Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2205.11510 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Conditional probability framework for entanglement and its decoupling from tensor product structure

Irina Basieva, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Aug 22, 2022• 14 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract Our aim is to make a step toward clarification of foundations for the notion of entanglement (both physical and mathematical) by representing it in the conditional probability framework. In Schrödinger’s words, this is entanglement of knowledge which can be extracted via conditional measurements. In particular, quantum probabilities are interpreted as conditional ones (as, e.g., by Ballentine). We restrict considerations to perfect conditional correlations (PCC) induced by measurements (‘EPR entanglement’). Such entanglement is coupled to the pairs of observables with the projection type state update as the back action of measurement. In this way, we determine a special class of entangled states. One of our aims is to decouple the notion of entanglement from the compound systems. The rigid association of entanglement with the state of a few body systems stimulated its linking with quantum nonlocality (‘spooky action at a distance’). However, already by Schrödinger entanglement was presented as knotting of knowledge (about statistics) for one observable A with knowledge about another observable B.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8121/ac8bb3

Related papers

Entanglement of Observables: Quantum Conditional Probability Approach

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Irina Basieva

Abstract This paper is devoted to clarification of the notion of entanglement through decoupling it from the tensor product structure and treating as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observable A and B. In our framework, it is meaningless to speak about entanglement without pointing to the fixed observables A and B, so this is AB-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized as non-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilistic definition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization of the AB-entangled states as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor product case, AB-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vise verse. AB-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation, i.e., $$\langle AB\rangle _{\psi} \not = \langle A\rangle _{\psi} \langle B\rangle _{\psi} .$$ ⟨ A B ⟩ ψ ≠ ⟨ A ⟩ ψ ⟨ B ⟩ ψ . We describe the class of quantum states that are $$A_{u} B_{u}$$ A u B u -entangled for a family of unitary operators (u). Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory.

arXiv:2303.12393•Foundations of Physics•Sep 15, 2023•12 citations

On spooky action at a distance and conditional probabilities

Henryk Gzyl

The aim of this exposé is to make explicit the analogy between the classical notion of non-independent probability distribution and the quantum notion of entangled state. To bring that analogy forth, we consider a classical systems with two dependent random variables and a quantum system with two components. In the classical case, afet observing one of the random variables, the underlying sample space and the probability distribution change. In the quantum case, when and event pertaining to one of the components is observed, the post-measurement state captures, both, the change in the state of the system and implicitly the new probability distribution. The predictions after a measurement in the classical case and in the quantum case, have to be computed with the conditional distribution given the value of the observed variable.

quant-pharXiv:2601.13875•Jan 21, 2026•0 citations

Probabilistic Entanglement of Quantum Observables

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

In this chapter contextual probabilistic entanglement is represented withinthe Hilbert space formalism. The notion of entanglement is clarified anddemystified through decoupling it from the tensor product structure andtreating it as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observablesA and B. In this framework, it is meaningless to speak aboutentanglement without pointing to the fixed observables A and B, so thisis AB-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized asnon-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilisticdefinition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization of the AB-entangledstates as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor productcase, AB-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vice versa.AB-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation. Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

Quantum entanglement

Franck Laloë

In this chapter, we study the properties of quantum entanglement, and more generally the way correlations can appear in quantum mechanics. Quantum entanglement is an important notion that we have already discussed, for instance in the context of the Von Neumann chain or of the Schrödinger cat, but here we give more details on its properties. In classical physics, the notion of correlation is well known. It hinges on the calculation of probabilities and on linear averages over a number of possibilities. A distribution gives the probability of having the first system in a some given state and the second in another state. If this distribution is not a product, the two systems are correlated. If it is a product, they are uncorrelated; measuring the properties of one system does not bring any information on the other. This is in particular the case if the state of each of the two systems is perfectly defined (which also defines the state of the whole system perfectly well). The notion of correlation between sub-systems therefore stems from the multiplicity of possible states of the whole system; fluctuations of this state are necessary to give its full meaning to the classical notion of correlation. In quantum mechanics, the situation is different: as we have seen (in particular in Chapter 4), even a physical system that is perfectly defined by a given state vector already contains fluctuations.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•1 citation

