Arxiv:2012.06918V1 [Quant-Ph] 12 Dec 2020 Building on the Pioneering Insight of J.S

Quantum Bell Nonlocality is Entanglement

Kuntal Sengupta,1, ∗ Rana Zibakhsh,2, † Eric Chitambar,3, ‡ and Gilad Gour1, 2, § 1Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Institute for Quantum Science and Technology, University of Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 3Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 (Dated: December 15, 2020) Bell nonlocality describes a manifestation of quantum mechanics that cannot be explained by any local hidden variable model. Its origin lies in the nature of quantum entanglement, although understanding the precise relationship between nonlocality and entanglement has been a notorious open problem. In this paper, we resolve this problem by developing a dynamical framework in which quantum Bell nonlocality emerges as special form of entanglement, and both are unified as resources under local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Our framework is built on the notion of quantum processes, which are abstract quantum channels mapping elements between fixed intervals in space and time. Entanglement is then identified as a quantum process that cannot be generated by LOCC while Bell nonlocality is the subset of these processes that have an instantaneous input- output delay time. LOCC pre-processing is a natural set of free operations in this theory, thereby enabling all entangled states to activate some form of Bell nonlocality. In addition, we generalize the CHSH witnesses from the state domain to the domain of entangled quantum measurements, and provide a systematic method to quantify the Bell nonlocality of a bipartite quantum channel.

I. INTRODUCTION The most direct way to generate a nonlocal channel from a quantum state ρAB is by performing local mea- Entanglement and Bell nonlocality represent two of surements. The channel generated by such a process has the most stunning non-classical features of quantum me- transition probabilities determined by Born’s rule, chanics. Entanglement is traditionally understood as the W (a, b|x, y) = Tr[ρAB(M x ⊗ N y)], (3) property of non-separability [1,2]. More precisely, a bi- a b partite quantum state ρAB is entangled if it cannot be where {M x} represent measurement operators on Al- separated into a statistical mixture of product states, a a ice’s system (A) for measurement choice x and outcome X y ρAB 6= p(λ)ρA ⊗ ρB. (1) a, and similarly for the operators {Nb }b on Bob’s sys- λ λ tem (B). For example, by choosing suitable pairs of lo- λ cal measurements, a bipartite maximally entangled state In contrast, quantum Bell nonlocality is the property that |φ+i = p1/2(|00i + |11i) can be used to generate a clas- enables certain quantum states to generate nonlocal classical channel that violates the CHSH Inequality. sical channels. The latter refers to classical channels that The similarity between Eqns. (1) and (2) suggests that cannot be described by a local hidden variable (LHV) quantum entanglement and Bell nonlocality can perhaps model; i.e the transition probabilities W (a, b|x, y) can- be uniﬁed in some fundamental way. By inspection, we not be separated into a statistical mixture of product can conclude that entangled states and nonlocal classical channels, channels are both objects that cannot be built using lo- X cal operations and shared randomness (LOSR). This has W (a, b|x, y) 6= p(λ)W (a|x)W (b|y). (2) λ λ led some to conclude that LOSR should provide the un- λ derlying fabric to weave together entanglement and Bell

arXiv:2012.06918v1 [quant-ph] 12 Dec 2020 Building on the pioneering insight of J.S. Bell [3], one nonlocality [8]. However, as we argue below and through- can test whether a given channel satisfies a LHV model out this paper, a restriction to LOSR misses key features by checking whether the probabilities W (a, b|x, y) sat- of both entanglement and nonlocality. Another approach isfy a finite family of inequalities, known as Bell inequal- is needed. ities [4]. The well-known Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt While bipartite entanglement is well understood [2], its (CHSH) Inequality is one such inequality [5], and it com- relationship to Bell nonlocality is far more elusive [1,9– pletely characterizes the set of nonlocal channels for bi- 19]. Most notable is the existence of entangled states that nary inputs and outputs [6,7]. cannot violate any Bell inequality when generating a classical channel according to Eq. (3)[1, 12]. The discovery of such states seems to cast some doubt on whether it is ∗ [email protected] possible to formulate any unified theory of both entan- † [email protected] glement and Bell nonlocality. At the same time, how- ‡ [email protected] ever, quantum Bell nonlocality is known to demonstrate § [email protected] the remarkable effect of super-activation. There exists 2

