) We conider general etting of Bell inequality experiment with many partie, where each party chooe from a finite number of meaurement etting each with a finite number of outcome. We invetigate the contraint that Bell inequalitie place upon the correlation poible in a local hidden variable theorie uing a geometrical picture of correlation. We how that local hidden variable theorie can be characterized in term of limited computational expreivene, which allow u to characterize familie of Bell inequalitie. The limited computational expreivene for many etting (each with many outcome) generalize previou reult about the many-party ituation each with a choice of two poible meaurement (each with two outcome). Uing thi computational picture we preent generalization of the Popecu-Rohrlich non-local box for many partie and non-binary input and output at each ite. Finally, we comment on the effect of pre-proceing on meaurement data in our generalized etting and how that it become problematic outide of the binary etting, in that it allow local hidden variable theorie to imulate maximally non-local correlation uch a thoe of thee generalied Popecu-Rohrlich non-local boxe. I. INTRODUCTION Quantum mechanic i incompatible with a claical view of the world in many way. In particular, quantum theory i incompatible with the aumption of local realim a there are entangled quantum tate and meaurement that lead to violation of a Bell inequality [1]. Conequently, Bell inequalitie provide an extremely clear ditinction between claical, local hidden variable (LHV), and non-claical (e.g., quantum) theorie and o have been tudied with great fervor ince their dicovery. Another motivation for the tudy of Bell inequalitie ha been from an informational point-of-view. Quantum information ha brought new inight into the very nature of quantum mechanic and Bell inequalitie have been ued to gain inight into the information proceing power of quantum mechanic. Bell inequality violation have been ued to guarantee the ecurity of quantum key ditribution [2], generate randomne [3], give an advantage in communication complexity [4] and non-local game [5]. Recently, connection have been made between quantum computing and a violation of a Bell inequality a giving ome computational advantage [6 8]. Depite their utility, there are many open quetion about Bell inequalitie. Many breakthrough have been made by contructing Bell inequalitie for many partie each with a choice of two meaurement and two meaurement outcome [9 11]. However, contructing Bell inequalitie (that fully define LHV correlation) in general i NP-hard in the number of meaurement choice and meaurement outcome at each ite [12]. Generalization of the Bell inequality experiment away from the two meaurement etting, two meaurement outcome cenario have been tudied and have led to the dicovery of intereting phenomena [13 18]. For example, quantum violation can be greater [14] and more robut to experimental imperfection [19] in thee general cenario. The Clauer-Horne (CH) inequality [20] alo howed that meaurement etting n... pace-like eparated meaurement m 1 m 2 m 3 m n meaurement outcome j {0, 1,...,(c 1)} m j {0, 1,...,(d 1)} FIG. 1: In a ingle run of a general Bell experiment, n partie each make a meaurement from c poible choice, where each meaurement ha d poible outcome. Labelling the jth partie meaurement choice and outcome by j and m j repectively, we can decribe each run of the experiment with n-digit tring m and. the full probability ditribution (including marginal probabilitie) can be contrained in LHV theorie and violated by quantum mechanic. However, quantum theory doe not obtain the maximal violation of the CH inequality poible in theorie that do not allow uperluminal ignaling (non-ignaling for hort), a demontrated by Popecu-Rohrlich boxe [21]. A a reult, much work ha gone into characterizing the pace of non-ignaling probability ditribution [22]. An approach baed around convex polytope ha been particularly fruitful but the pace of all non-ignaling probability ditribution remain complicated and often counter-intuitive, a demontrated by the Gue Your Neighbor Input non-local game [23].

2 2 The convex polytope of non-ignaling probability ditribution in the CH inequality etting i well-tudied and i an excellent platform for decribing quantum correlation via an information theoretic, or phyical principle [24 27]. For more general etting, it i difficult to decribe the pace of nonignaling probabilitie. To avoid thi difficulty yet till obtain ome intuition about the pace of non-ignaling probabilitie, we conider the pace of correlator, i.e., the pace of probability ditribution over joint outcome. For two-etting, two-outcome Bell inequalitie, the correlation tudied in Bell experiment can be decribed in term of tochatic Boolean map, e.g. probabilitic mixture of Boolean function from the two bit decribing the meaurement etting to the parity of the meaurement outcome, which i a ingle bit. Thi approach ha proven well-uited to the tudy of many-body generalization of the Clauer-Horne- Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality and led to a number of unification and new inight [6 8]. In thi paper, we generalize thi approach by replacing tochatic Boolean map with tochatic map from the et of meaurement etting to a ingle digit repreenting the parity of the output digit. Our generalization reveal new phenomena which do not occur in the impler two-etting, twooutcome cae. Hand-in-hand with thi computational decription of correlation we hall ue a geometric approach. The lit of conditional probabilitie decribing the tochatic map can alo be treated a a vector in a real vector pace [12, 28, 29]. In thi picture, the valid et of correlation which occur in a theory form a convex region in thi pace, which, in the cae of LHV theorie, i a polytope. A polytope can be defined a the interection of the half-pace that atify a et of linear inequalitie, which, for the LHV polytope, are imply the facet Bell inequalitie. Very recently, two of u howed that for 2-etting 2- outcome Bell inequalitie, computational expreivene provide an elegant method for tudying Meaurement-baed Quantum Computing [7, 8]. We hall how how uch approache can be generalized, and that the witch from Boolean to more general map allow more complex behavior than in the binary cae. In Section II, we outline the general framework, fix notation and introduce the modular arithmetic which will be employed throughout the paper. In Section III we contruct Bell inequalitie in thi framework. In Section IV we tudy how method from [7] and [8] can be generalized and then ummarize in Section V. II. FRAMEWORK FOR GENERAL CHSH TESTS The general cenario we conider i the n-partite Bell experiment hown in Fig. 1, where n > 1. For implicity, we aume all pace-like eparated partie chooe from c poible meaurement etting, each with d poible outcome, o we label an experiment by the variable (n, c, d). A in the tandard CHSH experiment, we aume that each party meaurement etting i choen randomly from a uniform ditribution and i uncorrelated with the tate of the ytem (ee [30 33] for ome conequence of dropping thi aumption). We label the c poible meaurement and d poible meaurement outcome by digit j {0,..., c 1} Z c and m j Z d repectively. Therefore the n etting and meaurement for each repetition of the experiment are labeled by n digit-tring m Z n d and Zn c correponding to all n meaurement outcome and all n etting