Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Detection Loophole in Bell experiments: How post-selected local correlations can look non-local
arXiv
Authors: Cyril Branciard
Year
2010
Paper ID
10980
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
110
Citations
N/A
Abstract
A common problem in Bell type experiments is the well-known detection loophole: if the detection efficiencies are not perfect and if one simply post-selects the conclusive events, one might observe a violation of a Bell inequality, even though a local model could have explained the experimental results. In this paper, we analyze the set of all post-selected correlations that can be explained by a local model, and show that it forms a polytope, larger than the Bell local polytope. We characterize the facets of this post-selected local polytope in the CHSH scenario, where two parties have binary inputs and outcomes. Our approach gives new insights on the detection loophole problem.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- A common problem in Bell type experiments is the well-known detection loophole: if the detection efficiencies are not perfect and if one simply post-selects the conclusive...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.