A B A0 B0 two states ρ 0 0 and σ 0 0 , each of which is unable to violate a Bell inequality. Yet when combined and mea- A B A0 B0 sured jointly, the state ρ 0 0 ⊗ σ 0 0 can violate some Bell inequality [20]. An even more important collection of results for the purposes of this work shows that certain states have hidden nonlocality that becomes revealed through the use of local filters [11, 16]. In fact, every bipartite entangled state ρA0B0 can violate the CHSH In- A0 B0 equality when combined with another state σ 0 0 that itself cannot violate the CHSH Inequality, after the two are allowed to undergo processing by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) prior to receiving any classical inputs for the resultant channel (see Fig.1)[15]. That is, a CHSH-violating classical channel can be gen- 0 0 A0B0 A B erated by ρ ⊗ σ 0 0 when Eq. (3) is modified to FIG. 1. A state ρ that cannot violate a Bell inequality can have the form be transformed into a state that violates one by performing a pre-LOCC map. The key property we identify in this work is W (x1, y1|x0, y0) that after the LOCC map, what remains is a bipartite clas- h 0 0 i A0B0 A0B0 x0 y0 sical channel with essentially zero delay time between the in- = Tr Lpre(ρ ⊗ σ )(Mx ⊗ Ny ) , (4) 1 1 puts (x0, y0) and outputs (x1, y1). Dots with the same colour correspond to the same time. where Lpre is a so-called pre-processing LOCC map that A B A0 B0 is applied to ρ 0 0 ⊗σ 0 0 before the choice of measurements (x0, y0). A similar result also holds for multipartite entangled states [21]. CHSH Inequality can be violated under a local hidden LOCC is the natural class of operations to consider variable model when the measurement settings on Al- when studying quantum entanglement since it models ice’s side can propagate to Bob’s laboratory in a time quantum information processing in the “distant lab” set- shorter than the input-output delay time of Bob’s mea- ting [22]. The fact that LOCC is needed to fully re- surement device [39, 40]. For this reason, when mod- veal the nonlocal features of quantum states, as in Eq. elling an ideal Bell experiment it is usually assumed that (4), indicates that LOCC is somehow also fundamental Alice’s measurement choice (i.e. her channel input x0) to quantum Bell nonlocality. However, a precise and is spacelike separated from Bob’s measurement outcome physically-motivated connection between the theories of (i.e. his channel output y1), and vice-versa. Hence, what quantum entanglement and Bell nonlocality has thus far is crucial here is not that Alice and Bob are able to gen- been lacking. Here we address this void by describing a erate the particular bipartite classical channel capable of framework in which Bell nonlocality emerges as a subthe- violating the CHSH Inequality, but rather that they are ory of entanglement and both ultimately belong to the able to generate this channel using local physical pro- same species, resources under LOCC. cesses having input-output delay times shorter than the We establish our claim within the domain of dynami- time it takes light to travel between the two laborato- cal resource theories (DRTs), which have been extensively ries. While previous efforts to construct a resource theory studied in recent years [23–34]. In fact, the whole field of of Bell nonlocality [41–46] may have implicitly acknowl- quantum Shannon theory [35] can be seen as a DRT [36]. edged this crucial fact or used it to motivate the set of free In a general quantum resource theory, one identifies a operations, we take the approach of building the input- restricted subset of quantum operations as being “free”, output delay time directly into the resource theory. and objects that cannot be generated by these free op- The framework introduced here considers every quan- erations are deemed to possess a resource [37, 38]. The tum channel on the abstract level as a completely- essential difference between a static and a dynamic re- positive trace-preserving (CPTP) map between an input source theory is the element of time. While a quantum and output system separated by a specific fixed distance state represents a quantum system at a given snapshot and time interval. Hence every quantum channel is as- in time, a quantum channel typically requires a non-zero sociated with a family of dynamical objects, which we time for any signal to propagate from the inputs to the refer to as quantum processes and which differ in their outputs. This delay time is particularly relevant for bi- input-output spacetime separations. Quantum processes partite channels shared between two spatially-separated constitute the resource objects in this theory, and the free parties since the finite speed of information propagation operations are LOCC superprocesses, which are LOCC- limits how fast the input information of one party can implementable protocols that map one process to an- influence the output information of the other. other. Accounting for the input-output delay time of a The input-output delay time of bipartite channels has channel allows us to draw a distinction between two dy- been a notorious consideration in almost all Bell experi- namical resources under LOCC: instantaneous and non- ments. The so-called locality loophole describes how the instantaneous. Using this distinction, one can identify 3 quantum Bell nonlocality as an instantaneous classical B. Notations process that can be obtained by LOCC only when Alice and Bob are initially supplied with an entangled state, In this paper, quantum physical systems and their cor- as in Fig.1. One of the key features of our model is responding Hilbert spaces will be denoted by A and B, that pre-LOCC maps are naturally free operations; i.e. while classical systems will be denoted by X and Y . We static-to-dynamic conversions having the form of Eq. (4) will make a distinction between static vs dynamic sys- are allowed in this framework. At the same time, the tems. Static systems will be denoted with subscripts such use of LOCC maps after the classical inputs (x , y ) in 0 0 as A0,A1,B0,B1. Dynamic systems will be denoted Eq. (4) is automatically prohibited as it leads to a non- without subscripts; for example, A refers to an input- instantaneous resource. output system (A0,A1), where the zero subscript will In this paper we develop the theory of quantum pro- always refer to the input subsystem and the subscript cesses and study interconversions among them. When one to the output subsystem. Similarly, B = (B0,B1), extended to bipartite processes and LOCC interconver- X = (X0,X1), etc. One exception of this notation is sions, what emerges is a resource theory that encom- the auxiliary systems (e.g. environment system, refer- passes both entanglement and Bell nonlocality. Within ence systems) E and R which will always correspond to this resource theory, we show that all entangled states static systems. and all entangled bipartite channels can exhibit some fea- We will also use the notation A1B1 ≡ A1 ⊗ B1 to rep- tures of Bell nonlocality using LOCC. We also introduce resent a bipartite (static) system. We use the notation a systematic method to quantify the Bell nonlocality of |A| = |A0||A1| to denote the dimension of a dynamic sys- bipartite quantum states and channels within the LOCC tem A, where |A0| and |A1| are the dimensions of its cor- paradigm. In addition, in the appendix we generalize the responding input and output subsystems. The space of CHSH witnesses from the state domain to the domain of bounded linear operators describing endomorphisms on entangled quantum measurements. A1 is denoted by B(A1). We denote by D(A1) ⊂ B(A1) the set of all density matrices (i.e. positive semidefinite matrices with trace one) acting on A1. As customary, we will use ρ and σ to represent mixed quantum states and A. The Shortcomings of an LOSR Theory ψ and φ to represent pure states. A maximally entangled A1B1 state in D(A1B1) is denoted by φ+ . Before we unpack our framework in more detail, let We denote by L(A) := L(A0 → A1) the set of all lin- us comment on the role that LOSR plays in our theory ear maps from B(A0) to B(A1). The set of all com- and explain why LOSR itself is insufficient to formulate a pletely positive and trace preserving (CPTP) maps in physically motivated resource theory of Bell nonlocality, L(A) is denoted by CPTP(A) := CPTP(A0 → A1). Sim- despite claims to the contrary [8]. Unlike LOCC, LOSR ilarly, we will use the notation CPTP(AB) in short for lacks a clear operational interpretation when understood CPTP(A0B0 → A1B1). Quantum channels will be de- in the context of quantum information protocols. LOSR noted with calligraphic letters M, N , E, F. We will use A AB is typically justified using a common-cause model [45] in the superscripts N and N to indicate N ∈ CPTP(A) which a helper distributes shared randomness to spatially and N ∈ CPTP(AB), respectively. The identity channel A0 separated parties. This common randomness, however, is in CPTP(A0 → A0) is denoted by id . useless for carrying out some protocol without the parties Linear maps from L(A) to L(B) are called su- first agreeing on some pre-established strategy, an agree- permaps [47]. Supermaps that takes quantum channels ment which inevitably will require some communication. to quantum channels in a complete sense (i.e. even when For example, the only way that Alice, Bob, and perhaps tensored with the identity supermap) are called super- some other party, can recognize which physical system channels [47, 48]. The collection of all superchannels encodes the shared randomness is by prior interactive from L(A) to L(B) will be denoted by SC(A → B). communication. A second issue is that LOSR misses cer- We use the letter Θ, Υ to denote superchannels. In tain important aspects of Bell nonlocality such as it being [47, 48] it was shown that the action of every superchan- 0 “hidden” in some states; i.e. certain channels generated nel Θ ∈ SC(A → A ) on a channel N ∈ CPTP(A) can in Eq. (4) cannot also be realized when the pre-LOCC be represented as map L is restricted to LOSR. The framework pre- 0 EA →A0 A0 →EA pre ΘA→A N A = E 1 1 ◦ N A0→A1 ◦ E 0 0 , (5) sented here overcomes these problems since it starts with post pre 0 the physically-motivated class of LOCC and then arrives where Epre ∈ CPTP(A0 → EA0) and Epost ∈ 0 at a restricted subset of operations, which includes pre- CPTP(EA1 → A1) are fixed quantum channels corre- LOCC, by incorporating the practically-relevant prop- sponding to pre-processing and post-processing of the erty of input-output delay time. LOSR still plays an channel N A. This result indicates that superchannels important role in this theory; however it emerges not by are not just mathematical abstractions, but in fact have appealing to some common cause, but rather by consider- a physical realization. ing bipartite LOCC channels that are implemented with Crucial to this work is the set of superchannels that zero input-output delay time. are built using local quantum operations and classical 4 communication (LOCC) [49]. A general LOCC superchannel transforms one quantum channel N AB into another by an application of pre- and post- LOCC channels, as depicted in Fig.2. For given input-output systems, we denote the set of LOCC superchannels as LOCC(AB → A0B0). Throughout this paper, double FIG. 3. A quantum process (N , ∆x, ∆t) takes an input ρ at lines will represent classical systems, whereas single lines arbitrary spacetime point (xA0 , t0) and generates an output are reserved for quantum systems. Classical channels are N (ρ) at spacetime point (xA1 = xA0 + ∆x, t1 = t0 + ∆t). XY The input-output delay time of N in this process is ∆t. denoted by N ∈ CPTP(X0Y0 → X1Y1), and we write XY NCHSH to denote a bipartite classical channel that gives the maximal violation of the CHSH Inequality. Note that every classical channel belongs to LOCC. if and only if N is a replacement channel, i.e. N has the form Nρ(X) := Tr[X]ρ for ρ ∈ D(A1). An instantaneous implementation of Nρ is done as follows: knowing that Alice will receive the channel input at time t0, Bob simply prepares the state ρ at t0. The abstraction of quantum processes also applies to bipartite channels N ∈ CPTP(AB). In this case, however, the input and output of the channel are each dis- tributed across two points in space. Hence, a bipartite process (N , ∆xA, ∆xB, ∆t) is the channel N that transforms a bipartite state ρA0B0 held at (x , t ) and FIG. 2. The action of an LOCC superchannel on a bipartite A0 0 (x , t ) into the state N (ρA0B0 ), held at (x , t ) and channel N . B0 0 A1 1 (xB1 , t1), where xA1 = xA0 + ∆xA, xB1 = xB0 + ∆xB, and t1 = t0+∆t. Note that the number of inputs and outputs can differ by treating one of the systems as trivial. Multipartite processes are defined in the same way: all in- II. QUANTUM PROCESSES puts at spatial coordinates (x1, x2, ··· , xn) evolve to outputs at spatial coordinates (x1 +∆x1, x2 +∆x2, ··· , xn + Mathematically, a quantum channel N ∈ CPTP(A) is ∆xn) in the same time interval ∆t. By composing pro- a map that sends positive operators of system A0 to pos- cesses together, we obtain a multiprocess. The only dif- itive operators of system A1. Usually this abstraction is ference between a process and a multiprocess is that the sufficient to probe the foundations and theoretical limi- latter can have differing time delays for different subsys- tations of quantum information processing. However, to tems due to the composition, whereas the former cannot. properly characterize Bell nonlocality in quantum me- The general idea is depicted in Fig.4. chanics, we need to understand quantum channels as objects that generate transformations across fixed intervals in space and time, something we broadly refer to as quantum processes. A quantum process, denoted by (N , ∆x, ∆t), is a quantum channel N ∈ CPTP(A) that transforms any state ρ ∈ D(A0) at arbitrary spacetime point (xA0 , t0) into state N (ρ) ∈ D(A1) at spacetime point (xA1 , t1), where xA1 = xA0 + ∆x and t1 = t0 + ∆t (see Fig.3). Here we assume for simplicity that systems A0 and A1 are at rest in the same inertial frame and the coordinates are measured with respect to this frame. The time interval ∆t > 0 in a quantum process (N , ∆x, ∆t) is called the input-output delay time of N (or simply the FIG. 4. The bipartite channel E2 ◦ N ◦ E1 can have differing “delay time” of N ), and it quantifies how quickly the delay times for the different subsystems if it is built by com- channel input propagates to the output. posing multiple processes (top). The result is a multiprocess Some quantum processes can be physically imple- (bottom). Dots with the same colour correspond to the same mented and some cannot. For example, the no-signaling time. principle of special relativity prohibits (N , ∆x, ∆t) from being physically realizable whenever N is able to trans- We next go one step forward and define a quantum su- mit information and ∆t < ∆x/c, where c is the speed perprocess as a superchannel that transforms one process of light. Quantum processes with zero input-output de- (N , ∆x, ∆t) into another (N 0, ∆x0, ∆t0). We denote such lay time are known as instantaneous, and they play an objects by (Θ, ∆x → ∆x0, ∆t → ∆t0). A superprocess important role in this theory. Whenever ∆x > 0, an is constructed by invoking Eq. (5) and considering Epre instantaneous process (N , ∆x, 0) is physically realizable and Epost as processes, as they would be in any physical 5 implementation of a superchannel. A general superprocess then has the form of Fig.5. The wires entering and leaving each channel might be multiple systems bundled together.