repectively, where x denote the n-digit tring uch that the j-th digit i x j. To implify the analyi we hall aume initially that both c and d are prime. We dicu feature of the analyi in the non-prime cae in appendix B. We will employ arithmetic in both modulo c and modulo d. A we are conidering correlator obtained by adding meaurement outcome, the majority of the arithmetic will be modulo d. Therefore we ue the following convention. In all expreion, arithmetic will be modulo d, except in exceptional cae where the arithmetic i modulo c, which will be denoted with large quare bracket and ubcript c, i.e. [ ] c. After the data m and ha been collected from many repetition of the experiment, conditional probabilitie p(m ) for each value of m and can be calculated. In the initial CHSH paper, and in many-body generalization, rather than tudying thi full probability ditribution, one merely conider the tatitic of the parity of the output m. Here, we hall take a imilar coure and tudy correlator p(k ) = p( n m j = k ), (1) where p( n m j = k ) = m n mj=k p(m ). When taking a um over m j we are performing addition modulo d but when taking um of probabilitie or decribing anything that i not related to meaurement etting or outcome we are performing tandard, natural arithmetic over the real. Thi natural generalization of the CHSH-type correlator in (1) alo encompae the well-known Collin-Giin- Linden-Maer-Popecu (CGLMP) inequality for two partie [14]. Thee correlator have a well-defined role when conidering the expectation value of joint meaurement [35]. Moreover, ingling out thi one parameter implifie the problem by reducing the dimenionality of the problem, whilt till capturing intereting propertie of the full ditribution p(m ). In Section II A we introduce the mathematical framework for decribing thee correlator, which employ a correpondence between conditional probabilitie and tochatic map. In Section II B we apply thi framework and derive the full family of correlator that are poible in LHV theorie. Then, in Section II C we conider correlator in more general nonignaling theorie and derive generalization of the Popecu- Rohrlich non-local box [21]. A. Correlator a Stochatic Map Before we begin our tudy of correlator, we need to introduce ome notation and mathematical contruction. The correlator

3 3 p(k ) are map from n digit-tring Z n c to probability ditribution over a ingle digit k Z d. Any tochatic map i a convex combination of determinitic procee, which in thi cae are function f : Z n c Z d. Such function take an input Z n c to a ingle output k Z d. Since Z d and Z n c are field for c, d prime, thee function can be repreented a element of a vector pace. There are many bae one could chooe to repreent the function. Perhap the implet and cleanet bai i the et of Kronecker delta function δ y, where y Z n c, which equal 1 when y = and 0 otherwie. Any function can be repreented a f() = f(y)δy. (2) y Z n c The d cn poible coefficient correpond to d cn function. It will ometime be convenient for the bai et to include the contant function. We hall then replace the delta function δ 0 where 0 c i the all-zero tring with the contant function to write f() = ɛ y δ y + α, (3) y (Z n c 0c) where ɛ y = (f(y) α) and α Z d. The natural expreion for the computational power of correlator in a general theory i how cloe they can approximate an arbitrary function. Therefore we want to be able to rewrite (3) a a polynomial. Thi can be done a the Kronecker delta δ y can be written a a polynomial (modulo c), δ y = = n δ j y j = n n 1 (c 1) l=0 [ 1 ( j y j ) (c 1)], c ( 1) l ( c 1 l ) (y j ) l ( j ) c (l+1). The firt line follow from Fermat little theorem, a a b 1 1 mod b if a i non-zero and b i prime. To reach the econd line we have ued the binomial theorem which follow from the ditributivity of modular arithmetic. Thi how u that any function f() can be expreed a a polynomial with mixed modular arithmetic ytem. Furthermore, when d c we can write the function olely in term of modulo d arithmetic ince equation (4) hold for any prime c. In thi paper, the following cla of function, which we term the n-partite linear function, will be crucial in the tudy of LHV theorie. Definition 1. A function f() : Z n c Z d i an n-partite linear function if it can be expreed a n f() = g j ( j ), (5) where addition i modulo d and the g j ( j ) are function Z c Z d of a ingle variable. If f() i not an n-partite linear function, we refer to it a a non-n-partite linear function. c (4) Thee function will play a role analogou to that of the linear Boolean function in [7, 8]. The n-partite linear function can alo be written a f() = α + n (c 1) a=1 β j,a δ j a, (6) with α, β j,a Z d. There are d n(c 1)+1 n-partite linear function. For c being prime, the key feature of a non-n-partite linear function i the preence of cro-multiplicative term in (4) between different digit j of. For non-prime c, we cannot write delta function in the neat polynomial of (4) but in a more elaborate fahion (ee appendix B) but we can till work in term of the delta function for non-prime c. Therefore, the definition of an n-partite linear function in (6) applie for non-prime c. Thu for prime and non-prime c, the delta function δa j only ingularly define a value of f() when there i only one non-zero element in. For other value of there i addition modulo d between the term δa j. Equivalently then, for f() to be a non-n-partite linear function, there mut be at leat one delta function δy in 3 with y being a digit-tring with more than one non-zero element. A function f() can be written in term of an n-partite linear part plu a non-n-partite linear part (with addition modulo d), and if the n-partite linear part i zero, then f() = 0 for all with only one non-zero element. Finally, we note that the above treatment alo applie in a more general etting where intead of etting digit-tring Z n c we now have digit-tring Z c1 Z c2... Z cn = n Z c j. That i, the number of poible etting, now labeled c j at each jth ite could now be different from other ite and alo non-prime. The tring i now a direct um (or Carteian product) of the regiter Z cj for each ite. All delta function a defined can be carried over to thi general etting. Thu ingle ite map and n-partite linear function are exactly the ame a (6) but for the jth ite, c i replaced with c j. We now dicu a geometrical picture of the correlator p(k ). The correlator p(k ) are tochatic map and o mut atify the poitivity inequalitie, i.e., the et of c n (d 1) linear inequalitie p(k ) 0, for all k,. Furthermore, a ome outcome alway occur for any choice of meaurement etting, the correlator mut alo atify the normalization equation, k Z d p(k ) = 1 for all. We then only have (d 1) independent correlator for each value of, o we omit the correlator p(0 ) and treat the remaining correlator a element of a vector in a c n (d 1)-dimenional real pace with element being p(k ) for k 0. The pace of correlator atifying the linear inequalitie of the poitivity condition p(k ) 0 and normaliation condition in thi reduced pace, k 0 p(k ) 1, i then a convex polytope labeled P. It i a convex polytope a it i the interection of the half-pace defined by thee linear inequalitie. In any pecific theory, the region of allowed correlator, T, will be a convex ubregion of P. Equivalently, P can be defined a the convex hull of all determinitic correlator p(k ) {0, 1}, for all k and ; thee determinitic correlator are the extreme point of P.

