Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Coherent control of a channel's own dilations revives temporal Bell nonclassicality deeper into noise than control of independent environments.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 04:26 UTC pith:U5T33ALG

load-bearing objection Clean analytic comparison: dilation-level coherent control of the ADC revives temporal CHSH up to γ≃0.83, beating independent-environment control at ≃0.65, and the math checks out. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05643 v1 pith:U5T33ALG submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph

Coherent Control of Channel Dilations Activate Temporal Bell Nonclassicality

H S Karthik , Akshata Shenoy H , A R Usha Devi , Marcin Paw{\l}owski This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords temporal CHSH inequalityStinespring dilationcoherent controlamplitude damping channelpost-selectionnonlocality-breaking channelstemporal correlations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Temporal CHSH inequalities detect nonclassical correlations in sequential measurements on one system, but amplitude damping destroys the violation past a damping strength of 0.5. The paper shows that placing two realizations of that noisy evolution in quantum superposition and post-selecting the control can push the violation threshold higher. The key comparison is between two physically different constructions that look identical when used deterministically: coupling the system to independent environments versus controlling two unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations of the same channel. For amplitude damping the dilation-level control extends the violation up to roughly 0.83, well past the independent-environment limit of about 0.65 and matching the best known stochastic-filtering result. Because the post-selection probability does not depend on the first measurement setting, the revived violation also certifies that the channel is not strongly nonlocality-breaking. The choice of how a channel is dilated therefore becomes an operational resource for protecting temporal quantum correlations.

Core claim

Coherent control of two unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations of the amplitude-damping channel revives temporal CHSH violation from the deterministic threshold γ = 0.5 all the way to γ ≃ 0.83, strictly beyond the γ ≃ 0.65 reachable by coherent control of independent-environment realizations of the same channel, even though both constructions produce identical reduced dynamics when used without control.

What carries the argument

Coherent control of unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations: a control qubit places the system–environment unitaries U_SE(θ) and U_SE(−θ) in superposition; post-selection on the control then yields conditional maps that cleanly separate the Kraus operators and generate stronger interference than independent-environment superpositions.

Load-bearing premise

The concrete pair of dilations—one unitary and its inverse—must be experimentally realizable with post-selection whose success probability stays independent of the first measurement setting; if that engineering fails, the extended activation range disappears.

What would settle it

Implement both the independent-environment and the equivalent-dilation coherent-control protocols for amplitude damping on a controllable qubit platform and measure the temporal CHSH value versus damping strength; the dilation protocol must continue to violate past γ ≈ 0.65 and up to ≈ 0.83 while the independent-environment protocol does not.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper shows that coherent control of noisy evolutions can revive temporal CHSH violations suppressed by amplitude damping. It compares two constructions that realize the same reduced ADC deterministically: (i) coherent control of independent system–environment interactions and (ii) coherent control of two unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations (U_SE( heta) and U_SE(- heta)). Post-selection on the control yields distinct conditional maps; analytic expressions for the temporal CHSH parameter (Eqs. 53–54) and the associated Choi operators (Appendix A) show that dilation-level control extends violation from the deterministic threshold γ_c=0.5 up to γ≃ 0.83, strictly beyond the γ≃ 0.65 reachable with independent environments. Under setting-independent post-selection (X–Y measurements), the same activation certifies that the ADC is not strongly CHSH nonlocality-breaking in that range. The work therefore identifies the choice of Stinespring dilation as an operationally relevant resource for temporal nonclassicality tests.