FIG. 6. When the input to N does not depend on the input to Epre it is possible to construct a superprocess (Θ, ∆x → ∆x0, ∆t → ∆t0) that decrease the input-output delay time, 0 A0 →E ∆t < ∆t. Observe in particular that we absorbed L 0 that appears in the expression (6) of Epre into Epost. In this case the delay time ∆t0 depends only on the implementation FIG. 5. A quantum superprocess (Θ, ∆x → ∆x0, ∆t → ∆t0) 0 0 0 of Epost and in general can be much smaller than ∆t. Dots converts process (N , ∆x, ∆t) to process (N , ∆x , ∆t ). The with the same colour correspond to the same time. shaded yellow area represents the action of the superprocess. Since Epre and Epost might belong to multiprocess, the times s and s are not necessarily equal to t or t . For example, in 0 1 0 1 output of N at (x , t ). The superprocess in this Fig.6 we will see an example in which t < t0 = s = s = t . A1 1 0 0 0 1 1 case acts as replacement superchannel, always out- putting the same channel If the overall process transformation is (N , ∆x, ∆t) → 0 0 0 (N , ∆x , ∆t ), then there are four possibilities for how E→A0 A0 →E 0 0 Θ[N ] = E 1 ◦ E 0 (7) A0→EA0 EA1→A1 post pre Epre and Epost can facilitate this transformation. irrespective of the input channel N . Here, A0 →E A0 →EA 1. The input to N at the point (x , t ) depends on 0 0 0 A 0 Epre := TrA0 ◦ Epre and for all ρ ∈ D(E) 0 0 0 0 E→A EA →A the input to Epre at the point (xA , t ) (and hence 1 E 1 1 E A1 0 0 E (ρ ) := E (ρ ⊗ ω ) for some arbi- 0 0 post post t t0) and the output of Epost at (xA0 , t ) depends 0 6 1 1 trary ﬁxed ω ∈ D(A1) . Therefore, while this case 0 0 1 on the output of N at (xA1 , t1) (and hence t1 6 t1). might result with ∆t > ∆t it is somewhat a triv- In this case the input-output delay time is always ial case and will not play an important role in our 0 non-decreasing, i.e. ∆t 6 ∆t . formalism.

2. The input to N at the point (xA, t0) does not de- 0 4. The input to N at the point (xA, t0) does not depend on the input to Epre at the point (xA0 , t ) but 0 0 0 pend on the input to Epre at the point (x 0 , t ) and 0 A0 0 the output of Epost at (xA0 , t ) depends on the out- 0 1 1 the output of Epost at (x 0 , t ) does not depend on 0 A1 1 put of N at (xA1 , t1) (and hence t1 6 t1). This 0 the output of N at (xA1 , t1). As in the previous A0→A0E means that Epre as appear in Fig.5 is a quan- case, also here the superprocess acts as the replace- tum channel whose output at A0 is ﬁxed and in- ment superchannel that always output the channel dependent on the input of the channel. This is a given in (7). special case of a semi-causal channel [50] and was 0 The superprocess depicted in Fig.6 can also produce proven in [51] to have for all ω ∈ D(A0) the form ∆t0 = 0 irrespective of the delay time ∆t of the quantum 0 0 0 0 A0→EA0 A A A2→E A0A2 A Epre ω 0 = L 0 ρ ⊗ ω 0 , (6) process (N , ∆x, ∆t). This happens if Epost corresponds to a quantum process with a zero delay time, or more where A2 is some auxiliary system, ρ ∈ D(A0A2) is generally, if E has the form (see Fig.7) 0 post a ﬁxed quantum state, and L ∈ CPTP(A0A2 → E) 0 0 0 0 is a quantum channel. However, the form above im- A0A1A2→A1 A0R→A1 A1A2→R 0 A A2→E Epost = F2 ◦ F1 (8) plies that L 0 can be “absorbed” into Epost

(of Fig.5) so that w.l.o.g. in Fig.6 we replaced A1A2→R 0 0 0 where F corresponds to a quantum process with EA1→A 0 A A1A2→A 1 1 A0A2→E 0 1 0 0 Epost ◦ L with Epost . Hence A0R→A1 0 arbitrary delay time, whereas F2 corresponds to when t0 is suﬃciently earlier than t0 = t1, one can 0 0 0 an instantaneous quantum process. Since F2 is instan- attain ∆t = t1 − t0 > ∆t = t1 − t0. Note that the 0 diﬀerence ∆t0 is determined entirely by the delay taneous the delay time ∆t = 0 irrespective of the delay time of Epost, whereas ∆t is the delay time of the input process (N , ∆x, ∆t).