Operational approach to the entanglement

Marian Kupczyński

In early days of quantum theory it was believed that the results of measurements performed on two distant physical systems should be uncorrelated thus their quantum state should be separable it means described by a simple tensor product of the individual local state vectors or a tensor product of individual local density operators. It was shown many years ago by EPR that two systems which interacted in the past and separated afterwards had to be described in most cases by particular non-separable states which are called entangled. It was noticed by Zanardi et al. that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system could be partitioned in different way by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). Therefore a separable state in one partition could become entangled in different partition. In this sense the entanglement was relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Continuing this line of thought Torre et al. claimed to prove that for any separable state there existed strongly correlated physical observables therefore all quantum states were entangled. The same claims one may find in several recent papers. In this paper we will discuss in operational way the differences existing between separable, non-separable and entangled states and we will show that the conclusions of Torre et al. were unjustified. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of BI-CHSH and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon.

arXiv:1208.6532•Aug 31, 2012•0 citations

Quantum correlations and causal structures

Issam Ibnouhsein

Recent works in foundations of quantum (field) theory and relativistic quantum information try to better grasp the interplay between the structure of quantum correlations and the constraints imposed by causality on physical operations. Chapter 1 is dedicated to the study of the conceptual implications of quantum nonlocality, a concept that subsumes that of entanglement in a certain way. We detail the recent information-theoretic approaches to understanding the structure of nonlocal correlations, and the issues the latter raise concerning the ability of local observers to isolate a system from its environment. Chapter 2 reviews in what sense imposing Poincare invariance affects entanglement detection and quantification procedures. This invariance ultimately forces a description of all quantum systems within the framework of quantum field theory, which leads to the impossibility of localized finite-energy states and to the divergence of all entanglement measures for local observers. We provide a solution to these two problems by showing that there exists a generic equivalence between a finite spatial resolution of the measurement apparatus and the exclusion of high-energy degrees of freedom from the definition of the observed system. This equivalence allows for an epistemic interpretation of the standard quantum formalism describing nonrelativistic localized systems and their correlations, hence a clarification of the origin of the finite measures of entanglement between such systems. Chapter 3 presents a recent theoretical framework that predicts the existence of correlations with indefinite causal order. In analogy to the information-theoretic approaches to nonlocal correlations, we introduce some principles that constrain the structure of such correlations, which is a first step toward a clear understanding of their physical origin.