Significance. If correct, the result supplies a concrete, analytically controlled mechanism by which implementation-level distinctions among Stinespring dilations become operationally visible under coherent control, even though they are invisible for deterministic channel use. The explicit comparison of activation thresholds (0.5 vs ≃0.65 vs ≃0.83), the matching with the optimal filtering threshold of Ref. [42] via an entirely different physical route, and the clean link to strong nonlocality-breaking via setting-independent post-selection are all valuable. The derivations are fully explicit (conditional channels, success probabilities, Choi matrices and correlation tensors), which makes the central claim falsifiable and reproducible. The paper therefore advances both the theory of temporal Bell inequalities under noise and the broader program of coherent control of quantum processes.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. III B and Eqs. (32)–(33): the dilation-level construction is specialized to the single pair U_SE( heta) and U_SE(- heta) (i.e., one particular environment unitary V_E). While this choice is natural (reverse Hamiltonian, Kraus separation K0 vs K1) and already demonstrates a clear advantage over independent-environment control, the broader claim that “the choice of Stinespring dilation is an operationally relevant resource” would be stronger if the manuscript either (a) optimized over a one-parameter family of V_E or (b) briefly argued why other unitarily equivalent dilations cannot improve (or can only degrade) the activation range. A short remark or numerical scan would close this gap without changing the central result.
  2. Sec. IV and Appendix A: the main-text expression S^D_T = 4√(2-2γ)/(2-γ) (Eq. 54) and the quoted threshold γ_c≃0.83 are obtained with the fixed equatorial measurement set of Eq. (6). The conditional Choi operator (A13) itself admits a larger CHSH value (violation for all γ<1) when measurements are allowed in the X–Z plane, but those measurements make the post-selection probability setting-dependent. This distinction is explained only at the end of the Appendix; it should be stated explicitly in Sec. IV so that readers do not misinterpret Eq. (54) as the absolute maximum of the conditional Choi state, which would affect the nonlocality-breaking certification claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section headings contain spurious spaces (“IMPLEMENTA TIONS”, “ACTIV A TION THRESHOLDS”); these should be corrected.
  2. Fig. 1 caption and labels refer to environments E1 and E2 while the text (Eqs. 14–15) uses E0 and E1; unify the notation.
  3. Fig. 1 and Fig. 3: the phrases “which path qubit” and “Coherent recombiner” would read more cleanly as “which-path qubit” and “coherent recombiner”.
  4. A one-sentence experimental outlook (possible platforms for controlled U and U†, sensitivity to control decoherence) would help readers assess the practical reach of the dilation-level advantage; this can remain brief.
  5. In Appendix A the formatting of the closed-form S expressions (e.g., “8√2-2γ/4-γ”) is occasionally ambiguous in plain text; ensure the published version uses unambiguous LaTeX fractions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: activation thresholds are derived from explicit post-selected Choi operators and Kraus structure, not presupposed or fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (activation of temporal CHSH violation to γ_c ≃ 0.65 under independent-environment coherent control and to γ_c ≃ 0.83 under coherent control of unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations of the ADC) follow by direct calculation from the definitions of the controlled unitaries W_ind and W_D, the resulting unnormalized conditional maps eE_ind_± and eE_D_± (Eqs. 23, 27, 43, 47), and the associated normalized Choi operators (Appendix A, Eqs. A9 and A13). The S_T expressions (Eqs. 53–54) are obtained from the two largest eigenvalues of the correlation matrices T_ind and T_D without any free parameters fitted to data or to the target thresholds. The coincidence with the optimal filtering threshold of Ref. [42] is reported a posteriori and is not used as an input. Self-citations (e.g., [54]) supply related context on coherent control of unitaries for LGI but are not load-bearing for the temporal-CHSH derivations, which remain self-contained against the standard Stinespring dilation of the ADC and the temporal CHSH definition. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests entirely on standard quantum-information axioms (completely-positive maps, Stinespring dilation, temporal CHSH under macrorealism, Kraus representation of the ADC). No free parameters are fitted; γ is the physical damping strength. No new physical entities are postulated—the ‘resource’ is simply the operational distinguishability of already-known dilations under coherent control.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Every CPTP map admits a Stinespring dilation by a unitary interaction with an environment initialized in a pure state.
    Invoked throughout Sec. II B and III to define the two controlled unitaries.
  • domain assumption The temporal CHSH parameter S_T ≤ 2 under the assumptions of macrorealism and non-invasive measurability.
    Standard definition used to witness nonclassicality (Eq. 3).
  • domain assumption The amplitude-damping channel is realized by the two Kraus operators K_0, K_1 given in Eqs. 7–8, equivalently by the unitary U_SE(θ) of Eq. 12.
    Standard model of qubit relaxation; all numerical thresholds are computed for this channel.
  • domain assumption Post-selection on a control qubit measured in the Hadamard basis is an allowed operation that yields a (generally non-trace-preserving) conditional map on the system.
    Core of both coherent-control constructions (Secs. III A–B).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22400 in / 2429 out tokens · 24835 ms · 2026-07-11T04:26:12.809012+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The temporal Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality witnesses the nonclassicality of temporal correlations, but its violation is generally degraded by environmental noise. Here, we show that violation of the temporal CHSH inequality can be revived through coherent control of noisy quantum evolutions. We compare two physically distinct implementations: coherent control of noisy evolutions induced by interaction of the system with independent environments, and coherent control of two physically distinct, unitarily equivalent Stinespring dilations of the same noisy channel. Although these constructions generate identical deterministic system dynamics, they induce distinctly different post-selected evolutions. With a focus on the amplitude damping channel (ADC), we show that coherent control of equivalent dilations extend the range of temporal CHSH inequality violation well beyond both the incoherently controlled, or deterministic, scenario and what is achievable with independent environments. Under setting-independent post-selection of the coherent control implementation, the resulting violation further certifies that the channel is not strongly CHSH nonlocality-breaking. Our results identify the choice of Stinespring dilation as an operationally relevant resource in coherently controlled tests of temporal quantum correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05643 by Akshata Shenoy H, A R Usha Devi, H S Karthik, Marcin Paw{\l}owski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of a temporal CHSH inequality experiment using sequential measurements and coherently controlled interaction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The temporal CHSH inequality as a function of the damp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic of a temporal CHSH inequality experiment using sequential measurements and coherently controlled Stinespring dilations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A plot of the variation in the temporal CHSH inequality as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The temporal CHSH inequality as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Prepare the control in a maximally incoherent state, i.e., ρC(0) = (|0⟩⟨0|C +|1⟩⟨1|C ) 2 . In this case, the joint state of the control- system after the controlled evolution is given as |0⟩⟨0|C +|1⟩⟨1| C 2 ⊗ E θ(Ma|Ai ρ0M † a|Ai )where the two distinct branches implement the same ADC. Now, pro- jecting the control in the Hadamard basis{|±⟩}, with project...