1 3. The input to N at the point (xA, t0) depends on e.g. remove Epost from Fig.5, discard the output to N at 0 the input to Epre at the point (xA0 , t ) but the out- (xA1 , t1), and extend (xE , t0) with a straight line to the out- 0 0 0 0 0 put (xA0 , t ) so that t0 = t put of E at (x 0 , t ) does not depend on the 1 1 1 post A1 1 6 times associated with N and F1. In Fig.7 we depicted that every LOCC channel L belongs to some free process the most general superprocess with the property that it (L, ∆t) with ∆t ∈ [0, +∞]. As a special case, a bipartite converts a non-instantaneous quantum process into an LOCC channel L is LOSR if it belongs to an instanta- instantaneous one. neous LOCC process (L, 0). In other words, LOSR corresponds precisely to the family of instantaneous LOCC processes. There are non-LOCC bipartite channels N whose instantaneous process (N , 0) can also be physically implemented. These are channels that belong to the class of local operations and shared entanglement (LOSE). We say that N ∈ LOSE(AB) if there exists some entangled state ω ∈ D(A2B2) such that

FIG. 7. The most general superprocess that can convert a AB A2B2 quantum process (N A, ∆x, ∆t) with ∆t > 0 into an instanta- N = Υ ω , (11) neous quantum process. Irrespective of the time delays of N 0 0 where Υ is an LOSR superchannel comprising of the and F1, since F2 is instantaneous we have t1 = t0 > t1 > t0. 0 0 0 two local channels E ∈ CPTP(A A → A ) and F ∈ In particular, ∆t = t1 − t0 = 0. 0 2 1 CPTP(B0B2 → B1) such that for any ρ ∈ D(A0B0)

To isolate the essential features of this theory, going Υ ωA2B2 ρA0B0 forward we will assume that the spatial intervals ∆x and (12) A0A2→A1 B0B2→B1 A0B0 A2B2 ∆x0 are given and ﬁxed. Then, the only processes we := E ⊗ F ρ ⊗ ω . consider are speciﬁed by the channel and its delay time, (N , ∆t). The relevant superprocesses in this case are characterized by a superchannel and its induced change in delay times, (Θ, ∆t → ∆t0).

III. ENTANGLEMENT THEORY WITH INSTANTANEOUS RESOURCES, ALIAS BELL NONLOCALITY

We are interested here in quantum superprocesses that can be realized by performing LOCC. These are superprocesses (Θ, ∆t → ∆t0) with Θ ∈ LOCC(AB → A0B0), and they constitute the free operations in this resource theory. Every LOCC superchannel has the form given FIG. 8. Implementation of an LOSE quantum process with in Fig.2, and to isolate the essential features of this an entangled state ω ∈ D(A2B2) and local superprocess Υ approach, we will make the simplifying assumption that that takes the quantum state ωA2B2 as its input and then all local operations are instantaneous, a reasonable as- outputs the bipartite quantum channel N AB := Υ[ωA2B2 ]. sumption to make when Alice and Bob’s laboratories are separated relatively far apart. Consequently, the delay This framework captures all of entanglement theory. time ∆t of an LOCC channel will always be proportional For instance, all bipartite quantum states (or more gen- to the number of communication exchanges conducted in erally all bipartite replacement channels) can be imple- the particular implementation of the channel. mented with instantaneous processes: the process (ρ, 0) The fundamental question is whether one quantum with ρ ∈ D(A1B1) can be viewed as a bipartite quan- process can be converted to another using an LOCC su- tum process with a one-dimensional input and zero input- 0 0 perprocess. When (N , ∆t) → (N , ∆t ) is achievable by output delay time since if Alice and Bob hold ρA1B1 and LOCC, we write they know they will receive an input at time t0, they A1B1 LOCC 0 0 can immediately output ρ at time t0. Hence, en- (N , ∆t) −−−−→ (N , ∆t ) . (9) tangled states can be implemented with instantaneous The free objects in this resource theory are the quantum processes that are non-LOCC, and separable states can processes that can be generated by LOCC “from scratch” be implemented with the instantaneous LOCC processes A1B1 (i.e. from the trivial process), (i.e. LOSR). Converting one entangled state ρ to another σA1B1 by LOCC then becomes a special case of (id1, 0) −−−−→LOCC (N , ∆t) , (10) converting one instantaneous process to another by an LOCC superprocess, where id1 represents here the trivial state/channel; i.e. LOCC ∼ A1B1 A1B1 the only element of D(C) = CPTP(C → C). Notice (ρ , 0) −−−−→ (σ , 0). (13) 7

The central thesis of this paper is that the framework 0 0 of LOCC superprocesses also encompasses the resource Theorem 1. Let (ΘAB→A B , ∆t → ∆t0) be an theory of quantum Bell nonlocality. Every experimen- LOCC superprocess. tal test for Bell nonlocality involves the conversion of an 1. If ∆t = ∆t0 = 0, then the superprocess has entangled bipartite state ρA1B1 into a classical channel the form of either Fig.9 or Fig. 10. N XY , like in Eq. (3) or Eq. (4). This is sometimes de- A B scribed as transforming a static resource (ρ 1 1 ) into a 2. If ∆t > ∆t0 = 0, then the superprocess has XY dynamical classical resource (N ). However, this de- the form of Fig. 10. scription does not make explicit the resource-theoretic aspect of nonlocality. While every classical channel can be implemented by LOCC, not every instantaneous clas- Proof of 1. Recall that any superprocess must have the sical process admits such an implementation. Hence, in form of Fig.5. Since we consider here the bipartite case, the resource theory developed here, (N XY , ∆t) is a free we have to replace in Fig.5 the system A with A B object for ∆t sufficiently large (which depends on the 0 0 0 and A with A B , since the input channel of the super- distance between Alice and Bob), but (N XY , 0) is a re- 1 1 1 channel is a bipartite channel N AB. Similarly, since the source if N XY is non-LOSR, i.e. not admitting a LHV output of the superchannel Θ is A0B0 we have to replace model. We can now see how Bell nonlocality emerges system A0 with A0 B0 and A0 with A0 B0 . Consider now as just a special type of entanglement. Entanglement, 0 0 0 1 1 1 Fig.5 under these replacements. whether it be static or dynamic, can be defined as any Recall the four cases that we considered above on how process (N AB, ∆t) that cannot be generated by LOCC, Epre and Epost can facilitate a superprocess. In the first LOCC of these cases we got that t0 t and t t0 . Since Entanglement: (id1, 0) −−−−→6 (N AB, ∆t), (14) 0 6 0 1 6 1 we assume first that ∆t0 = ∆t = 0 we must have that 0 0 and it is the resource in this theory. Bell nonlocality t0 = t1 = t0 = t1 so that Epre and Epost belong to instan- is just a particular type of this resource in that it is a taneous quantum processes. Since we also have that Θ classical instantaneous process not reachable by LOCC, is LOCC, Epre and Epost must be both LOCC and correspond to instantaneous quantum processes; i.e. both Epre 1 LOCC XY Bell nonlocality: (id , 0) −−−−→6 (N , 0). (15) and Epost are LOSR which is precisely the form given in Fig.9. When referring to quantum Bell nonlocality, we mean In the second case (out of the four cases) the super- some Bell nonlocal process that can be obtained from a process has the form of Fig.6 adjusted to the bipartite quantum process using LOCC, case as discussed above. Now, since ∆t0 = 0 the superprocess has the form of Fig.7 (again adjusted to the AB LOCC XY (N , ∆t) −−−−→ (N , 0) (16) bipartite case). Note that since Θ is LOCC, ρ, F1, and but (id1, 0) −−−−→LOCC6 (N XY , 0). (17) F2 of Fig.7 all must be LOCC since we want the superprocess to be both LOCC and instantaneous preserving. Eq. (16) describes a resource conversion just like Eq. Hence, ρ is is precisely the LOCC process/state that ap- (13) except that it considers more general channels and a pears on the left side of Fig. 10, F1 is the LOCC pro- possible change in input-output delay time. For example, cess that appears at the output of N AB in Fig. 10, and the quantum Bell nonlocality possessed by the maximally since also F2 corresponds to instantaneous quantum pro- A1B1 entangled state |φ+ i (with |A1| = |B1| = 2) can be cess it must be an LOSR channel corresponding to the expressed as the resource conversion two post-LO channels that appear on the right side on Fig. 10. Note that the shared randomness of F2 can be A1B1 LOCC XY (φ+ , 0) −−−−→ (NCHSH, 0), (18) absorbed into the pre-LOCC channel preceding it. Since the third and fourth cases do not lead to new implemen- A1B1 A1B1 where φ+ := |φ+ihφ+| . tations of the superprocess, the proof is concluded for the Let us now examine Eq. (16) closer and consider which case ∆t0 = ∆t = 0. LOCC superprocesses can convert a quantum process Consider now the second part of the theorem in which into an instantaneous classical one. Since the delay time ∆t > ∆t0 = 0. As discussed above, the only imple- of the target process is zero, there are two possibilities mentation (out of the four) of the superprocess for this for the delay time ∆t in the initial process (N AB, ∆t). case is given in Fig.7 adjusted to the bipartite case. As In the first case, we have ∆t = 0 and we need an LOCC discussed in the first part of the proof, an LOCC super- superprocess constructed like either Fig.5 or Fig.7 process of this form is given in Fig. 10. This completes that is instantaneous-preserving. The other possibility is the proof. that ∆t > 0 so that the LOCC superprocess decreases the delay time. As outlined above, every superprocess One of the most important features of this framework that decreases delay time has the form of Fig.7. The is that it provides a physical justification for allowing following theorem characterizes the structure of LOCC pre-LOCC processes in experiments of Bell nonlocality. superprocesses for each of these cases. If the channel N is replaced by a quantum state ρA1B1 , 8