4 4 If T ha a finite number of extreme point (which i true for LHV theorie but not for quantum theory), then T will be a convex polytope and o can be decribed a the interection of the half-pace defined by a et of facet-defining linear inequalitie. Facet-defining inequalitie are defined in term of affinely independent point, where a et S of K vector p i, S = { p 0, p 1,..., p (K 1) } i affinely independent if for every p k S, the (K 1) vector in the et { p i p k p i p k } are linearly independent [34]. Definition 2. A linear inequality i facet-defining for a convex polytope in R D when at leat D affinely independent extreme point aturate the inequality (i.e. atify the equality of the linear inequality). Having contructed a framework for tochatic map (and equivalently, conditional probabilitie) we can immediately apply thi to the correlator tudied in thi paper. Recall that we will focu our attention on correlator p(k ) repreenting the probability ditribution on k = n m j, the um modulo d of the output. The correlator have the form of a conditional probability and thu a tochatic map, and therefore are characterized by vector in the pace P n,c,d. The pace P n,c,d repreent the et of all correlator poible in principle, but for certain theorie, not all correlator will be permitted. The focu of our tudy i then the region of correlator which are acceible in LHV theorie and in quantum theorie. The region of LHV correlator i itelf a polytope, and the facet-defining inequalitie repreent the facet-defining Bell inequalitie[10 12, 36]. Thi i the geometrical picture of Bell inequalitie that we will conider in the next ubection. We now tudy and characterize the region of correlator in LHV theorie. B. Local Hidden Variable Theorie LHV theorie are theorie in which the meaurement outcome at each ite can depend on the input etting of the meaurement. The only other parameter the outcome depend on i an objective hidden variable λ Λ which we aume i hared by all partie, and where Λ i the (often continuou) et which define the poible value for thi variable. We do not aume that λ i determinitic, but allow it to atify a probability ditribution p(λ)dλ over the pace Λ uch that p(λ)dλ = 1. Without lo of generality [36], we aume Λ that apart from the probability ditribution over λ the internal working of each meaurement device i determinitic. Thi, via a tandard argument, reult in conditional probabilitie for the et of output m of the following form, n p(m ) = dλp(λ) p(m j j, λ). (7) Λ Since λ i the only non-determinitic element to conider, we can tudy the LHV correlation a the convex combination of the et of poible determinitic map. We now prove that the map from meaurement etting to correlator in any LHV theory i a probabilitic combination of n-partite linear function. LHV Quantum Region Schematic Key Semi-linear n-partite linear function function Non-n-partite linear Non-linear function function Facet Tight Bell inequality Non-trivial Bell inequality FIG. 2: Schematic for correlator in LHV theorie veru more general theorie (including quantum mechanical correlator). The hape repreent the convex polytope of general correlator and LHV correlator, i.e. the pace L. The point on each hape are the determinitic map correponding to the particular function lited. We have hown the region of quantum correlator lying between the convex polytope of n-partite linear function and the bigger convex polytope of all poible (including non-n-partite linear) map. The facet Bell inequalitie define the region L of LHV correlator wherea the non-trivial Bell inequalitie (a mentioned in ection III) jut bound the region. It i preferable but very hard [12] to find facet Bell inequalitie rather than jut non-trivial one. Theorem 1. In an n-party generalized Bell experiment, with c etting and d output for each meaurement, the region L of correlator acceible in a LHV theory i the convex hull of the et of n-partite linear function. Proof. The pace L of correlator i a convex polytope, we only need to find the extreme point of the polytope, or determinitic correlator, and take their convex hull [36]. Thi mean we jut need to find the determinitic function poible with LHV correlator. Thee determinitic function correpond to adding the meaurement outcome of pace-like eparated ite, which, for a LHV theory, i determinitic if and only if the map from the meaurement etting j to the meaurement outcome m j at each ite i determinitic, i.e., of the form g j ( j ) in Definition 1 for all j. Adding uch function modulo d give a n-partite linear function. Thi theorem generalize the theorem valid for the (n,2,2) cae preented by two of u in [8]. It how that L i compactly characterized by conidering it in term of the computational expreivene of LHV correlator (ee Fig. 2 for a chematic of the conequence of Theorem 1). In other word, if one conider the Bell experiment a a computation, LHV theorie allow the computation of n-partite linear function and nothing more. From thi perpective, LHV theorie have limited computational power, and thu a theory that allow correlator outide thi region can be perceived a having a computational advantage in a Bell experiment. A mentioned above, there i a dual decription of a convex polytope in term of linear inequalitie. The convex polytope

