Trading symmetry for Hilbert-space dimension in Bell-inequality violation

Consider the bipartite Bell scenario $(2,m,n)$, in which two parties, Alice and Bob, can both perform $m$ measurements, each resulting in $n$ outcomes. Let $[n]:=\{0,1,\cdots,n-1\}$. We label Alice’s and Bob’s settings by $x,y\in[m]$ and their outcomes by $a,b\in[n]$, respectively. The statistics of a Bell test yield the joint probability distribution (or correlation) $\vec{P}_{\rm AB}=\{P_{\rm AB}(a,b|x,y)\}$, which manifests how well their measurement outcomes correlate. Throughout, when there is no risk of confusion, the subscripts _AB will be omitted for simplicity.

We say that a correlation is Bell-local (hereafter abbreviated as local) if it admits an LHV description [1]:

where $\lambda$ is the local-hidden variable (equivalently, shared randomness), $q(\lambda)$ is its distribution weight, and $f_{i}(\cdot|\cdot,\lambda)=0,1$ with $i\in\{A,B\}$ are local response functions. Note that $\mathcal{L}$—the set of local correlations—forms a convex polytope, called the Bell polytope, which consists of finitely many extreme points, each corresponding to a local deterministic strategy.

When the outcomes are binary, i.e., $n=2$, we can also conveniently express a correlation $\vec{P}$ through the expectation values (or correlators) $\langle A_{x}\rangle$, $\langle B_{y}\rangle$, and $\langle A_{x}B_{y}\rangle$, defined as:

where $A_{x}$ ($B_{y}$) is the outcome of Alice (Bob) for her (his) $x$-th ($y$-th) measurement, while $P_{\rm A}$ and $P_{\rm B}$ are obtained from $P_{\rm AB}$ via the marginalization over $B$ and $A$, respectively. For example, $P_{\rm A}(a|x)=\sum_{b}P_{\rm AB}(a,b|x,y)$ for all $a,x$.

In contrast with those compatible with an LHV description, a correlation $\vec{P}$ is said to be quantum if it arises from locally measuring a shared quantum state $\rho_{\rm AB}$, say, acting on $\mathbb{C}^{D}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{D}$. Explicitly, a quantum correlation $\vec{P}$ associated with a quantum strategy (QS)

of local HSD upper bounded by $D$ may be computed from Born’s rule as:

Here, $\{M_{a|x}^{A}\}_{a}$ (respectively $\{M_{b|y}^{B}\}_{b}$) is a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) for Alice’s $x$-th (Bob’s $y$-th) measurement, i.e., $\sum_{a}M_{a|x}^{A}=\mathbb{I}_{D}$ and $M_{a|x}^{A}\succeq 0$ for all $a,x$ where $\mathbb{I}_{D}$ is the identity operator acting on $\mathbb{C}^{D}$. Henceforth, we denote by $\mathcal{Q}$ the set of quantum correlations (for any given Bell scenario). A celebrated discovery by Bell [1] is that not all $\vec{P}\in\mathcal{Q}$ can be cast in the form of Eq.˜1, viz. some quantum $\vec{P}$ lies outside of $\mathcal{L}$.

Mathematically, a Bell polytope $\mathcal{L}$ can equivalently be described in terms of a minimal set of halfspaces, called Bell inequalities. In the $(2,m,n)$ Bell scenario, a general linear Bell inequality reads as:

where $\vec{\beta}=\{\beta_{ab}^{xy}\}$ is a vector of real coefficients that determine the corresponding local bound $L_{\vec{\beta}}$. By definition, a Bell inequality, cf. Eq.˜5, is satisfied by all $\vec{P}\in\mathcal{L}$. Hence, the fact that a $\vec{P}\not\in\mathcal{L}$, i.e., the correlation $\vec{P}$ is nonlocal, can be witnessed from its violation of a Bell inequality.

As an explicit example, recall from [52] the simplest nontrivial Bell inequality, i.e., the CHSH Bell inequality, which admits a PPI form:

Often, this is also written, in the notations of Eq.˜2, as

For any given Bell inequality $I$, it is natural to wonder the extent to which it can be violated quantum-mechanically and identify the QSs that result in this maximal violation. In particular, from a resource-theoretic perspective, it is of interest to determine the minimal, i.e., the smallest local HSD $d_{\text{m}}$ capable of realizing such a quantum violation. For concreteness, we refer to any QS in $d_{\text{m}}$ that realizes the maximal quantum violation of a Bell inequality as a minimal maximizing QS, which we denote by $\mathfrak{Q}^{*}_{d_{\text{m}}}$.