known as wiring and prior-to-input classical communication (WPICC) (see also [44]). In the context of quantum resources, WPICC amounts to applying a pre-processing map implementable by LOCC, as in Fig. 10. Our resource theory introduces the notion of input-output delay time as a way to physically motivate both of these types of channel transformations in a uniﬁed way. Returning to Eq. (16), we can consider the range of such transformations. That is, what instantaneous classical processes can be generated using entanglement as a resource and LOCC superprocessing? The following theorem shows that dynamical entangled resources (i.e. channels) have no greater ability to generate instanta- FIG. 9. An instantaneous LOCC channel taking the form neous classical processes than static entanglement (i.e. of LOSR wherein the delay time of the input channel N is states). preserved. Channels and States are equi-resourceful Theorem 2. Let (N AB, ∆t) be a bipartite quantum process with delay time ∆t ∈ [0, ∞] and let (MXY , 0) be a bipartite instantaneous classical process. If (N AB, ∆t) −−−−→LOCC (MXY , 0), then there exists some bipartite state ρA1B1 such that LOCC (ρA1B1 , 0) −−−−→ (MXY , 0).

Proof. We will divide the proof into two parts. Consider FIG. 10. An instantaneous LOCC superchannel containing first the case that ∆t > 0. In this case we saw that the pre-processing LOCC simulating an instantaneous dynamical LOCC superprocess must have the form of Fig. 10. Let ˜ ˜ resource. A1B1 ρ be the state at the output A˜1B˜1 of the second pre- LOCC process in Fig. 10. Then, the proof is concluded with the observation that Fig. 10 can be viewed as an then Fig. 10 has precisely the same form as Fig.1. Thus, A˜1B˜1 hidden Bell nonlocality and superactivation of nonlocal- LOSR process on the state ρ . ity are both features that are operationally accessible in Consider next the case ∆t = 0. In this case, the LOCC this resource theory. More precisely, channels having the superprocess can be either the one given in Fig.9 or the form of Eq. (4) reflect the resource conversion one given in Fig. 10. Since for the latter corresponds to the previous case, we assume now that the supperpro- AB A B A0 B0 LOCC XY cess has the form of Fig.9. In this case, since ( N , 0) is (ρ 1 1 ⊗ σ 1 1 , 0) −−−−→ (N , 0), (19) an instantaneous quantum process, it follows that N AB and so the result of [15] implies that every entangled is LOSE channel of the form (11). By definition, every state can activate some Bell nonlocal resource using the LOSE channel can be obtained by applying an LOSR su- A B free operations of this theory. perchannel Υ on an entanglement state ω 2 2 (see (11)). Furthermore, all so-called “anomalies” of bipartite en- We therefore conclude that when the LOSR superchannel AB A B tanglement [14] vanish under this resource theory since Θ of Fig.9 acts on an LOSE channel N = Υ[ω 2 2 ] XY A B partially entangled states cannot be “more resourceful” it produce the channel M = Θ ◦ Υ[ω 2 2 ]. Since the A B than maximally entangled ones. This is because every superchannel Θ◦Υ is also LOSR, we conclude that ω 2 2 XY partially entangled bipartite state can be obtained from a can be converted to (M , 0) with an LOSR superchan- maximally entangled one under LOCC. Hence whatever nel Θ ◦ Υ. This concludes the proof. process can be freely generated by a weakly entangled state can also be generated by a maximally entangled one. IV. QUANTIFICATION OF BELL Let us also remark that Theorem1 unifies previous NONLOCALITY resource-theoretic formulations of Bell nonlocality. Fig- ure9 describes the transformation of channels by LOSR We next turn to the question of quantifying Bell superchannels. This model has been studied in the nonlocality in this resource theory. A functional E : abstract setting of nonlocal “boxes” that are governed ∪A,BCPTP(AB) → R+ ∪ {0} was defined in [26] as a by a common cause [8, 45, 46]. An alternative opera- dynamical entanglement monotone if E(Θ[N ]) 6 E(N ) tional model has been proposed in Ref. [41] which is for any N ∈ CPTP(AB) and for any Θ ∈ LOCC(AB → 9

