2010
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.105.230501
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Device-Independent Tests of Classical and Quantum Dimensions

Abstract: We address the problem of testing the dimensionality of classical and quantum systems in a "black-box" scenario. We develop a general formalism for tackling this problem. This allows us to derive lower bounds on the classical dimension necessary to reproduce given measurement data. Furthermore, we generalize the concept of quantum dimension witnesses to arbitrary quantum systems, allowing one to place a lower bound on the Hilbert space dimension necessary to reproduce certain data. Illustrating these ideas, we… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

7
398
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 283 publications
(420 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
7
398
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Obviously, also the condition of projective measurement must be verified. Notice that our dimension witnesses involve always the same Leggett-Garg inequality and measurement scheme, in contrast to other proposal based on Bell [24] or noncontextuality [30] inequalities, and the prepare-and-measure scenario [31], where specific inequalities violated only by high-dimensional systems and involving more complex measurement schemes must be found.A further interesting application is the discrimination between Lüders' and von Neumann's state-update rules [25], i.e., which one, if any, correctly represents the measurement scenario. A violation of the bound corresponding to M = 2 shows a contradiction with Lüders rule.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Obviously, also the condition of projective measurement must be verified. Notice that our dimension witnesses involve always the same Leggett-Garg inequality and measurement scheme, in contrast to other proposal based on Bell [24] or noncontextuality [30] inequalities, and the prepare-and-measure scenario [31], where specific inequalities violated only by high-dimensional systems and involving more complex measurement schemes must be found.A further interesting application is the discrimination between Lüders' and von Neumann's state-update rules [25], i.e., which one, if any, correctly represents the measurement scenario. A violation of the bound corresponding to M = 2 shows a contradiction with Lüders rule.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Obviously, also the condition of projective measurement must be verified. Notice that our dimension witnesses involve always the same Leggett-Garg inequality and measurement scheme, in contrast to other proposal based on Bell [24] or noncontextuality [30] inequalities, and the prepare-and-measure scenario [31], where specific inequalities violated only by high-dimensional systems and involving more complex measurement schemes must be found.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…First, it is a resource for several Quantum Information Processing (QIP) tasks [Bar+05]. Examples of them are Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution (DIQKD) [Pir+13], Certified Quantum Random Number Generation (CQRNG) [Pir+10], Randomness Amplification (RA) [CR12], Dimensionality Witnessing (DW) [Gal+10], and many other tasks that fall into the Device-Independent (DI) paradigm (see Section 2.2.1). Hence, being able to reveal the nonlocality of a composite quantum system is a central problem in QIP, and it is going to be one of the crucial problems of future quantum technologies.…”
Section: Nonlocality In Multipartite Quantum Statesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, sometimes we still want to draw nontrivial conclusions on the quantum properties of the involved system. This sounds like a challenging, or even impossible task, but it has been shown to be possible in many cases [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. These kinds of tasks are called device-independent as their application assumes only the correctness of quantum mechanics as a valid description of nature, and is independent of the internal workings of the devices used.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%