For example, for Bell inequalities defined in an $(N,2,2)$ Bell scenario (with $N$ being any integer larger than or equal to $2$), it is known [32] that $d_{\text{m}}=2$ and we may take $\mathfrak{Q}^{*}_{d_{\text{m}}}$ to be an $N$-qubit pure state along with projection-valued measures (PVMs), i.e., projective measurements. In particular, a well-known two-qubit strategy achieving the maximal violation of the CHSH Bell inequality [52] of Eq.˜7 consists of the following state and observables:

where $\sigma_{i}$ with $i\in\{x,y,z\}$ are Pauli matrices, while $\hat{A}_{x}$ and $\hat{B}_{y}$ are Alice’s $x$-th and Bob’s $y$-th observable, which are related to their POVMs by $\hat{A}_{x}=\sum_{a}(-1)^{a}M^{A}_{a|x}$ and $\hat{B}_{y}=\sum_{b}(-1)^{b}M^{B}_{b|y}$.

Beyond CHSH, surprisingly little is known about the $d_{\text{m}}$ of various Bell inequalities. Results from [21], [47], and [51] show that for the family of CGLMP inequalities [20] $I_{d}$ with integer $d\leq 8$, their minimal dimension $d_{\text{m}}\leq d$. For the specific case of $d=3$, a dimension bound deduced from a negativity [53] lower bound [40] further shows that this bound is tight, likewise for the cases of $d=4$ and $5$, as we show in Section˜B.1.2.

On the other hand, for the $I_{3322}$ inequality from [54], its $d_{\text{m}}$ could well be infinite, see [34]. Beyond these, the maximal Bell violation of various other Bell inequalities in the bipartite [33, 24, 30, 55] and multipartite [56] Bell scenarios has also been investigated. Again, each explicit QS attaining the quantum maximum provides an upper bound on the corresponding $d_{\text{m}}$. Some other, more general upper bounds on $d_{\text{m}}$ have also been recently established in [35].

Throughout, we use $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$ ($\vec{\beta}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$) to denote a symmetric correlation (Bell inequality) whenever we want to emphasize that it satisfies Eq.˜9 [Eq.˜10]. Notably, synchronous correlations [57] arising from the maximally entangled states [58] are symmetric. Synchronous correlations are characterized by the extra constraint: $P_{\rm AB}(a,b\neq a|x,x)=0,\forall\,\,x$, which means that in the context of a nonlocal game [59], the two players must return the same answer upon receiving identical inputs.

Let us now recall from [40, Proposition 1] a particular kind of QSs that yield a symmetric correlation $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$.

From Eq.˜4 and Definition˜3, one can see that an SQS must give rise to a symmetric quantum correlation $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$:

where we have used the unitarity of $S$ and the cyclic property of trace to arrive at the second equality, Eqs.˜11 and 12 to arrive at the third equality, and Definition˜3 to arrive at the fourth equality. Thus, an SQS yields a symmetric correlation, cf. Definition˜1.

Nevertheless, a $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$ is not necessarily realized by an SQS. For example, the maximal-CHSH-violating two-qubit strategy of Eq.˜8—with the two parties performing different measurements—is clearly not symmetric, even though it gives the evidently symmetric Tsirelson correlation $\vec{P}_{T}$ [60]:

While a symmetric quantum correlation $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$ need not originate from an SQS, when there is no restriction in the Hilbert space dimension, any asymmetric QS giving a symmetric correlation can always be transformed into an SQS producing the same $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$. We now recall from [40] such a transformation. Given an arbitrary $\mathfrak{Q}=\{\rho_{\rm AB},\{M_{a|x}^{A}\}_{a,x},\{M_{b|y}^{B}\}_{b,y}\}$ realizing a symmetric correlation, its symmetrized version

can be constructed by introducing ancillary projectors $\{\outerproduct{0}{0},\outerproduct{1}{1}\}$ associated with each party (see [40, Eqs. (17,18)]):

where ${\rm A}^{\prime}$ (${\rm B}^{\prime}$) is a label of Alice’s (Bob’s) ancillary space. By construction, both parties employ the same POVMs given by $\{N_{a|x}\}_{a|x}$, whilst the PPI nature of $\lrvec{\rho}_{\rm AB}$ can also be straightforwardly verified. To see that both $\mathfrak{Q}$ and $\lrvec{\mathfrak{Q}}$ give the same symmetric correlation, let us denote by $\lrvec{P}_{\rm AB}(a,b|x,y)$ components of the correlation arising from Eq.˜15 and notice from Eqs.˜4 and III.2 that

where the last equality follows from the assumed symmetry of $\vec{P}$. Thus, this symmetrization embeds the original $\mathfrak{Q}$ acting on $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{H}$ to an SQS acting on $[\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}]\otimes[\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{2}]$, doubling the original local HSD, while preserving the produced correlation $\vec{P}$. Importantly, as we see below, the symmetrization of a QS may also be achieved, in some cases, via a local unitary transformation.

