Randomness requirement on the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt Bell test in the multiple-run scenario
Open accessAbstract
The Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality test is widely used as a means of invalidating the local deterministic theories and a tool of device-independent quantum cryptographic tasks. There exists a randomness (free will) loophole in the test, which is widely believed impossible to be closed perfectly, that is, certain random inputs are required for the test. Following a randomness quantification method used in literature, we investigate the randomness required in the test under various assumptions. By comparing the results, we conclude that, in order to make the test result reliable, it is more important to rule out the correlation between multiple runs than the correlation between two parties.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Pseudo-random number generator output sequences are usually perfectly balanced between 0 and 1s, but a strong long-range correlation exists, which can undermine cryptographic security, cause unexpected errors in scientific simulations or open loopholes in fundamental physics tests.
“Although the output sequences are usually perfectly balanced between 0 and 1 s, a strong long-range correlation exists, which can undermine cryptographic security, cause unexpected errors in scienti fi c simulations or open loopholes in fundamental physics tests. 5 -7”
From Quantum random number generation (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 25
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [23][23] G. P¨ utz, D. Rosset, T. J. Barnea, Y.-C. Liang, and N. Gisin. Quantum nonlocality beats arbitrary lack of free choice. ArXiv e-prints , July 2014.
- Authors
- Yuan, X., Cao, Z., & Ma, X.
- Affiliations
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- Physical Review A
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2015-03-16
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
- 1050-2947
- 1094-1622
- OpenAlex
- W6270986
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Keywords
- CHSH inequality, Bell tests, device-independent quantum cryptography, quantum randomness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