5 5 of LHV correlator L i the interection of the half-pace decribed by the et of facet-defining Bell inequalitie (or facet Bell inequalitie for hort). In Fig. 2 we illutrate the different type of Bell inequalitie which one can contruct, and the terminology to claify them. Bell inequalitie that are equivalent to normalization or poitivity condition (i.e the boundarie of P) are referred to a trivial Bell inequalitie. There remain Bell inequalitie that are neither necearily facet-defining or trivial, which we call non-trivial Bell inequalitie; they are non-trivial becaue they indicate a eparation between the polytope P and L by bounding the latter. If a correlator i outide L then it mut violate one of the facet Bell inequalitie. For example, it i well-known that ome quantum correlator violate a Bell inequality [1]. Alo if we oberve a violation of a non-trivial inequality then we know that it i outide of L. To recapitulate, for either nontrivial or facet Bell inequalitie, we aociate a violation with a computational advantage and in Section III we conider Bell inequalitie from thi computational perpective. Before invetigating Bell inequalitie, it i worth conidering the relation between p(k ) and p(m ). Since the latter i more general than the former, we are excluding intereting phenomena by only conidering correlator. Example of intereting phenomena in the full p(m ) etting include the I 3322 inequality [18] which ha intereting implication with regard to quantum correlation; another example i the Gue Your Neighbor Input [23] non-local game which reult in ome facet Bell inequalitie that are not violated by any quantum correlator. In pite of thee example, we argue in the next ubection that the correlator p(k ) capture many important phenomena of full non-ignaling probability ditribution. In particular, we how that particular determinitic correlator can be uniquely aociated with a ingle nonignaling ditribution, that being a many-body generalization of the PR non-local box [21]. C. Non-ignaling theorie In thi ection, we hall conider general non-ignaling theorie. Thee are theorie in which there are no contraint on correlation other than the no-ignaling condition. Firt, note that given any determinitic correlator p(k = f() ) where k = j m j, there exit a non-ignaling ditribution uch that p(m j j ) = 1 d and the non-ignaling ditribution reult in the correlator. Thi i an immediate conequence of Theorem 2, proven below, but can be undertood intuitively ince every poible value of m j i conitent with one of more output tring m where j m j = f(). One can then take a uitable mixture of thee tring uch that every output digit i maximally uncertain. Since a maximally uncertain output carrie no information about, the no-ignaling condition i automatically atified. We denote the pace of probability ditribution p(m ) that atify the no-ignaling condition by N S n,c,d (the indice will normally be omitted for clarity). Thi pace i a convex polytope a it i the interection of the half-pace defined by the linear inequalitie being the normalization, poitivity and non-ignaling inequalitie (ee [22] for detail). Finding the vertice of thi polytope i the dual problem of finding the facet-defining linear inequalitie correponding to ome vertice (e.g. finding the facet Bell inequalitie) which i an NPhard problem. We now dicu ome of the vertice of N S without reorting to thi vertex enumeration problem in the following dicuion. A famou example of a non-ignaling ditribution which cannot be imulated by LHV or quantum correlator for two patially eparated ytem i the PR non-local box. The PR box i defined a a black box that reult in meaurement outcome according to the probability ditribution, { 1 p(m 1, m 2 1, 2 ) = 2 if m 1 + m 2 = 1 2, (8) 0 otherwie. The PR box i decribed by the correlator p(k = 1 2 ) = 1. In other word, the PR box i aociated with a correlator in P 2,2,2. Thi correlator i a vertex of P 2,2,2 correponding to the determinitic property that the parity of output m 1 and m 2 i equal to the product of the input 1 and 2. Furthermore, the PR box i the only ditribution in N S 2,2,2 which i compatible with the correlator p(k = 1 2 ) = 1. In other word the vertex correlator p(k = 1 2 ) = 1 in P uniquely define a full probability ditribution in N S. In thi ection, we will how that thi property i hared by many vertice in P. Thee vertice are only compatible with a ingle probability ditribution in N S. In particular, for n = 2, every correlator in P correponding to a non-n-partite linear function i only compatible with one probability ditribution in N S. We emphaize that the full et of vertice of N S for arbitrary c, d and n ha never been characterized, and it numerical computation i an NP hard problem (the vertex enumeration problem) [22]. For example, in the (3, 2, 2) etting, the pace NS ha been hown to have a complicated tructure [37]. Therefore, we are able to capture a large amount of tructure without reorting to optimization. Before we define thi tructure we need to introduce a new cla of function f() : Z n c Z d that we will only ue in thi ubection to find a ubet of the vertice of N S. We call thee function bi-partite linear a they correpond to function for which, if the oberver gather into two group at two pace-like eparated ite, the meaurement outcome reult from an n-partite linear function for n = 2. Definition 3. A bipartition, {A, B} of the et of n partie i a diviion of the et {1, 2,..., n} into two dijoint, non-empty et A and B uch that A B = {1, 2,..., n}. Definition 4. A function f() : Z n c Z d i bi-partite linear if for any bipartition {A, B}, f() can be written a f() = f A ( A ) + f B ( B ), (9) where X i the X -digit tring with entrie X j = Xj and f X ( X ) i a function on X. We now how that there exit a unique non-ignaling ditribution correponding to a vertex p(k = f() ) of P if and only if f() i not bi-partite linear.