On the other hand, it is also well-known that for any given $\mathfrak{Q}$ realizing a correlation $\vec{P}$, one can obtain, through Naimark dilation ([61, Section 9]) and quantum state purification, a purified QS (PQS)

that realizes $\vec{P}$. In particular, if the state defined in $\mathfrak{Q}$ is a (multipartite) PPI density operator, one can follow the method described in [62, Section 4.2] to purify it into a pure state lying in the symmetric subspace. Hence, by concatenating the symmetrization procedure of [40] and the purification procedure, one can always obtain a purified SQS (PSQS) realizing any given $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}\in\mathcal{Q}$. Alternatively, from $\mathfrak{Q}^{\prime}$, we can also obtain a PSQS

via

Hence, we have shown that the following Proposition holds.

Notice that Proposition 1 can be seen as a strengthening of the observation given in [40], in that we may not only take the QS reproducing any given $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$ to be symmetric, but also purified. Evidently, Definitions˜1, 2 and 3 can be naturally generalized to an $N$-partite Bell scenario (with $N>2$) by demanding PPI for all possible permutations of parties. In this regard, we remark that the above symmetrization procedures, and hence Proposition 1, can be generalized to give the following result.

Our first example involves the CHSH Bell inequality of Eq.˜6, which is—modulo the freedom in relabeling [54] of settings and outcomes— known [63] to be the only nontrivial facet-defining Bell inequalities in the simplest bipartite Bell scenario. The maximal quantum violation of CHSH can be attained using the asymmetric QS defined in Eq.˜8, giving the symmetric Tsirelson correlation $\vec{P}_{T}$ of Eq.˜14 and the so-called Tsirelson bound [60] of $2\sqrt{2}$. However, as mentioned in [11, Section IV.A] (see also [64]), this quantum value of $I_{\text{CHSH}}$ can also be obtained using an SQS.

To this end, it suffices ¹¹1Note that the same transformation is obtained by first rotating by $-\frac{\pi}{4}$ about the $y$-axis, then by $\pi$ about the $z$-axis on the Bloch sphere. to apply on Bob’s qubits a $\theta=\pi$ rotation $R_{\hat{n}}(\theta)=\exp(-\frac{i\theta}{2}\hat{n}\cdot\vec{\sigma})$ about the $\hat{n}$-axis of the Bloch sphere, where $\hat{n}=(\sin\frac{\pi}{8},0,\cos\frac{\pi}{8})$ and $\vec{\sigma}=(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z})$. The resulting shared state, which is indeed symmetric, can be written as

which are clearly symmetric. As we see next in Section˜IV.2, the SQS of Eq.˜21 can be seen as the $d=2$ instance of a more general family of SQSs.

The CGLMP inequality [20] (see also [65]), denoted by $I_{d}$, constitutes a facet-defining inequality of the Bell polytope [66] in the $(2,2,d)$ Bell scenario.²²2For $d\geq 3$, the outcome-lifted [67] CHSH is another facet-defining Bell inequality in this scenario, but we know from the results of [68] that it cannot exhibit a trade-off. Specifically, for $d=2$, it may be rewritten as the CHSH Bell inequality of Eq.˜7 after the relabeling $B_{1}\leftrightarrow B_{2}$. Although $I_{d}$ in its original form [20] is not PPI, it can be recast into a symmetric form (cf. Definition˜2) by, e.g., relabeling all of Alice’s outcomes from $a$ to $d-a$.

