To test the effectiveness of a drug, the medical researcher can instruct two randomly selected groups of patients to take the drug or not to take it. Each group should comply with the instructions exactly or else the causal effect cannot be identified satisfactorily. This holds true even when those who do not comply are identified afterwards, since latent factors such as patient's personality can influence both his decision and his physical response. However, one can still give bounds on the effectiveness of the drug depending on the rate of compliance. They are described by 16 inequalities. Remarkably, the proofs for these bounds given in the literature rely on models that represent all relevant latent factors influencing patient's behavior by hidden classical variables. In a strong analogy to the violation of Bell's inequality, half of the inequalities fail if patient behavior is influenced by latent quantum processes (e.g. in his nervous system). Quantum effects could fake an increase in the recovery rate by about 13%, although the drug would hurt as many patients as it would help if everyone took it. We show that the other eight inequalities remain true even in the quantum case. We do not present a realistic model showing the above effect. We only point out that the physics of decision-making could be relevant for the causal interpretation of every-day life statistical data. Our derivation of the remaining eight inequalities suggests how to avoid problematic hidden-variable models in classical causal reasoning by representing all latent factors by quantum systems.
To test the effectiveness of a drug, the medical researcher can instruct two randomly selected groups of patients to take the drug or not to take it. Each group should comply with the instructions exactly or else the causal effect cannot be identified satisfactorily. This holds true even when those who do not comply are identified afterwards, since latent factors such as patient's personality can influence both his decision and his physical response. However, one can still give bounds on the effectiveness of the drug depending on the rate of compliance. They are described by 16 inequalities. Remarkably, the proofs for these bounds given in the literature rely on models that represent all relevant latent factors influencing patient's behavior by hidden classical variables. In a strong analogy to the violation of Bell's inequality, half of the inequalities fail if patient behavior is influenced by latent quantum processes (e.g. in his nervous system). Quantum effects could fake an increase in the recovery rate by about 13%, although the drug would hurt as many patients as it would help if everyone took it. We show that the other eight inequalities remain true even in the quantum case. We do not present a realistic model showing the above effect. We only point out that the physics of decision-making could be relevant for the causal interpretation of every-day life statistical data. Our derivation of the remaining eight inequalities suggests how to avoid problematic hidden-variable models in classical causal reasoning by representing all latent factors by quantum systems.
To test the effectiveness of a drug one can advice two randomly selected groups of patients to take or not to take it, respectively. It is well-known that the causal effect cannot be identified if not all patients comply. This holds even when the non-compliers can be identified afterwards since latent factors like patient's personality can influence both his decision and his physical response. However, one can still give bounds on the effectiveness of the drug depending on the rate of compliance. Remarkably, the proofs of these bounds given in the literature rely on models that represent all relevant latent factors (including noise) by hidden classical variables. In strong analogy to the violation of Bell's inequality, some of these bounds fail if patient's behavior is influenced by latent quantum processes (e.g. in his nervous system). Quantum effects could fake an increase of the recovery rate by about 13% although the drug would hurt as many patients as it would help if everyone took it. The other bounds are true even in the quantum case. We do not present any realistic model showing this effect, we only point out that the physics of decision making could be relevant for the causal interpretation of every-day life statistical data.
Since Bell's theorem, it is known that local realism fails to explain quantum phenomena. Bell inequality violations manifestly show the incompatibility of quantum theory with classical notions of cause and effect. As recently found, however, the instrumental scenario-a pivotal tool in causal inference-allows for nonclassicality signatures going beyond this paradigm. If we are not limited to observational data and can intervene in our setup, then we can witness quantum violations of classical bounds on the causal influence among the involved variables even when no Bell-like violation is possible. That is, through interventions, the quantum behavior of a system that would seem classical can be demonstrated. Using a photonic setup-faithfully implementing the instrumental causal structure and switching between observation and intervention run by run-we experimentally witness such a nonclassicality. We also test quantum bounds for the causal influence, showing that they provide a reliable tool for quantum causal modeling.
