Revisiting the experimental test of Mermin's inequalities at IBMQ Diego Gonz´alez1*, Diego Fern´andezde la Pradilla1y and Guillermo Gonz´alez1z 1 Instituto de F´ısica Te´orica, UAM-CSIC, Universidad Aut´onomade Madrid, Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain Abstract Bell-type inequalities allow for experimental testing of local hidden variable theories. In the present work we show the violation of Mermin's inequalities in IBM's five-qubit quantum comput- ers, ruling out the local realism hypothesis in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, our numerical results show significant improvement with respect to previous implementations. The circuit im- plementation of these inequalities is also proposed as a way of assessing the reliability of different quantum computers. 1 Introduction nonlocal quantum correlations. The refutation of EPR provided by testing Mermin's inqualities is In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) not intrinsically statistical; one single ideal mea- published a paper that challenged the consistency surement would suffice. However, the actual im- of the recently formulated quantum mechanics plementation in realistic quantum computers re- (QM) [1]. Their conclusion was that QM cannot quires various thousands of shots to obtain statis- be a complete theory, and they based their reason- tical significance. The aim of this text is to imple- ing on the phenomenon of entanglement. In other ment Mermin's inequalities using IBM's five-qubit words, if reality observes local realism (LR), every quantum computers [10] through the IBM Quan- element of reality has a well-defined value that tum Experience platform, and to verify that the cannot be modified in a superluminal way, and results conflict with the classical bounds, for the QM cannot be a complete theory. In its place, lo- cases with 3, 4 and 5 qubits. We will also compare cal hidden-variable theories (LHV) were proposed. our results with the existing literature. In particu- For years, the difference between LHV and QM lar, recent implementations include [7, 12, 13, 14]. was essentially a metaphysical one, and it did not The text is structured as follows: in section2 seem possible to empirically distinguish one from we study in detail Mermin's inequalities and the another. This changed radically in 1964 due to quantum states that we need to prepare. We an- the contribution of the physicist John S. Bell [2]. alyze the circuits to be implemented in section3. In his paper, Bell proposed a set of physical quan- In section4 we gather the results and close with tities that could be measured and whose values, our conclusions in section5. statistically, must satisfy some inequalities if lo- cal realism were valid. That is, if Bell inequalities hold, local realism prevails and QM is ruled out. 2 Mermin's inequalities When the experiments were performed the results were compatible with QM and contrary to the pre- Mermin's inequalities can be implemented easily dictions of LHV [3,4,5]. There are, actually, in a system with n spins/qubits. GHZ [11] states various experimental implementations of the usual are particularly relevant, which are of the form two-particle Bell inequalities, notoriously the one arXiv:2005.11271v3 [quant-ph] 18 Nov 2020 1 proposed by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt jφi = p j0; 0 ··· 0i + ei'j1; 1 ··· 1i: (2.1) (CHSH) [6]. Extended Bell-type experiments also 2 n qubits n qubits allow for LR tests by using more than two entan- We have gled particles. Some examples are Mermin's and ! Svetlichny inequalities, which have been studied 1 0 σz = ; (2.2) for 3 qubits and various quantum states in [7,8]. 0 −1 In particular, Mermin's inequalities, proposed ! 0 1 in 1990 [9], are one of the most significant ex- σx = ; (2.3) amples of extended Bell-type inequalities to test 1 0 *[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1 ! 