Alternatively, as demonstrated in [69, Appendix B.1.1], by applying the no-signaling conditions [70, 71], normalization constraints, and appropriate relabeling of the outcomes, the CGLMP inequality can be converted to the $I_{22dd}$ inequality [54], which is manifestly symmetric:

where $\triangle_{\leq}$ and $\triangle_{\geq}$ refer, respectively, to the set of $a,b\in[d-1]$ such that $a+b\leq d-2$ and $a+b\geq d-2$. Moreover, for any given $\mathfrak{Q}$, the Bell value of $I_{d}$ and that of $I_{22dd}$ are related [69] by

The best-known Bell violation of the CGLMP inequality $I_{d}$ (or equivalently $I_{22dd}$) can be achieved by locally measuring a partially entangled two-qudit state [21] in the judiciously chosen “Fourier-transformed” bases [20] (implementable via a multiport beam splitter in a photonic setup, see, e.g., [18, 19]). Numerical optimizations from [21, 47] confirm this QS to be optimal for dimensions $2\leq d\leq 8$. In particular, for $d<5$, a sum-of-squares decomposition in the symmetric form provides an analytic bound on the maximal quantum violation [51].

However, the optimal measurements considered in [20] are not PPI, even after we incorporate the outcome-relabeling needed to cast $I_{d}$ in a PPI form. In the following, we present a family of SQSs that match the best known $I_{22dd}$ (and hence $I_{d}$) Bell-inequality violation. For this purpose, we specify the POVMs (with $M_{a|x}^{B}=M_{a|x}^{A}\,\,\forall\,\,a,x$) as:

Accordingly, the quantum state to be measured $\ket{\psi_{d}}$ is obtained by solving the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the symmetric $I_{22dd}$ Bell operator [72].

As an explicit example, the optimal QS for $d=3$ consists of measuring

where $\alpha=\frac{5-\sqrt{33}}{2}$ and $\gamma=\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{55-9\sqrt{33}}}$ is a normalization factor. Modulo a local change of basis, $\ket{\psi_{3}}$ is exactly the optimal state for $I_{d=3}$ found in [21] (see also [11]). More generally, the optimal quantum state obtained via the Bell operator defined by the PPI measurement strategy of Eq.˜24 is easily seen to be PPI, too. Furthermore, for $d=2$ to $19$, our computation shows that—to six or more significant digits—the SQS formed by these states and measurements indeed gives an $I_{22dd}$ (and hence $I_{d}$) value that coincides with the upper bound obtained from the SDP hierarchy of Navascués-Pironio-Acín (NPA). See Section˜B.1.2 for details.

The complete set of facet-defining Bell inequalities for this Bell scenario was first determined by Froissart [73], then independently rediscovered by Pitowsky and Svozil [74], Sliwa [75], as well as Collins and Gisin [54]. In this case, apart from the (input-lifted [67]) CHSH inequality of Eq.˜6, there is also the so-called $I_{3322}$ inequality, commonly known in an asymmetric form [54, Eq. (19)]. However, via an appropriate relabeling, we can also rewrite this inequality in a PPI form: see [75] and [76] for a symmetric form of this inequality written, respectively, in terms of correlators and probabilities, cf. Eq.˜5. Since $d_{\text{m}}$ for this inequality could well be infinite [34], and one can always follow the procedure outlined in Fig.˜1 to obtain an SQS that is still infinite dimensional, there is little hope to exhibit a trade-off between symmetry and dimension for this Bell inequality.

At first glance, the symmetric $I_{3322}$-like Bell inequality of [77, Eq. (27)] may seem like an example exhibiting a trade-off, since it was shown therein that its maximal violation can be attained using a family of PPI correlations $\vec{P}_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\leftrightarrow$}}$ that arise from asymmetric two-qubit strategies. However, a closer inspection reveals that these strategies—as with Eq.˜8—can be transformed into a symmetric form via a local unitary, see Section˜B.2 for details.

In contrast, consider for $\alpha\in[1.5,3]$ the following family of symmetric Bell inequalities in correlator form:

where the local bound is easily verified to be saturated by the symmetric local deterministic strategy

For concreteness, consider now the special case of $\alpha=2$. Quantum mechanically, it can be verified that an asymmetric two-qubit strategy (see Section˜B.3 for details), which involves a degenerate measurement for $\hat{B}_{2}$, leads to the value $\frac{1}{3}{\left(13+4\sqrt{13}\right)}\simeq 9.1407$, correspondingly. Moreover, this quantum violation arising from the resulting asymmetric correlation agrees with the quantum upper bound on $I_{S}(2)$ obtained from the NPA hierarchy to a precision better than $10^{-8}$. Hence, $d_{\text{m}}=2$ for this inequality. However, if we, instead, only consider SQS facilitated by qubits and PVMs,⁴⁴4Note that it suffices [59, 78] to consider PVMs in maximizing the Bell violation of all two-outcome Bell inequalities. then our computation—using the method described in Section˜A.1.2—shows that such strategies cannot even violate the Bell inequality of Section˜V.1 at all. In other words, there is a trade-off between symmetry and dimension in getting the maximal Bell violation of $I_{S}$.