Bell famously showed that it was possible to adjudicate between quantum theory and classical hidden-variable theories on experimental grounds rather than merely philosophical ones. These days, there is a new dispute, regarding the question of how to causally account for Bell correlations, with some suggesting a quantum common cause, others a classical superluminal influence. Here, the authors propose a way to move beyond philosophical disputes by comparing the predictive power of different models. They show that the classical models actually tend to overfit Bell test data.
It is one of the most remarkable features of quantum physics that measurements on spatially separated systems cannot always be described by a locally causal theory. In such a theory, the outcomes of local measurements are determined in advance solely by some unknown (or hidden) variables and the choice of local measurements. Correlations that are allowed within the framework of a locally causal theory are termed classical. Typically, the fact that quantum mechanics does not always result in classical correlations is revealed by the violation of Bell inequalities, which are constraints that have to be satisfied by any classical correlations. It has been known for a long time that entanglement is necessary to demonstrate nonclassical correlations, and hence a Bell inequality violation. However, since some entangled quantum states are known to admit explicit locally causal models, the exact role of entanglement in Bell inequality violation has remained obscure. This thesis provides both a comprehensive review on these issues as well as a report on new discoveries made to clarify the relationship between entanglement and Bell inequality violation. In particular, within the framework of a standard Bell experiment, i.e., a Bell inequality test that is directly performed on a single copy of a quantum state r, we have derived two algorithms to determine, respectively, a lower bound and an upper bound on the strength of correlations that r can offer for any given Bell inequality. Both of these algorithms make use convex optimization techniques in the form of a semidefinite program. By examples, we show that these algorithms can often be used in tandem, in conjunction with convexity arguments, to determine if a quantum state can offer nonclassical correlations and hence violates a given Bell inequality. On the other hand, since a standard Bell experiment typically involves measurements over many copies of the quantum systems, we have also investigated the possibility of enhancing the strength of nonclassical correlation by, instead, performing collective measurements on multiple copies of the quantum systems. Our findings show that even without postselection, such joint measurements may also lead to stronger nonclassical correlations, and hence a better Bell inequality violation. Meanwhile, previous studies have indicated that entangled state admitting locally causal models may still lead to observable nonclassical correlations if, prior to a standard Bell experiment, the state is subjected to some appropriate local preprocessing. This phenomenon of hidden nonlocality was discovered more than a decade ago, but to date, it is still not known if all entangled states can demonstrate nonclassical correlations through these more sophisticated Bell experiments. A key result in this thesis then consists of showing that for all bipartite entangled states, observable nonclassical correlations, in the form of a Bell-CHSH inequality violation, can indeed be derived if we allow both local preprocessing and the usage of shared ancillary state which by itself does not violate the Bell-CHSH inequality. This establishes a kind of equivalence between bipartite entanglement and states that cannot be simulated by classical correlations. In summary, for a standard Bell experiment where no local preprocessing on a quantum state r is allowed, we have provided two algorithms that can be used in tandem to determine if r can be simulated by a locally causal theory, whereas in the scenario where local preprocessing is allowed, we have demonstrated that bipartite entangled states are precisely those which cannot always be simulated classically.
The Bell/CHSH inequalities of quantum physics are identical with the inequalities derived in mathematical psychology for the problem of selective influences in cases involving two binary experimental factors and two binary random variables recorded in response to them. The following points are made regarding cognitive science applications: (1) compliance of data with these inequalities is informative only if the data satisfy the requirement known as marginal selectivity; (2) both violations of marginal selectivity and violations of the Bell/CHSH inequalities are interpretable as indicating that at least one of the two responses is influenced by both experimental factors.
Bell's theorem is typically understood as the proof that quantum theory is incompatible with localhidden-variable models.More generally, we can see the violation of a Bell inequality as witnessing the impossibility of explaining quantum correlations with classical causal models.The violation of a Bell inequality, however, does not exclude classical models where some level of measurement dependence is allowed, that is, the choice made by observers can be correlated with the source generating the systems to be measured.Here, we show that the level of measurement dependence can be quantitatively upper bounded if we arrange the Bell test within a network.Furthermore, we also prove that these results can be adapted in order to derive nonlinear Bell inequalities for a large class of causal networks and to identify quantumly realizable correlations that violate them.