A0B0). Since in our model the resources are quantum inition above reduces to a measure of (static) entangle- processes, we will need to adjust this definition to incor- ment on bipartite states. When N and N 0 are classi- porate the new aspect of input-output delay time associ- cal bipartite channels and ∆t = ∆t0 = 0 (i.e. instanta- ated with each quantum channel. neous processes) the definition above reduces to a mea- Monotones of Bell nonlocality for classical channels sure of Bell non-locality. This means that any measure have been previously explored [45], where the do- of dynamical entanglement, E, reduces to a measure of main of the functionals presented, is restricted to no- Bell non-locality when the domain is restricted to in- signalling bipartite classical channels. Interestingly, stantaneous classical processes. We denote by Ecl the since in our model signalling classical processes are non- restriction of E to the classical domain, and call it a instantaneous and therefore free, we do not consider them classical entanglement measure. Note that if ∆t > 0 XY as well. In fact, any classical Bell nonlocality monotone then Ecl(N , ∆t) = 0 for any classical bipartite chan- will take the zero value on all non-instantaneous classical nel N ∈ CPTP(XY ). Therefore, we will only con- cprocesses (since classical resources can only be instanta- sider instantaneous classical processes and write in short XY XY neous). For instance, the Bell nonlocality of the classical Ecl(N ) for Ecl(N , 0). swap channel, which in previous works were considered As an example, we introduce a classical Bell nonlocal- as a maximal resource, is zero. For this reason, some ity monotone that is based on channel divergences [47, monotones of Bell nonlocality that were previously stud- 52–57]. Typically, in resource theories such monotones ied in literature need to be adjusted in order to capture are constructed as the “distance” (as measured by the di- the input-output delay time of the quantum process. vergence) of the resource to the set of free objects. How- Each quantum precess (N AB, ∆t) is realizable if the ever, in our case, there are two types of free processes: input-output delay time ∆t is large enough so that the non-instantaneous LOCC quantum processes, and in- channel N A0B0→A1B1 can be physically implemented stantaneous LOSR processes. Since divergences are not (e.g. the swap operation between Alice and Bob can- defined on quantum processes they are insensitive to the not be implemented with ∆t = 0). For simplicity, we distinction between instantaneous vs non-instantaneous resources. For this reason we first define E on classical only consider quantum processes with xA0 = xA1 ≡ xA systems and then extend the domain of E to all channels and xB0 = xB1 ≡ xB. On the other hand, the distance between Alice and Bob ∆x = xB − xA > 0 will be as- using the extension techniques developed in [58]. sumed to be strictly positive and kept fixed. Therefore, Let D be the Kullback-Leibler divergence (relative en- as in the previous section, there will be no need to in- tropy) defined on any two n-dimensional probability vec- clude ∆x in the notation of quantum processes, and this tors p and q as also enables us, as before, to classify resources as being n X either instantaneous or non-instantaneous. D(pkq) := px(log px − log qx) . (21) In the following definition we denote by Q(AB) the set x=1 of all realizable bipartite quantum processes of the form (N AB, ∆t) over all ∆t ∈ [0, ∞], where N ∈ CPTP(AB). Its extension to classical channels is defined as [57] X0 X0 Similarly, we denote by Q(XY ) the set of all such clas- D(N kM) := max D N |xihx| M |xihx| , XY sical processes (N , ∆t). Note that any instantaneous x∈[|X0|] AB resource, (N , 0) ∈ Q(AB), must be implementable by for all classical channels N , M ∈ CPTP(X). The above LOSE. Otherwise, any communication from Alice to Bob function is called a channel divergence since it satisfies will create a non-zero input-output delay time. the data processing inequality; i.e. for all Θ ∈ SC(X → Dynamical Entanglement Measure Y ) we have D Θ[N ] Θ[M] 6 D(N kM). In [57] it was shown that the above classical channel relative entropy Definition IV.1. The function is the only channel relative entropy that reduces to the [ Kullback-Leibler divergence on classical states (i.e. when E : Q(AB) → , R |X0| = 1). We define the relative entropy of Bell nonlo- A,B cality as where the union is over all finite dynamical sys- rel XY XY XY Ecl N := min D N M . (22) tems A and B, is called a measure of dynamical M∈LOSR(XY ) 1 entanglement if on the trivial process (id , ∆t), Note that the function above quantifies the dynamical en- 1 E id , ∆t = 0, and for any two bipartite pro- tanglement of an instantaneous bipartite classical chan- 0 0 cesses (N , ∆t) and (N , ∆t ) such that nel (i.e. it quantifies quantum Bell non-locality). In particular, since the channel divergence D satisfies the DPI LOCC (N , ∆t) −−−−→ (N 0, ∆t0) (20) it follows that for any Θ ∈ LOSR(XY → X0Y 0)

0 0 rel XY rel XY we have E(N , ∆t) > E(N , ∆t ) . Ecl Θ N 6 Ecl N , (23) where LOSR(XY → X0Y 0) denotes the set of all instan- When N and N 0 are bipartite quantum states the def- taneous super processes of the form depicted in Fig.9. 10

We would like now to extend the above measure to all instantaneous bipartite quantum processes; i.e. to Theorem 3. Let Ecl be a classical entanglement all channels N ∈ LOSE(AB) as given in (11). We fo- measure, and Ecl and Ecl be as above. Then, Ecl cus in this paper on the quantification of instantaneous and Ecl are entanglement measures for instan- resources since the quantification of non-instantaneous taneous bipartite quantum processes. Moreover, 0 entanglement, both static and dynamic, are well under- any other such measure Ecl that reduces to Ecl stood [2, 22, 26]. Recall that LOSE also include all bi- on classical instantaneous processes satisfies rel partite quantum states, so that the extensions of Ecl 0 to all instantaneous bipartite channels, will provide us a Ecl(N ) 6 Ecl(N ) 6 Ecl(N ) ∀ N ∈ LOSE(AB) . way to quantify the quantum Bell nonlocality of a bipartite state. We follow the extension approach recently put forward in [58] for generalized resource theories. Note that from its definition, Ecl cannot be increased even under pre-LOCC operations as depicted in Fig. 10 that results in an instantaneous classical channel.

Minimal and Maximal Extensions Definition IV.2. Let V. CONCLUSIONS [ E : Q(XY ) → R In this paper we have demonstrated that Bell nonlocal- X,Y ity is a property of bipartite quantum systems that can be a classical entanglement measure. Then, for be studied as a special form of entanglement. This was any bipartite quantum channel N ∈ LOSE(AB), accomplished by constructing a resource theory based on the minimal and maximal extensions of Ecl to all the abstract notion of a quantum processes. The im- instantaneous quantum processes, denoted by Ecl portant physical element captured in this approach is and Ecl, respectively, are given by the input-output time delay of a quantum channel. Re- sources in quantum information science can thus be di- Ecl(N ) := sup Ecl Θ[N ] and versely classified as as (1) classical or quantum, (2) static (24) or dynamic, (3) noisy or noiseless, (4) private or public, E (N ) := inf E (C) cl cl and as we add in this paper, (5) instantaneous or non- where the supremum and infimum are taken over instantaneous. all LOCC superchannels Θ ∈ LOCC(AB → Despite claims that LOSR is the correct operational XY ) and all bipartite classical channels C ∈ foundation to study Bell nonlocality in quantum states [8], we have established an operationally consistent quan- ∪X,Y CPTP(XY ) that satisfy N = Υ[C] for some superchannel Υ ∈ LOSR(XY → AB). tum resource theory in which the inclusion of LOCC pre-processing is physically motivated and follows naturally from the identification of Bell nonlocality as an instantaneous quantum process. There are also merits to allowing pre-LOCC processing in the resource theory of Bell nonlocality. First, a well-defined partial order among static and dynamic resource convertibility can be established. If one allows for LOCC pre-processing, then Remark. Since we are only considering here instanta- a maximally entangled state is a resource for generating neous resources, the superchannels Θ and Υ above are all forms of quantum correlations, including those present themselves instantaneous LOCC operations. In particu- in a Hardy-like Bell test [9]. More generally, under the lar, Θ has either the form of Fig.9 (i.e. LOSR) or the use of LOCC pre-processing, maximally entangled states form of Fig. 10, while Υ can only have the LOSR form will necessarily have maximal nonlocality with respect to of Fig.9 since its domain is classical (note that if sys- ˜ ˜ any pre-LOCC monotone. This reflects our overall con- tems A1 and B1 of Fig. 10 were classical then they would clusion that Bell nonlocality belongs to the same resource only carry classical shared randomness, and therefore in theory as quantum entanglement. this case the superchannel depicted in Fig. 10 becomes a Furthermore, pre-LOCC is able to identify a source special case of the LOSR superchannel of Fig.9). of Bell nonlocal states whereas LOSR cannot. As ar- gued in Ref. [59], any physically meaningful quantum resource theory should allow for the possibility of de- tecting resource states using the free operations of the The following theorem follows directly from the general theory along with the possible consumption of some aux- formalism introduced in [58] for the extension of resource iliary resource state. LOSR fails to satisfy this criterion measures from one domain to a larger one. while pre-LOCC does not. Suppose Alice and Bob have 11 access to an i.i.d. source of some state ρAB which is ample, we introduced a measure of instantaneous entan- promised to be a particular Bell nonlocal state. Using glement (e.g. quantum Bell non-locality) that is based on LOSR, they cannot distinguish this state from the prod- the the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Since the latter is uct state ρA ⊗ ρB. On the other hand, when using pre- the only asymptotically continuous divergence [60] it has LOCC, measurement outcomes can be discussed between numerous applications in quantum information. Remark- the processing of each copy of ρAB, and by performing ably, its extension to classical channels is unique [57], a suitable Bell test, they can verify that ρAB is indeed a and therefore, we expect that our specific construction of resource. an instantaneous entanglement measure in (22), and its We also introduced a systematic way to quantify the quantum extensions in (24), will have operational mean- dynamical entanglement of quantum processes. As an ex- ing; we leave it for future work.