  2. [2]

    6 The post-measurement stateM a|Ai ρ0M † a|Ai and the control state are evolved jointly, after which the control state is pro- jected onto,Π ± =|±⟩ ⟨±|C, and traced out

    Prepare the control in the coherent state ρC(0) =|+⟩ ⟨+| C. 6 The post-measurement stateM a|Ai ρ0M † a|Ai and the control state are evolved jointly, after which the control state is pro- jected onto,Π ± =|±⟩ ⟨±|C, and traced out. Forρ 0 = I 2, the corresponding (unnormalized) two-time probability becomes, eP±(a, b|Ai, Bj) = 1 2Tr h Mb|Bj eE ind ± (Ma|Ai) ...

  3. [3]

    The corre- sponding unnormalizedconditionalchannel can then be writ- ten as, eE D ± (ρS) = TrE h AD ± (ρS ⊗ |0⟩⟨0|E)A D† ± i .(42) Expanding Eq

    After applyingW D and tracing outE, the joint state becomes ρD CS =1 2 |0⟩ ⟨0|C ⊗ E00(ρS) +|1⟩ ⟨1|C ⊗ E11(ρS) ± 1 2 |0⟩ ⟨1|C ⊗Γ 01(ρS) +|1⟩ ⟨0|C ⊗Γ 10(ρS) , (40) Equivalently, analogous to the independent environment case, we can define theeffectivesystem–environment oper- ators associated with the two control outcomes±as, AD ± = 1 2 (U0 ±U 1).(41) Notice...