6 6 Theorem 2. For every function f(), the correponding vertex p(k = f() ) = 1 of P i compatible with the nonignaling probability ditribution p(m ) = { d 1 n if n m j = f(), 0 otherwie. (10) Furthermore, thi i the only non-ignaling ditribution compatible with p(k = f() ) = 1 if and only if f() i not bi-partite linear. Proof. One can verify by inpection that thi ditribution i non-ignaling (ince all marginal are maximally uncertain) and atifie p(k = f() ) = 1. It remain to be hown that the ditribution in (10) i unique if and only if f() i not bi-partite linear. To prove the if tatement, note that for any bi-partite linear function f(), the non-ignaling ditribution d 2 A B = d 2 n if j A m j = f 1 ( A ) p(m ) = and j B m j = f 2 ( B ), 0 otherwie, (11) i compatible with p(k = f() ) = 1. We prove the only if tatement in Lemma 3. Note that local operation, which, for the Bell experiment etting, correpond to adding function g j ( j) to the meaurement outcome at each ite, do not change whether or not a function i bi-partite linear. Since every function can be written in term of an n-partite linear part and a non-n-partite linear part, local operation can create the n-partite linear part and o without lo of generality thi part can be et to be zero. Therefore it i ufficient to conider function f() uch that f(t) = 0 for all n-digit tring t Z n c that have at mot one non-zero digit. We can eparate the partie uing any bipartition A and B and treat the et of partie, A and B, a ingle partie. To do thi, we take the um modulo d of all outcome on each ide of the partition and et the number of etting on each ide of the partition to be the product of the number of etting of the partie on that ide of the partition (e.g., c A = i A c i). For a function that i not bi-partite linear, for all bipartition into A and B, the function f : Z ca Z cb Z d i nonn-partite linear for n = 2. Therefore it i ufficient to how that Theorem 2 applie for n = 2 and o it mut apply for all bipartition of n partie a long a a function f() in (10) i not bi-partite linear. If the probability ditribution in (10) applie for n = 2 then it mut apply for all poible bipartition of n partie thu generating the ditribution (10) for all n. Lemma 3. For every function f( 1, 2 ) : Z c1 Z c2 Z d that i non-n partite linear for n = 2, the only non-ignaling ditribution compatible with the correponding vertex p(k = f( 1, 2 ) ) = 1 in P i p(m 1, m 2 1, 2 ) = { d 1 if m 1 + m 2 = f( 1, 2 ), 0 otherwie. (12) Proof. The condition p(k = f( 1, 2 ) 1, 2 ) = 1 for all = { 1, 2 } implie that for every value of m 1 in p(m 1, m 2 1, 2 ), there exit a unique value of m 2 = f() m 1. In computer cience terminology we would call thi a unique game. Thi immediately implie the equality for the following conditional ditribution: p(m 1 = x, m 2 = f() x ) = p(m 1 = x ) = p(m 2 = f() x ), (13) for all x Z d. The no-ignaling condition further implie that p(m 1 = x ) = p(m 1 = x 1 ) and p(m 1 = x 1 ) = p(m 2 = f() x 2 ), (14) which mut be atified for all and all x. We will how that repeated application of (14) for varying allow u to prove that all non-marginal probabilitie are equal provided that f() ha a non-n-partite linear element. A dicued above, we can et f(0, 2 ) = f( 1, 0) = 0 for all = { 1, 2 }. For uch function, repeatedly applying (14) give p(m 2 = x 2 ) = p(m 1 = x 0) = p(m 2 = x 0) = p(m 1 = x 1 ) = p(m 2 = f( 1, 2 ) x 2 ) (15) for all x. Repeated iteration implie p(m 2 = x 2 ) = p(m 2 = αf( 1, 2 ) x 2 ) (16) for all α Z d. The function f() i non-n-partite linear o it mut have at leat one value of { 1, 2 } where f( 1, 2 ) i non-zero. Since d i prime, αf( 1, 2 ) take on all value in Z d, therefore the marginal are p(m 2 2 ) = d 1 for all m 2, 2. Applying equation (14) implie that p(m 1, m 2 1, 2 ) = d 1 for all m uch that m 1 + m 2 = f(). A we now how, for vertice p(k = f() ) = 1 of P uch that f() i bi-partite linear, the exitence of multiple non-ignaling ditribution implie that the vertex of P correpond to a facet of N S. Propoition 4. Every non-ignaling ditribution correponding to a vertex of P lie on a facet of N S. Proof. Any non-ignaling ditribution p(m ) can be written a a convex combination p(m ) = E p(e)p E(m ) of the vertice E of N S, where E p(e) = 1. Therefore the aociated correlator i p(k ) = n p(e)δ mj k p E (m ) E = E p(e)p E (k ), (17) n where p E (k ) = δ mj k p E (m ) i the correlator reulting from each extreme point of N S.