[1] R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). [28] K. Fang, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and D. Sutter, Phys. Rev. [2] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and Lett. 124, 100501 (2020). K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009). [29] Y. Liu and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 012035 [3] J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964). (2020). [4] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and [30] Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, “Resource theories of quan- S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014). tum channels and the universal role of resource erasure,” [5] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, (2019), arXiv:1904.04201 [quant-ph]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). [31] G. Gour and M. M. Wilde, “Entropy of a quantum chan- [6] M. Froissart, Il Nuovo Cimento B 64, 241 (1981). nel,” (2018), arXiv:1808.06980 [quant-ph]. [7] A. Fine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291 (1982). [32] E. Kaur and M. M. Wilde, Journal of Physics A: Math- [8] D. Schmid, T. C. Fraser, R. Kunjwal, A. B. Sainz, ematical and Theoretical 51, 035303 (2017). E. Wolfe, and R. W. Spekkens, “Why standard entan- [33] V. Katariya and M. M. Wilde, “Geometric distinguisha- glement theory is inappropriate for the study of bell sce- bility measures limit quantum channel estimation and narios,” (2020), arXiv:2004.09194. discrimination,” (2020), arXiv:2004.10708 [quant-ph]. [9] L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1665 (1993). [34] K. Fang and H. Fawzi, “Geometric rényi divergence and [10] P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A 47, R747 (1993). its applications in quantum channel capacities,” (2019), [11] S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2619 (1995). arXiv:1909.05758 [quant-ph]. [12] J. Barrett, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042302 (2002). [35] M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge [13] H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. University Press, 2013). Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007). [36] I. Devetak, A. W. Harrow, and A. J. Winter, IEEE [14] A. A. Methot and V. Scarani, Quantum Information and Transactions on Information Theory 54, 4587–4618 Computation 7, 157 (2007). (2008). [15] L. Masanes, Y.-C. Liang, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. [37] B. Coecke, T. Fritz, and R. W. Spekkens, Information Lett. 100, 090403 (2008). and Computation 250, 59 (2016), quantum Physics and [16] F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, and N. Brunner, Logic. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160402 (2013). [38] E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 [17] M. T. Quintino, T. Vértesi,D. Cavalcanti, R. Augusiak, (2019). M. Demianowicz, A. Ac´ın, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. [39] A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. A 92, 032107 (2015). 49, 1804 (1982). [18] R. Augusiak, M. Demianowicz, J. Tura, and A. Ac´ın, [40] J. S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 030404 (2015). ics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy (Cambridge [19] F. Hirsch, M. T. Quintino, J. Bowles, T. Vértesi, and University Press, 2004). N. Brunner, New Journal of Physics 18, 113019 (2016). [41] R. Gallego, L. E. Würflinger,A. Ac´ın, and M. Navascués, [20] C. Palazuelos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 190401 (2012). Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070401 (2012). [21] Y.-C. Liang, L. Masanes, and D. Rosset, Phys. Rev. A [42] J. I. de Vicente, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and 86, 052115 (2012). Theoretical 47, 424017 (2014). [22] M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comput. 7, 1 [43] K. Horodecki, A. Grudka, P. Joshi, W. K lobus, and (2007), quant-ph/0504163. J.Lodyga, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032104 (2015). [23] G. Gour and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 150401 [44] R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032118 (2019). (2017). [24] X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Phys. Rev. Research 1, [45] E. Wolfe, D. Schmid, A. B. Sainz, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. 033169 (2019). Spekkens, Quantum 4, 280 (2020). [25] X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, New Journal of [46] D. Schmid, D. Rosset, and F. Buscemi, Quantum 4, 262 Physics 21, 103002 (2019). (2020). [26] G. Gour and C. M. Scandolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, [47] G. Gour, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 65, 180505 (2020). 5880 (2019). [27] S. Bäuml,S. Das, X. Wang, and M. M. Wilde, “Resource [48] G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, EPL theory of entanglement for bipartite quantum channels,” (Europhysics Letters) 83, 30004 (2008). (2019), arXiv:1907.04181 [quant-ph]. [49] E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Manˇcinska,M. Ozols, and 12

A. Winter, Communications in Mathematical Physics 328, 303–326 (2014). [50] D. Beckman, D. Gottesman, M. A. Nielsen, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052309 (2001). [51] T. Eggeling, D. Schlingemann, and R. F. Werner, Euro- physics Letters (EPL) 57, 782 (2002). [52] T. Cooney, M. Mosonyi, and M. M. Wilde, Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics 344, 797 (2016). [53] F. Leditzky, E. Kaur, N. Datta, and M. M. Wilde, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012332 (2018). [54] M. Berta, C. Hirche, E. Kaur, and M. M. Wilde, Letters in Mathematical Physics 110, 2277 (2020), arXiv:1808.01498. [55] K. Fang and H. Fawzi, (2019), arXiv:1909.05758. [56] V. Katariya and M. M. Wilde, (2020), arXiv:2004.10708. [57] G. Gour, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13340 (2020). [58] G. Gour and M. Tomamichel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12408 (2020). [59] T. Theurer, D. Egloﬀ, L. Zhang, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190405 (2019). [60] K. Matsumoto, (2018), arXiv:1010.1030. [61] D. Schmid, D. Rosset, and F. Buscemi, Quantum 4, 262 (2020). 13

Appendix

ADDITIONAL RESULTS

A. Fully Bell local

So far, we have captured the essence of quantum Bell nonlocality and entanglement theory in the framework of 0 0 LOCC superprocesses. A quantum superprocess, (ΘAB→A B , ∆t → ∆t0), takes a quantum process (N AB, ∆t) to 0 0 another process (MA B , ∆t0). A quantum superprocess is LOCC when the underlying superchannel Θ has an LOCC realization, as shown in Fig.2. While the framework of superprocesses encapsulates all of dynamical entanglement theory, Bell nonlocality emerges out from two restrictions on these superprocesses; i) the resultant channel is classical, i.e. A0B0 = XY , ii) the superprocess has either of the forms shown in Fig.9 and 10; In this section, we consider delay time preserving (DTP) LOCC (i.e. LOSR) 2 superprocesses which take bipartite quantum processes to a bipartite quantum to classical (POVM) processes, i.e. superprocesses of the form AB→A0B0 0 0 (Θ , ∆t → ∆t), where Θ has the form shown in Fig.9 with A1 and B1 taken to be classical systems. We show that every entangled bipartite channel can be used to simulate, via DTP LOCC superprocesses, at least one bipartite nonlocal POVM channel. Therefore, even on not requiring the output channel to be classical, the nonlocal features of entanglement can still be observed. We call separable (i.e. LOSR) processes fully Bell local. Fully Bell Local Processes Deﬁnition V.1. Let (N AB, ∆t) be a a bipartite quantum process with delay time ∆t ∈ [0, ∞]. (N AB, ∆t) is 0 0 said to be fully Bell local if for every DTP LOCC (i.e. LOSR) superprocess (ΘAB→A B , ∆t → ∆t), of the 0 0 form given in Fig.9, where A1 and B1 are restricted to classical systems, the process (Θ[N ], ∆t) is LOSR.

This means that every bipartite POVM process that can be simulated by applying a DTP LOCC superprocess on a fully Bell local process must also be local. We characterize the set of fully Bell local processes in our next theorem.

FIG. 11.

2 Note that if ∆t = 0, then both the superprocesses in Fig.9 and 10 the input process, while the superprocesses of the form as shown preserve the time delay. However, if ∆t > 0 then only the super- in Fig. 10 anihilates it (see Theorem1). processes of the form as shown in Fig.9 preserve the delay time of 14

Instantaneous LOCC channels are Fully Bell Local Theorem 4. Let (N AB, ∆t) be a bipartite quantum process and (LAB, 0) denote the set of all instanta- AB neous LOCC processes from systems A0,B0 to systems A1,B1. (N , ∆t) is fully Bell local if and only if (N AB, ∆t) ∈ (LAB, 0). Alternatively, (N AB, ∆t) is fully Bell local if N AB admits the form

AB X A B N = tjEj ⊗ Fj , (1) j

A B where Ej ∈ CPTP(A) and Fj ∈ CPTP(B) for all j ∈ R and tj is a probability distribution.

