Tsirelson bounds for quantum correlations with indefinite causal order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum theory is in principle compatible with processes that violate causal inequalities, an analogue of Bell inequalities that constrain the correlations observed by sets of parties operating in a definite causal order. Since the introduction of causal inequalities, determining their maximum quantum violation, analogue to Tsirelson’s bound for Bell inequalities, has remained an open problem. Here we provide a general method for bounding the violation of arbitrary causal inequalities, establishing limits to the correlations achievable by arbitrary local experiments and by arbitrary quantum processes with indefinite causal order. We prove that the maximum violation is generally smaller than the algebraic maximum of the corresponding correlation, and determine Tsirelson-like bounds for a class of causal inequalities including some of the most paradigmatic examples. Our results motivate a search for physical principles characterizing the boundary of the set of quantum correlations with indefinite causal order. Quantum theory has been shown to be compatible with processes violating a definite causal order, but no detailed analysis of the maximum allowed degree of violation has been carried out so far. Here, the authors fill this gap by providing the analogue of Tsirelson’s bound for the violation of causal inequalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".