  4. [4]

    Prepare the control in a maximally incoherent mixed state, i.e.,ρ C(0) = (|0⟩⟨0|C +|1⟩⟨1|C ) 2 . Analogous to the corresponding scenario in the case of co- herent control of superposition arising due to independent en- vironments, here too the control only implements a classical random selection between the two unitarily equivalent Stine- spring dilations...

  5. [5]

    Prepare the control in the|+⟩ C state: Here too, after jointly evolving the system and the control, post-selecting the control before tracing it out, the two-time (unnormalized) probabilities can be calculated using the ex- pression, eP(a, b|A i, Bj) = 1 2Tr h Mb|Bj eE D ±(Ma|Ai) i .(52) The success probability of the post-selected control mea- surement i...

    2023

  6. [6]

    J. S. Bell,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Quantum Entanglement in Time

    C. Brukner, S. Taylor, S. Cheung, and V . Vedral (2004), arXiv.quant-ph/0402127

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Fritz, New Journal of Physics12, 083055 (2010)

    T. Fritz, New Journal of Physics12, 083055 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  10. [10]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 857 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    Emary, N

    C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 016001 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    J. J. Halliwell, Physical Review A93, 022123 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    J. J. Halliwell, Physical Review A96, 012121 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Zhang, X

    Y . Zhang, X. Tan, and T. Qiu, Quantum Information Processing 22, 354 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Kofler and C

    J. Kofler and C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. A87, 052115 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Palacios-Laloy, F

    A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, Nature Physics6, 442 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Athalye, S

    V . Athalye, S. S. Roy, and T. S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 130402 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    Katiyar, A

    H. Katiyar, A. Shukla, K. R. K. Rao, and T. S. Mahesh, Phys. Rev. A87, 052102 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Waldherr, P

    G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 090401 (2011)

    2011

  20. [20]

    Dressel, C

    J. Dressel, C. J. Broadbent, J. C. Howell, and A. N. Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 040402 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Z.-Q. Zhou, S. F. Huelga, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    T. Zhan, C. Wu, M. Zhang, Q. Qin, X. Yang, H. Hu, W. Su, J. Zhang, T. Chen, Y . Xie, W. Wu, and P. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012424 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Tusun, W

    M. Tusun, W. Cheng, Z. Chai, Y . Wu, Y . Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. A105, 042613 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Fedrizzi, M

    A. Fedrizzi, M. P. Almeida, M. A. Broome, A. G. White, and M. Barbieri, Physical Review Letters106, 200402 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    Waldherr, P

    G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Physical Review Letters107, 090401 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    C. Spee, H. Siebeneich, T. F. Gloger, P. Kaufmann, M. Johan- ning, M. Kleinmann, C. Wunderlich, and O. Gühne, New Jour- nal of Physics22, 023028 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Rosset, F

    D. Rosset, F. Buscemi, and Y .-C. Liang, Physical Review X8, 021033 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Budroni, G

    C. Budroni, G. Vitagliano, and M. P. Woods, Physical Review Research3, 033051 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    K.-D. Wu, Z. Hou, G.-Y . Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, D. Dong, and F. Nori, npj Quantum Information6, 55 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    G. D. Berk, A. J. P. Garner, B. Yadin, K. Modi, and F. A. Pol- lock, Quantum5, 435 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Zukowski, Frontiers of Physics9, 629 (2014)

    M. .Zukowski, Frontiers of Physics9, 629 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    A. G. Maity, S. Mal, C. Jebarathinam, and A. S. Majumdar, Physical Review A103, 062604 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    M. F. Pusey, Journal of the Optical Society of America B32, A56 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    G. C. Knee, K. Kakuyanagi, M.-C. Yeh, Y . Matsuzaki, H. Toida, H. Yamaguchi, S. Saito, A. J. Leggett, and W. J. Munro, Nature Communications7, 13253 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Huffman and A

    E. Huffman and A. Mizel, Physical Review A95, 032131 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    M. B. Ruskai, Reviews in Mathematical Physics15, 643 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, Reviews in Math- ematical Physics15, 629 (2003)