Proof. We start by noting that the C-J matrix of a bipartite channel is separable if and only if it is an LOSR channel (i.e. instantaneous LOCC). Clearly, if N is LOSR, it is fully Bell local, since an LOSR superchannel takes bipartite LOSR channels to bipartite LOSR channels. We therefore assume that N is fully Bell local, and by contradiction, also non-LOSR, i.e. its C-J matrix is not separable. Since every C-J matrix can be viewed as an unnormalized density matrix, for any non-separable C-J matrix JN of a non-LOSR bipartite quantum channel N , there will always ˜ ˜ be a witness W ∈ Herm(ABAB), such that Tr[JN W ] < 0 and Tr[JMW ] > 0 for every LOSR channel M. Here Herm(ABA˜B˜) denotes the set of hermitian operators in B(ABA˜B˜). 0 0 0 0 Now, express W = rη − tζ, where η, ζ ∈ D(A0B0) and r, t > 0, such that |A0| = |A0||A1| and |B0| = |B0||B1|. 0 0 Consider the quantum to classical (qc) channel, F ∈ CPTP(A0B0 → X1Y1), generated by the application of an LOSR superchannel with pre-processing which generates maximally entangled state and a post-processing which includes local projective measurements as shown in Fig. 11 . Hence, there will be some outcome in (x, y) in which they both project onto the maximally entangled state. For this outcome, on the inputs ηT and ζT the channel satisﬁes

p(x, y|ηT ) := hx, y|F AB→XY (ηT )|x, yi

1 A0 A˜0 B0 B˜0 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 0 0 A0 A˜0 B0 B˜0 0 0 0 0 A0B0→A1B1 A0A0 B0B0 A0B0 T 0 0 0 0 = hφ+ ⊗ φ+ |N (φ+ ⊗ φ+ ) ⊗ (η ) |φ+ ⊗ φ+ i |A0||B0| (2) 1 A0 A˜0 B0 B˜0 0 0 A0 A˜0 B0 B˜0 0 0 0 0 A0B0 T 0 0 0 0 = hφ+ ⊗ φ+ |JN ⊗ (η ) |φ+ ⊗ φ+ i |A0||B0| 0 0 A0B0 = Tr[ρJN η ],

1 T A0 B0 where all φ+ are unnormalized and ρJ := J and similarly p(x, y|ζ ) = Tr[ρJ ζ 0 0 ]. Therefore, N |A0||B0| N

T T rp(x, y|η ) − tp(x, y|ζ ) = Tr[ρJN W ] < 0 . (3)

0 0 0 0 A0 B0 On the other hand, for any LOSR channel E ∈ LOSR(A0B0 → X1Y1) with POVM elements {Πx|i ⊗ Πy|i } and prior h A0 B0 i P 0 0 X1Y1 {pi} such that E(·) = i piTr (·) Πx|i ⊗ Πy|i |xyihxy| , we have for any x and y,

" # h 0 i 0 0 T T X T A0 0 T X A0 B0 rp(x, y|η ) − tp(x, y|ζ ) = piTr W Πx|i ⊗ Πy|iB0 = Tr W piΠx|i ⊗ Πy|i > 0, (4) i i where the last inequality follows from the separability of the POVM. Hence, we get a contradiction. This completes the proof. While writing this paper, the authors became aware of an alternative proof provided in [61].

Remark- As a special case of the theorem above, one obtains that a quantum state ρ ∈ D(A1B1) is fully Bell local (i.e. it only results in Bell local qc channels) if and only if it is separable, that is when N is taken to be a replacement channel (i.e. N (σ) = ρ for all σ ∈ D(A0B0)). 15

B. CHSH Witness

Entanglement Witness for Bipartite POVMs

Theorem 5. Let ψx0 ∈ D(A0) and φy0 ∈ D(B0) be pure quantum states, x0, y0 ∈ {0, 1}, x1, y1 ∈ Z and ⊕ denote addition modulo 2. Then, the hermitian matrix W = P W ⊗ |x y ihx y | is an LOSR witness x1,y1 x1y1 1 1 1 1 for POVM channels in ﬁnite dimensions, where

X 3 W = − δ (ψ ⊗ φ ). (5) x1y1 16 x1⊕y1=x0y0 x0 y0 x0,y0

This witness is a generalization of of the CHSH inequality to the case of bipartite POVM channels and is independent of the choice of basis.

Proof. Let E be a POVM channel with {Π } as the POVM elements satisfying P Π = IA0B0 . qc x1y1|x0y0 x1,y1 x1,y1 x1y1|x0y0 h i X A0B0 Tr WJE = Tr Π ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1|)(Wx y ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1|) qc x1y1|x0y0 1 1 x1,y1 " # X A0B0 X 3 A B = Tr Π ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1| − δx1⊕y1=x0y0 [ψx ⊗ φy ] ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1| x1y1|x0y0 16 0 0 x1,y1 x0,y0 (6) X A0B0 A B 3 = Tr Π (ψx ⊗ φy ) − δx1⊕y1=x0y0 Tr [|x1y1ihx1y1|] x1y1|x0y0 0 0 16 x1,y1,x0,y0 X 3 = p(x , y |x , y ) − δ 1 1 0 0 16 x1⊕y1=x0y0 x1,y1,x0,y0 Now, if E is an LOSR channel, then Π = P t Π ⊗ Π0 where Π and Π0 are individual qc x1y1|x0y0 λ λ x1|x0λ y1|y0λ x1|x0λ y1|y0λ POVM elements and they satisfy P Π = IA and P Π0 = IB and t is a probability distribution function x1 x1|x0λ 0 y1 y1|y0λ 0 λ depending on the random variable λ. For such a channel, we have X h i Tr WJ = Tr t (Π ⊗ Π0 ⊗ |x y ihx y |)(W ⊗ |x y ihx y |) Eqc λ x1|λ y1|λ 1 1 1 1 x1y1 1 1 1 1 x1,y1,λ X 3 = t p q − δ λ x1|λx0 y1|λy0 16 x1⊕y1=x0y0 (7) x1,y1,x0,y0,λ X 3 = p (x , y |x , y ) − δ 0, l 1 1 0 0 16 x1⊕y1=x0y0 > x1,y1,x0,y0 where p represents a Bell local probability distribution, p = Tr[ΠA ψ ] and q = Tr[Π0B φ ]. This l x1|λx0 x1|λ x0 y1|λy0 y1|λ y0 is true for any choice of POVM elements Π and Π0 and is also independent on the choice of ψ and φ . x1|x0λ y1|y0λ x0 y0

On the other hand, if Eqc is not an LOSR channel, Πx1y1|x0y0 cannot admit the convex distribution above. One possible way of constructing such a channel is with the help of a bipartite quantum state which is not fully Bell local (Theorem4), i.e. entangled. However, from the setup of the CHSH game for entangled states, it is always possible to construct at least one classical channel via the action of a quantum to classical superchannel such that the underlying probability distribution helps the parties to win the game. In other words, for every Bell nonlocal bipartite state, there exists at least one choice of {Πx1y1|x0y0 }, {ψx0 } and {φy0 } such that, h i X A0B0 Tr WJE = Tr Π ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1|)(Wx y ⊗ |x1y1ihx1y1|) qc x1y1|x0y0 1 1 x1,y1 (8) X 3 = p (x , y |x , y ) − δ < 0, nl 1 1 0 0 16 x1⊕y1=x0y0 x1,y1,x0,y0 where pnl represents a Bell nonlocal probability distribution.