7 7 A the non-ignaling ditribution reult in a correlator that i a vertex of P, p(e) = 0 for all vertice of N S that do not reult in the ame correlator. Denote by E the et of vertice of N S that correpond to the correlator and let F be the region of convex combination of the element of E. Any element in F mut correpond to the correlator by (17). F i not a facet of N S if and only if there exit a convex combination of the vertice not in E that interect F. However, if there exit uch a convex combination, then thi would give a convex combination of correlator in P that i equal to a vertex of P, which i a contradiction. The uniquene of the probability ditribution in Theorem 2 implie that each vertex p(k = f() ) = 1 of P uch that f() i not bi-partite linear correpond to a unique vertex of N S (i.e., the facet in Propoition 4 collape to a ingle point). Propoition 5. Every probability ditribution of the form (10) i a vertex of N S if and only if f() i not a bi-partite linear function. Proof. A there i a unique non-ignaling ditribution correponding to the correlator p(f() ) = 1, there i at mot one E uch that p(e) 0 in 17. The tructure of the high dimenional pace of all poible non-ignaling ditribution can be partly revealed by conidering the pace of correlator, which are of relatively low dimenion. Note that the difficulty in acertaining the remaining tructure of N S come from the difficulty of finding the et of vertice that generate vertice of P that correpond to bi-partite linear function and determining whether thi give a complete lit of vertice. Furthermore, much of the tructure of LHV theorie in N S i reduced to a mall number of vertice of P. In thi way, the pace of correlator efficiently encapulate vital information about all non-ignaling probability ditribution. There i a connection between the notion of true n-party non-locality [22, 38] and the vertice of N S defined by Theorem 2. The bi-partite linear function correponding to vertice in P only reveal non-locality (i.e. correlation not reulting from LHV theorie) between a ubet of all partie, but no non-locality acro at leat one bipartition. However, function that are not bi-partite linear reult in correlation that are non-local acro all partition. D. Summary In thi ection we have contructed a framework for Bell correlator and howed that thee correlator capture important propertie of the pace of non-ignaling probability ditribution. Thee correlator alo capture the propertie of LHV theorie in a natural information theoretic decription, i.e. that of computational expreivene. Thi work generalize previou work of [7, 8] and how where the tructure in thee previouly tudied etting emerge from. Given thi framework, we want to look at the correlator that are achievable with quantum theory. It i well-known n c d # Vertice # Facet Bell inequalitie , TABLE I: A table of number of facet Bell inequalitie for each etting (n, c, d) and the number of vertice for the LHV polytope. that there exit quantum mechanical correlator that cannot be decribed by correlator reulting from an LHV theory, and thi i demontrated by the violation of a Bell inequality [1]. Therefore we now devote our attention to the Bell inequalitie. III. BELL INEQUALITIES Bell inequalitie allow u to characterize the polytope of LHV correlator. The normalization and poitivity inequalitie defined in Section II B define part of L, the LHV polytope. However, thee inequalitie are alo atified by all poible correlator p(k ) and define the polytope P of all correlator. Thee inequalitie then trivially bound L a we cannot how a eparation between P and L. We want to demontrate uch a eparation and non-trivially bound P, which we can do by contructing Bell inequalitie of the form ω k, p(k ) γ L, (18),k for all p(k ) L, where ω k, and γ L are real number. We call γ P the maximum value of the um on the left-hand-ide over correlator in P. For the Bell inequality to be non-trivial, we require γ L < γ P. If a correlator exit outide the LHV polytope, then it violate at leat one facet Bell inequality. Finding facet Bell inequalitie involve an optimization of the parameter ω k, in (18) and in general i an NP-hard problem [12]. The problem i a facet enumeration problem and there are algorithmic package that can perform thi optimization uch a Polymake [39]. Thee optimization algorithm are often ued to characterize the non-ignaling [22] and LHV polytope [18] in full probability ditribution etting. We ued Polymake to find the facet Bell inequalitie for a number of mall (n, c, d) etting. The number of facet Bell inequalitie for each etting i lited in Tab. I, which how that the number of inequalitie grow rapidly in the ize of the problem. For the cae of (n, 2, 2), the LHV polytope i a hyperoctahedron [10, 11]. In general though, there i no obviou geometrical tructure or connection between the number of vertice and the number of facet inequalitie. It i quite apparent that finding the facet Bell inequalitie i no eay tak. In thi ection we will ue the computational inight gained in Section II to contruct Bell inequalitie. We firt find a

8 8 imple way to generate non-trivial Bell inequalitie that necearily bound the LHV polytope. A we hall dicu further in Section IV, thee non-trivial inequalitie alo have a nice cro-over with the tructure in o-called non-local game. We then decribe ome of the facet Bell inequalitie and how that they too have a computational nature. Finally, in the lat part of thi ection, we dicu the quantum violation of facet Bell inequalitie. We how that there i a violation for all facet Bell inequalitie for n = 2 in Tab. I. We comment on the quantum tate that maximally violate thee Bell inequalitie and find that in few intance i it a maximally entangled tate. Thi upport the view that entanglement and a violation of a Bell inequality are not ynonymou concept. A. Non-trivial Bell inequalitie One might ak what i the point of looking for Bell inequalitie that are not facet-defining? Firtly, bounding the et of LHV correlator till create a non-trivial ubregion of a correlator pace. Secondly, we can till demontrate non-claical behavior without the computational difficulty that the facetdefining condition create. Finally, depite not being facetdefining, non-trivial Bell inequalitie can have a role in particular application uch a in non-local game or Meaurementbaed Quantum Computing (MBQC) [8], a non-trivial Bell inequalitie might capture computational power. We will elaborate on thi final point in Section