arXiv:1510.01309•Oct 5, 2015•1 citation
Abstract Our aim is to make a step toward clarification of foundations for the notion of entanglement (both physical and mathematical) by representing it in the conditional probability framework. In Schrödinger’s words, this is entanglement of knowledge which can be extracted via conditional measurements. In particular, quantum probabilities are interpreted as conditional ones (as, e.g., by Ballentine). We restrict considerations to perfect conditional correlations (PCC) induced by measurements (‘EPR entanglement’). Such entanglement is coupled to the pairs of observables with the projection type state update as the back action of measurement. In this way, we determine a special class of entangled states. One of our aims is to decouple the notion of entanglement from the compound systems. The rigid association of entanglement with the state of a few body systems stimulated its linking with quantum nonlocality (‘spooky action at a distance’). However, already by Schrödinger entanglement was presented as knotting of knowledge (about statistics) for one observable A with knowledge about another observable B.
Abstract This paper is devoted to clarification of the notion of entanglement through decoupling it from the tensor product structure and treating as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observable A and B. In our framework, it is meaningless to speak about entanglement without pointing to the fixed observables A and B, so this is AB-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized as non-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilistic definition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization of the AB-entangled states as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor product case, AB-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vise verse. AB-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation, i.e., ⟨AB⟩ψ≠⟨A⟩ψ⟨B⟩ψ.\langle AB\rangle _{\psi} \not = \langle A\rangle _{\psi} \langle B\rangle _{\psi} .⟨AB⟩ψ​=⟨A⟩ψ​⟨B⟩ψ​. ⟨ A B ⟩ ψ ≠ ⟨ A ⟩ ψ ⟨ B ⟩ ψ . We describe the class of quantum states that are AuBuA_{u} B_{u}Au​Bu​ A u B u -entangled for a family of unitary operators (u). Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory.
The aim of this exposé is to make explicit the analogy between the classical notion of non-independent probability distribution and the quantum notion of entangled state. To bring that analogy forth, we consider a classical systems with two dependent random variables and a quantum system with two components. In the classical case, afet observing one of the random variables, the underlying sample space and the probability distribution change. In the quantum case, when and event pertaining to one of the components is observed, the post-measurement state captures, both, the change in the state of the system and implicitly the new probability distribution. The predictions after a measurement in the classical case and in the quantum case, have to be computed with the conditional distribution given the value of the observed variable.
In this chapter contextual probabilistic entanglement is represented withinthe Hilbert space formalism. The notion of entanglement is clarified anddemystified through decoupling it from the tensor product structure andtreating it as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observablesA and B. In this framework, it is meaningless to speak aboutentanglement without pointing to the fixed observables A and B, so thisis AB-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized asnon-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilisticdefinition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization of the AB-entangledstates as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor productcase, AB-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vice versa.AB-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation. Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory.
In this chapter, we study the properties of quantum entanglement, and more generally the way correlations can appear in quantum mechanics. Quantum entanglement is an important notion that we have already discussed, for instance in the context of the Von Neumann chain or of the Schrödinger cat, but here we give more details on its properties. In classical physics, the notion of correlation is well known. It hinges on the calculation of probabilities and on linear averages over a number of possibilities. A distribution gives the probability of having the first system in a some given state and the second in another state. If this distribution is not a product, the two systems are correlated. If it is a product, they are uncorrelated; measuring the properties of one system does not bring any information on the other. This is in particular the case if the state of each of the two systems is perfectly defined (which also defines the state of the whole system perfectly well). The notion of correlation between sub-systems therefore stems from the multiplicity of possible states of the whole system; fluctuations of this state are necessary to give its full meaning to the classical notion of correlation. In quantum mechanics, the situation is different: as we have seen (in particular in Chapter 4), even a physical system that is perfectly defined by a given state vector already contains fluctuations.
In early days of quantum theory it was believed that the results of measurements performed on two distant physical systems should be uncorrelated thus their quantum state should be separable it means described by a simple tensor product of the individual local state vectors or a tensor product of individual local density operators. It was shown many years ago by EPR that two systems which interacted in the past and separated afterwards had to be described in most cases by particular non-separable states which are called entangled. It was noticed by Zanardi et al. that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system could be partitioned in different way by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). Therefore a separable state in one partition could become entangled in different partition. In this sense the entanglement was relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Continuing this line of thought Torre et al. claimed to prove that for any separable state there existed strongly correlated physical observables therefore all quantum states were entangled. The same claims one may find in several recent papers. In this paper we will discuss in operational way the differences existing between separable, non-separable and entangled states and we will show that the conclusions of Torre et al. were unjustified. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of BI-CHSH and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon.
Recent works in foundations of quantum (field) theory and relativistic quantum information try to better grasp the interplay between the structure of quantum correlations and the constraints imposed by causality on physical operations. Chapter 1 is dedicated to the study of the conceptual implications of quantum nonlocality, a concept that subsumes that of entanglement in a certain way. We detail the recent information-theoretic approaches to understanding the structure of nonlocal correlations, and the issues the latter raise concerning the ability of local observers to isolate a system from its environment. Chapter 2 reviews in what sense imposing Poincare invariance affects entanglement detection and quantification procedures. This invariance ultimately forces a description of all quantum systems within the framework of quantum field theory, which leads to the impossibility of localized finite-energy states and to the divergence of all entanglement measures for local observers. We provide a solution to these two problems by showing that there exists a generic equivalence between a finite spatial resolution of the measurement apparatus and the exclusion of high-energy degrees of freedom from the definition of the observed system. This equivalence allows for an epistemic interpretation of the standard quantum formalism describing nonrelativistic localized systems and their correlations, hence a clarification of the origin of the finite measures of entanglement between such systems. Chapter 3 presents a recent theoretical framework that predicts the existence of correlations with indefinite causal order. In analogy to the information-theoretic approaches to nonlocal correlations, we introduce some principles that constrain the structure of such correlations, which is a first step toward a clear understanding of their physical origin.