0 −i that, if QM is valid, must be equal to 2n−1. Those σy = ; (2.4) i 0 combinations are generally referred to as Mermin ! ! polynomials. Explicitly, those are: 1 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 j0i = ; j1i = : (2.5) M3 = σyσxσx + ··· − σyσyσy; (2.14) 0 1 2 more 1 2 3 4 which implies that, for each qubit, the following M4 = σyσxσxσx + ··· holds 3 more 1 2 3 4 − σyσyσyσx − · · · and (2.15) σzj0i = j0i y σzj1i = −|1i: (2.6) 3 more 1 2 3 4 5 Starting from GHZ states, Mermin argues that the M5 = σyσxσxσxσx + ··· state 4 more − σ1σ2σ3σ4σ5 − · · · 1 y y y x x jφi = p j0; 0 ··· 0i + ij1; 1 ··· 1i (2.7) 9 more 2 1 2 3 4 5 + σyσyσyσyσy; (2.16) is an eigenstate of the operator where the number below the ellipses indicates the 2 n 3 1 O number of terms with the same amount of σy as M = σj + iσj − H.C. ; (2.8) n 2i 4 x y 5 the expectation value of the same row. j=1 Even though we will not show it here 1, a LHV with eigenvalue 2n−1, where H.C. means hermitian theory that observes local realism predicts the val- conjugate. This is easy to check after realizing ues of the Mermin polynomials to be considerably that lower than the ones obtained by using QM. More specifically, (σx + iσy) = 2σ+; (2.9) n−1 (σx − iσy) = 2σ−; (2.10) hMniQM = 2 and ( n=2 σ+j0i = 0; σ+j1i = j0i and (2.11) 2 n even and hM i ≤ : (2.17) n LR (n−1)=2 σ−j1i = 0; σ−j0i = j1i: (2.12) 2 n odd Next, Mermin expands the operator Mn. It is It is precisely this disagreement what can be used clear that only terms with an odd number of σy to test the principle of local realism. survive when we substract the hermitian conju- Until here we have reviewed Mermin's origi- gate. Therefore, taking the expectation value with nal paper. It is important to notice that the rea- jφi yields soning is based on the operator Mn and the state 2n−1 = σ1σ2 ··· σn + ··· y x x QM jφi / j0; 0 ··· 0i+ij1; 1 ··· 1i. If we modify the rel- ative phase ' between j0; 0 ··· 0i and j1; 1 ··· 1i, − σ1σ2σ3σ4 ··· σn − · · · y y y x x QM the form of the associated Mermin polynomials + σ1 ··· σ5σ6 ··· σn + ··· y y x x QM changes too. This was the case with the expres- − σ1 ··· σ7σ8 ··· σn − · · · sions used by Alsina and Latorre [12]. In particu- y y x x QM lar, in their paper they generate Mermin polyno- + ··· = hMniQM ; (2.13) mials from the recursive relation where the ellipses represent all the possible per- A 1 A n n A∗ n n Mn = Mn−1 σx + σy + Mn−1 σx − σy mutations of σ in each row and the subscript QM 2 y (2.18) means that this value has been computed within with M A∗ ≡ M (x $ y) and M A ≡ σ1. With this the framework of quantum mechanics. n n 1 x relation the obtained polynomials are: The total number of terms is 2n−1, and each A term is restricted to an interval with bounds ±1. M3 = M3 (2.19) The conclusion is that jφi must be an eigenvector A 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 M4 = − σxσxσxσx − σyσyσyσy of each of the products of σx and σy, which is also 1 2 3 4 + σyσxσxσx + ··· easy to check. Furthermore, the eigenvalue must 3 more (Y −1)=2 be (−1) , Y being the number of σy in each 1 2 3 4 − σyσyσyσx − · · · operator. 3 more In this way, following Mermin's reasoning, we 1 2 3 4 + σyσyσxσx + ··· and (2.20) have found a combination of products of σx and σy 5 more 1See [9] for further details. 2 A 1 2 3 4 5 M5 = − 2σxσxσxσxσx qubits can be found by analyzing the simple pat- 1 2 3 4 5 terns in the circuits shown here. Not all the qubits + 2 σxσxσxσyσy + ··· 9 more have an implemented CNOT gate in the computer, 1 2 3 4 5 − 2 σxσyσyσyσy + ··· : (2.21) but in all the cases that we analyze we can ex- 4 more change the role of the qubits and obtain one con- Since any multiple of them can be used to check figuration where it can indeed be implemented. A LR, they divided M5 by 2. In section 3.1 we show the various initial In principle, all the qubits are independent and states, Mermin polynomials and circuits used for the state of the system should not be affected if we 3, 4 and 5 qubits. In section 3.2 we discuss how exchange any two qubits since they are all equiv- to measure the expectation values of each GHZ alent. Therefore, state. 1 2 n 1 2 3 n σyσx ··· σx = σxσyσx ··· σx = ··· = σ1 ··· σn−1σn (2.22) x x y 3.1 GHZ state and polynomials and the same is true for every set of expectation values with the same number of σx and σy. In Three qubits, only setup: this way we manage to reduce considerably the number of times we have to run the codes. As 1 jφ3i = p (j0; 0; 0i + ij1; 1; 1i) (3.1) a verification, for the 3 qubits case we check this 2 invariance experimentally. hM3i = 3hσxσxσyi − hσyσyσyi (3.2) Since the polynomials and states are different hM3iLR ≤ 2; hM3iQM ≤ 4 (3.3) from the original proposal of Mermin [9], for the sake of completeness we also test the ones given q[0] H H in [12]. We noticed the presence of two typos in [12], for the 4 and 5 qubit cases.