IV. In thi ubection, we will dicu non-trivial Bell inequalitie a being inequalitie in the pace P of all poible correlator p(k ), including thoe for k = 0. In thi pace, the normaliation condition become k p(k ) = 1 for all, which define a bounded hyperplane in R dcn. The pace of correlator P i a convex polytope defined by the poitivity condition within thi hyperplane. We regard the region of LHV correlator, L, a a ub-region in both P and P a one can alway go between the two pace by diregarding p(0 ) and applying the normaliation inequalitie. In the ret of the paper, including the dicuion on facet Bell inequalitie, we alway dicu correlator in the pace P. Given the motivation for finding non-trivial Bell inequalitie we now preent a imple way of generating non-trivial Bell inequalitie. We begin by conidering the CHSH inequality [9] a an example. The CHSH inequality can be written a 1, 2 k=0 1 δ k 1 2 p(k 1, 2 ) 3, (19) which i (18) with γ L = 3 and ω k, = δ k 1 2. The CHSH inequality i alo a facet Bell inequality for thi etting. By convexity, it i only neceary to conider the vertice of the LHV polytope to obtain the bound γ L = 3. In thi cae, the vertice correpond to the linear boolean function of 1 and 2 [7]. For thee vertice the correlator are then p(k 1, 2 ) = δg( k where g( 1, 2) 1, 2 ) are the linear Boolean function on { 1, 2 }. The um in (19) i then 1, 2 δ g(1,2) a the function g( 1, 2 ) overlap with the function 1 2 for at mot 3 value of. An example of a linear function achieving thi overlap i g( 1, 2 ) = 0. On the other hand, if a correlator p(k = f() 1, 2 ) achieve the map f() = 1 2 determinitically, then it achieve a value of γ P = 4 for the um in (19). Thi inequality highlight the inability for LHV correlator to evaluate non-linear Boolean function determinitically. For all etting (n, c, d), we can generalize the above concept from the Boolean algebra for (2, 2, 2) to our more general framework of map f : Z n c Z d. We contruct nontrivial Bell inequalitie in the following way: d 1 k=0 δ k f() p(k ) up g() δ f() g(), (20) where the upremum i over the et of n-partite linear function and f() i a non-n-partite function of. Therefore there are N = d cn d n(c 1)+1 non-trivial Bell inequalitie of the form (20). We can prove the inequality in (20) uing the ame argument a with the CHSH inequality. By convexity we only need to conider the vertice of L which correpond to the n-partite linear function g(). The um in (20) i then d 1 k=0 δk f() δk g(). We then take the upremum over all n- partite function g() to obtain the right-hand-ide of (20). Whilt thee inequalitie might eem contrived, they include ome intereting Bell inequalitie. For example, the Svetlichny inequality [38] for three partie take the form of (20), i.e., 1, 2, 3 δ k 1( 2+ 3)+ 2 3 p(k 1, 2, 3 ) 6, (21) which i (20) for f() = 1 ( ) The Svetlichny inequality i not a facet Bell inequality for the LHV polytope L in the (3, 2, 2) etting [10] but it till capture very intereting phenomena. In particular, the Svetlichny inequality capture correlation that are conitent with LHV theorie if one average over the meaurement etting and outcome for any one of the partie. The non-trivial Bell inequalitie (20) can be een to truly capture the inability of LHV theorie to evaluate non-n-partite linear function via correlator. A way of emphaizing thi i to conider thee inequalitie a a non-local game [5]. That i, given an input to n partie that do not communicate, what i the maximum probability of the partie producing outcome m uch that n m j = f() for ome function f() uing different trategie (or reource uch a hared randomne or entanglement). A referee chooe the input and then obtain all output m before computing n m j. If the referee choice of input i uniformly random, then the inequality in (20) capture the mean ucce probability of an LHV trategy performing the function f(); one jut need to divide both ide by c n to obtain a proper probability. If one imagine that the choice of input i not choen at random but intead with ome probability p() 0 uch that p() = 1

9 9 then we can modify (20) to be: d 1 p() k=0 δ k f() p(k ) up g() p()δ f() g(), (22) to get the mean ucce probability of performing the function f() with LHV correlator given a ditribution p() on input. We now preent the following propoition that how an infinite cla of non-trivial Bell inequalitie can be eaily generated. Propoition 6. Any Bell inequality of the form (22) i nontrivial whenever p() 0 for all. Proof. For any n-partite linear function, p()δ f() g() < p() = 1 (23) a there mut be a value of uch that δ f() g() = 0. Therefore the right-hand-ide of (22) i trictly le than 1 for all correlator in L. However, for the correlator p(k = f() ) = 1 in P, the left-hand ide of (22) i exactly 1. The beauty of thee non-trivial Bell inequalitie i that they are eaily generated a one can eaily decribe the n-partite linear function for any etting (n, c, d), yet they till bound the region of LHV correlator. They alo explicitly capture the computational apect of a Bell inequality experiment: the value of the left hand ide of (22) give the mean ucce probability of performing a particular function. We now conider the facet Bell inequalitie that completely characterize the LHV polytope for mall value of (n, c, d). Whilt thee latter inequalitie do not have the immediacy of the non-trivial Bell inequalitie and are difficult to calculate, they are till the optimal tool for demontrating non-claical correlation. B. Facet Bell inequalitie The facet Bell inequalitie atify the facet-defining condition for LHV correlator and o if a correlator i outide the region of LHV correlator it mut necearily violate one of the facet Bell inequalitie. In Tab. I we lited the number of facet Bell inequalitie for a few etting that could be computed uing the oftware Polymake. Included in the number of facet Bell inequalitie are the c n normalization and (d 1)c n poitivity inequalitie that define the polytope P. Depite thee dc n inequalitie, there are till a ignificant number of inequalitie remaining. Alo note we are again dicuing correlator in the pace P of all correlator except p(0 ) and L i the ubregion of LHV correlator in thi pace. We can reduce the number of facet Bell inequalitie by conidering relabeling of the meaurement choice, outcome and partie, which we refer to a ymmetrie. If a Bell inequality can be changed into another inequality by uch an operation, we refer to them a equivalent, or a member of the ame ymmetry cla. Explicitly, the ymmetrie are n c d # Symmetry clae TABLE II: The number of ymmetry clae for each etting (n, c, d). We have excluded the ymmetry cla of all poitivity and normaliation inequalitie from thi number. 