More generally, as we illustrate in Fig.˜2, even though an asymmetric qubit strategy involving a degenerate measurement for $\hat{B}_{2}$ can lead to the maximal quantum violation of $I_{S}(\alpha)$ (up to numerical precision) for all $\alpha\in[1.5,3]$, the maximal quantum violation attainable by a symmetric qubit QS is always suboptimal. In fact, for $\alpha\in(1.975,3]$, these latter strategies can, at best, give the local bound of $2\alpha+5$.

As we increase the number of settings to four, it is known [79, 55, 80] that the Bell polytope is completely characterized by 175 facet-defining classes of Bell inequalities. Among them, 55 are known [36] to admit a symmetric representation. Several of these, namely, the trivial positivity facet, the CHSH inequality of Eq.˜6, and the $I_{3322}$ inequality, are liftings [67] of facet-defining Bell inequalities from simpler Bell scenarios.

For the remaining 52 symmetric Bell inequaliites with four settings, except for $J_{4422}^{62}$ (whose $d_{\text{m}}$ remains unknown [34]) and 8 others (see Table˜1 as well as Tables˜5 and 6 of Section˜B.4), all the rest can be maximally violated using qubit strategies, i.e., having $d_{\text{m}}=2$. Moreover, our computation results show that for 42 out of these 52 inequalities, there is no trade-off, i.e., there exists a $\lrvec{\mathfrak{Q}}^{*}_{d_{\text{m}}}$. For ease of reference, we provide this list of 42 inequalities and their maximal quantum violation in Table˜5 of Section˜B.4.

After discounting $J_{4422}^{62}$, we are left with 9 symmetric inequalities, where we observe a trade-off between dimension and symmetry; see Table˜1 for details. It is worth noting that for all these 9 inequalities, as with $I_{S}(\alpha)$, the $\lrvec{\mathfrak{Q}}^{*}_{d_{\text{m}}}$ we have found always involves projectors of unequal ranks between Alice and Bob, i.e., $\text{rank}(M_{a|x}^{B})\neq\text{rank}(M_{a|x}^{A})$ for some $a,x$, thereby making these QS evidently asymmetric. In fact, a closer inspection reveals that the resulting correlation is also asymmetric.

Also worth noting is that for the $J_{4422}^{42}$ inequality, we further observe a gap between the maximal quantum value attainable using qubit SQS and symmetric correlations that may also arise from asymmetric strategies. Indeed, for these two classes of strategies, the maximal quantum values attainable are $0.5682$ and $0.6012$, respectively. More explicitly, the latter value can be achieved by adopting the following asymmetric QS consisting of the shared state

Equivalently, $\vec{b}_{k}$ may be obtained from $\vec{a}_{k}$ by the substitution $\phi_{k}\to-\phi_{k}$. For graphical representation of $\vec{a}_{k}$ and $\vec{b}_{k}$, see Fig.˜3.

In the next section, we provide a proof showing that QSs of the kind given in Eq.˜28 not only produce a symmetric correlation, but also cannot be symmetrized via a local unitary transformation.

To see that the correlation resulting from Eq.˜28 is indeed PPI, we remark that a more general class of mirror-symmetric strategies must also produce symmetric correlations. Indeed, Eq.˜28a is easily seen to be a special case of the following family of two-qubit pure states:

where $\ket{\Psi^{-}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{01}-\ket{10})$ is the singlet state and $\ket{\psi}_{\text{Sym}}$ is some real symmetric state (i.e., a real, linear combination of the remaining three Bell states $\ket{\Phi^{\pm}}$ and $\ket{\Psi^{+}}$).

Moreover, if we locally measure Eq.˜29 for a pair of measurement directions $\{\vec{a}_{k}\},\{\vec{b}_{k}\}$ mirror-symmetric with respect to the $x-z$ plane of the Bloch sphere, i.e.,

it follows that the resulting correlation $\vec{P}$ must be symmetric.

To see that this is the case, we start by establishing the following Lemma.

The proof of Theorem˜3 may now be completed as follows.

We now show that no local operations can symmetrize the measurement bases of the two players provided that their measurement directions are each not coplanar on the Bloch sphere.