Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Robust self-testing with CHSH mod 3
arXiv
Authors: Igor Klep, Nando Leijenhorst, Victor Magron
Year
2026
Paper ID
45215
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
101
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The CHSH mod 3 Bell inequality is a natural testbed for higher-dimensional quantum nonlocality, yet its maximal quantum violation and self-testing properties have remained unresolved. We determine its exact maximal quantum value and show that, up to unitary equivalence and the natural symmetries of the inequality, it admits a unique optimal irreducible strategy; equivalently, there are four symmetry-related optimal irreducible strategies. Each of these strategies uses a maximally entangled two-qutrit state. We further prove that any strategy whose value is within varepsilon of the optimum is O\(sqrt{varepsilon}\)-close, up to local isometries, to a direct sum of optimal irreducible strategies.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- The CHSH mod 3 Bell inequality is a natural testbed for higher-dimensional quantum nonlocality, yet its maximal quantum violation and self-testing properties have remained...
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.