1. permutation of partie - { i, j,..., n } { i, j,..., n } where k = σ(k) i an element of the permutation group of order n 2. relabeling of meaurement etting - j j + α j for ome α j Z c 3. relabeling of meaurement outcome - m j m j + β( j, j) where β( j, j) Z d. The n-partite linear function are cloed under all of thee operation. Uing the facet-defining condition, the vertice of L that aturate a facet Bell inequality mut be equivalent to another et of vertice in L by thee operation that aturate another facet Bell inequality. Hence we can group together the facet Bell inequalitie into thee ymmetry clae. There are n! permutation of n partie and c n way of relabeling meaurement etting. Since for each input j we add a value β( j ), for each input, β() = n β( j) i added to n m j. There will be at mot d cn value of β(). We contructed a earch algorithm to find all the ymmetry clae of facet Bell inequalitie for each etting (n, c, d). In Tab. II we lit the number of ymmetry clae for each of the etting in Tab. I, which i dramatically fewer than the total number of facet Bell inequalitie. One of the ymmetry clae for each etting i the cla of normalization and poitivity condition, leaving all the facet Bell inequalitie that can be violated by LHV correlator outide of L. We have therefore omitted the cla of thee poitivity and normalization inequalitie from Tab. II in order to leave the inequalitie that can be violated. We now look at a few particular familie of facet Bell inequalitie for the bipartite and tripartite etting baed on the CGLMP inequality. We briefly dicu the (2, 3, 2) etting and how how the CHSH inequality i eentially the only relevant facet inequality for thi etting. Bipartite Two-Setting Facet Bell Inequalitie - A ymmetry cla of note for n = c = 2 i the cla of facet Bell inequalitie that are equivalent to the CGLMP inequality [14]. We can rewrite thi inequality after ymmetry tranformation and

10 10 mapping it into our normalized probability pace P to obtain, C CGLMP = d p( ( 1) 1+2 d 1 2 m j = 1 0, 0) 2 ( 1) 1+2 p( m j = 1 )+ k=2 2 (d k 1)p( m j = k ) d. (24) Thi inequality i alo equivalent to the CHSH inequality for d = 2 which we now write in the pace P for clarity: C d=2 = ( 1) 12 p( 2 m j = 1 ) 2. (25) For all poible correlator in P, the maximal value of the left-hand-ide of the CGLMP inequality i 2d 1, thu violating it. In fact, for all d, thi maximal violation of the CGLMP i obtained by a vertex of P correponding to the map f() = , i.e. the correlator p(k ) = δ k Maane ha hown that the only non-trivial, facet Bell inequalitie are thoe that are equivalent to the CGLMP for the (2, 2, 3) etting [40]; thi i confirmed by Tab. II. For the (2, 2, 2) etting there are = 8 non-n-partite linear function and alo 8 inequalitie in the ymmetry cla of the CHSH inequality. Thi i no coincidence a every Bell inequality in the ymmetry cla in maximally violated by a vertex of P correponding to a non-n-partite linear function. Thi alo occur for the (2, 2, 3) etting, there are = 54 non-n-partite linear function and 54 inequalitie in the ymmetry cla of the CGLMP inequality. It can alo be checked that every inequality in thi ymmetry cla i violated by a different non-n-partite linear function. The correpondence between non-n-partite linear function and facet Bell inequality echoe the non-trivial Bell inequalitie decribed by the inequalitie of the form (20). There i a computational apect to each inequality a a violation indicate that a correlator i in ome ene cloer to the non-npartite linear function. However, the correpondence break down for the (2, 2, 5) etting where there are = 500 non-n-partite linear function but 1000 non-trivial, facet Bell inequalitie in total. In thi intance, each vertex of P maximally violate two facet Bell inequalitie (each belonging to different ymmetry clae). Therefore there are 1000 facet Bell inequalitie (ee Appendix A for more detail). Tripartite Facet Bell Inequalitie - We have given an indication that facet Bell inequalitie for n = c = 2 have a computational interpretation. Every facet Bell inequality we have found i maximally violated uniquely by a vertex of P. In thi ene the violation of a facet Bell inequalitie can quantify how computationally powerful a theory i. For ituation with n > 2, thi become more complicated even for n = 3 and c = d = 2. The Mermin inequality [41] for example i in the ymmetry cla of the inequality δ 1 2 ( 1) 13 p( 3 m j = 1 ) 2. (26) Two vertice of P that are not vertice of L maximally violate thi inequality. The two map that correpond to thee vertice are f() = and f() = Therefore there i no longer a one-to-one correpondence between facet inequalitie and the vertice of P that violate the inequality. The CHSH inequality expreed in term of the expectation value of meaurement (ee next ubection) for two partie can be ued to build facet Bell inequalitie for more partie [10] uch a the above inequality (26). Analogouly, we define CGLMP for three partie uing the two party inequality. We have three partie but now we only conider non-zero term in a Bell inequality when the third party meaurement etting 3 = 0. For LHV correlator p(k 1, 2, 0) the n-partite linear function that can be achieved are f() = [α 1 1 +α 2 2 +α 3 ] 3 with α 1, α 2, α 3 Z d : the n-partite linear function on two variable 1 and 2. Since the CGLMP inequality i facetdefining for the region of LHV correlator for two partie, or variable 1 and 2, it i facet-defining for thi pace of the n = 3 correlator for 3 = 0. Then we can write the tripartite CGLMP inequality a ( 1) 1+2 d 1 C CGLMP = d p( 3 m j = 1 0, 0, 0) 3 ( 1) 1+2 p( m j = 1 1, 2, 0)+ k=2 3 (d k 1)p( m j = k 1, 2, 0) d. (27) For the cae of (3, 2, 3), thi tripartite CGLMP inequality i facet-defining and form a ymmetry cla with 324 inequalitie. Thi i alo true for d = 2 where C CGLMP reult from the CHSH inequality and form one of 4 non-trivial ymmetry clae. Alo in thi cae there i another way of ubtituting the CHSH inequality to obtain the cla containing the inequality (26). Thi cla alo generalize to the d = 3 etting o that the following inequality i againt the pace where 1 = 2 in a imilar fahion to C CGLMP : C CGLMP = d p( 3 m j = 1 0, 0, 0) δ 1 2 ( 1) 1+3 p( k=2 3 m j = 1 )+ d 1 3 δ 1 2 ( 1) 1+3 (d k 1)p( m j = k ) d. (28)