    2003

  38. [38]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Du, H.-W

    M.-M. Du, H.-W. Li, S.-T. Shen, X.-J. Yan, X.-Y . Li, L. Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y .-B. Sheng, Quantum Information Processing 24, 395 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Srivastav, N

    V . Srivastav, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, S. Leedumrong- watthanakun, S. Designolle, R. Uola, N. Brunner, and M. Ma- lik, Physical Review X12, 041023 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    Pal and S

    R. Pal and S. Ghosh, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical48, 155302 (2015)

    2015

  43. [43]

    Kim, J.-C

    Y .-S. Kim, J.-C. Lee, O. Kwon, and Y .-H. Kim, Nature Physics 8, 117 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Hirsch, M

    F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 160402 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Pramanik, Y .-W

    T. Pramanik, Y .-W. Cho, S.-W. Han, S.-Y . Lee, Y .-S. Kim, and S. Moon, Phys. Rev. A99, 030101(R) (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Z.-Y . Hao, Y . Wang, J.-K. Li, Y . Xiang, Q.-Y . He, Z.-H. Liu, M. Yang, K. Sun, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A109, 022411 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Ku, H.-C

    H.-Y . Ku, H.-C. Weng, Y .-A. Shih, P.-C. Kuo, N. Lambert, F. Nori, C.-S. Chuu, and Y .-N. Chen, Phys. Rev. Research3, 11 043083 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    H. S. Karthik, S. Gómez, F. M. Quinteros, Akshata Shenoy H., M. Pawłowski, S. P. Walborn, G. Lima, and E. S. Gómez, Phys. Rev. A111, 032613 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    D. K. L. Oi, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 067902 (2003)

    2003

  50. [50]

    Gui-Lu, Communications in Theoretical Physics45, 825 (2006)

    L. Gui-Lu, Communications in Theoretical Physics45, 825 (2006)

    2006

  51. [51]

    Chiribella and H

    G. Chiribella and H. Kristjánsson, Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety A475, 20180903 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    A. A. Abbott, J. Wechs, D. Horsman, M. Mhalla, and C. Bran- ciard, Quantum4, 333 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    A. O. Pang, N. Lupu-Gladstein, H. Ferretti, Y . B. Yilmaz, A. Brodutch, and A. M. Steinberg, Quantum7, 1125 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    García-Díaz, K

    M. García-Díaz, K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Rosati, M. Skotiniotis, J. Calsamiglia, and A. Winter, Quantum2, 100 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Rubino, L

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, D. Ebler, H. Kristjánsson, S. Salek, P. A. Guérin, A. A. Abbott, C. Branciard, ˇC. Brukner, G. Chiri- bella,et al., Physical Review Research3, 013093 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Gui-Lu and L

    L. Gui-Lu and L. Yang, Communications in Theoretical Physics 50, 1303 (2008)

    2008

  57. [57]

    Lee, J.-D

    K.-Y . Lee, J.-D. Lin, A. Miranowicz, F. Nori, H.-Y . Ku, and Y .-N. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013103 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    X. Yuan, Y . Liu, Q. Zhao, B. Regula, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, npj Quantum Information7, 108 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Chatterjee, H

    A. Chatterjee, H. S. Karthik, T. S. Mahesh, and A. R. Usha Devi, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220202 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  61. [61]

    Jamiołkowski, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    A. Jamiołkowski, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    1972

  62. [62]

    Choi, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    1975

  63. [63]

    H.-Y . Ku, J. Kadlec, A. ˇCernoch, M. T. Quintino, W. Zhou, K. Lemr, N. Lambert, A. Miranowicz, S.-L. Chen, F. Nori, and Y .-N. Chen, PRX Quantum3, 020338 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Physics Letters A200, 340 (1995)

    1995

  65. [65]

    Verstraete and M

    F. Verstraete and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 170401 (2002). Appendix A: Choi Matrix and Non-locality breaking channels To understand the connection between temporal CHSH violations and nonlocality-breaking property of the quan- tum channels, we consider it useful to employ the Choi– Jamiołkowski representation of quantum channels [55–57]. For a qubit...

    2002