為了回應愛因斯坦(Einstein)-波多爾斯基(Podolsky)-羅森(Rosen)悖論，薛丁格(Schro ̈dinger)宣稱一個子系統的量測可以讓另一個空間分離的子系統瞬間被投影到不同的狀態。愛因斯坦-波多爾斯基-羅森操縱性的嚴格定義，是在2007年由懷斯曼(Wiseman)，瓊斯(Jones)和多爾蒂(Doherty)所提出的。在他們的工作中，量子操縱性是介於量子非分離性(quantum nonseparability)和貝爾非局域性(Bell nonlocality)之間的量子關聯性，這三種量子關聯性之間具有階層關係。具體而言，違反貝爾不等式的量子態是量子可操縱而且有量子糾纏。可操縱的量子態必定具有量子糾纏，但是反之則否。因此，貝爾非局域性和量子糾纏性分別是最強和最弱的空間量子關聯性。量子操縱性在與單側與設備無關的量子信息處理中提供了許多實際應用，例如與單側設備無關的量子密鑰分配及與單側設備無關的量子隨機數發生器。

類似於貝爾不等式，宏觀系統上的宏觀實在性和非侵入性測量的假設可用於構造Leggett-Garg（LG）不等式。 LG不等式可用於對觀察或實驗結果進行分類，以滿足宏觀實在性。一個宏觀的理論（或等效地，對於給定的觀察，一個宏觀的對象）是指一個狀態總是“真實的”並且可以以非侵入的方式觀察之理論。通常，當系統的尺寸或尺寸增加時，可以應用宏觀理論，使得系統傾向於宏觀地表現並且可以非侵入地觀察。

類似於LG和貝爾不等式之間的關係，我們最近也提出了空間操縱性的時間類比，稱為時間量子操縱性。時間量子操控性可以應用於量子信息，開放量子系統和量子網路。時間量子操縱性顯示早期量測的結果如何影響時間演化後的量子系統。

在此篇論文中，我們首先證明在受限制的單向局部操作和古典通信之後量子操控性的幾何量測是單調方程。我們透過半正定規劃來計算量子操控性之幾何量測的上限和下限。對於維爾納態(Werner states)，我們還給出量子操控性之幾何量測的下界。其次，我們證明了三種時間量子關聯性之間也存在階層關係：時間量子不可分離性，時間量子操縱和宏觀實在論。由於時間量子不可分離性可用於度量量子因果關係，所以，時間量子操縱性的量化可被視為直接關聯性的較弱度量，並且可用於區分量子網路中的直接關聯性和共同關聯性。

In response to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, Schro ̈dinger claimed that one subsystem can be instantaneously steered into different states by the other spatially separated subsystem. It was not clear until 2007 that the rigorous definition of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering was proposed by Wiseman, Jones, and Doherty. They have shown that EPR steering is the intermediated class of quantum correlation between nonseparability and Bell nonlocality, which forms a hierarchy relation.

Specifically, a state, which violates a Bell inequality, is not only steerable but also entangled. And a steerable state must be entangled, but not vice versa. Therefore, Bell nonlocality and entanglement are respectively the strongest and weakest spatial quantum correlations. The EPR steering provides many practical applications in the one-sided device-independent quantum information processing, such as one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution and one-sided device-independent quantum random number generator.

Similar to the Bell inequality, the assumptions of macrorealism and noninvasive measurement on a macroscopic system can be used to construct an inequality, commonly called the Leggett-Garg (LG) inequality. The LG inequality can be used to classify observations or experimental outcomes that satisfy macrorealism or not. Here, a macrorealistic theory (or equivalently, for a given observation, a macrorealistic object) is the one whose state is always `realistic' and can be observed in a noninvasive manner. Generally, it is thought that macrorealistic theories may apply when the dimension or the size of the system is increased, such that the system tends to behave macroscopically and can be observed noninvasively.

Similar to the relation between Leggett-Garg and Bell inequality, a temporal analogy of spatial steering, referred to temporal steering, was also proposed recently. Temporal steering has recently been applied to quantum information, open quantum systems, and quantum network. Temporal steering shows how the earlier measurements influence the later ones on the very same party.

In this thesis, first, we define a geometrical measure of EPR steering, by showing that it is a monotone after performing a restricted one-way local operation and classical communication. We provide practical methods to estimate the upper and lower bounds of the geometrical EPR steering measure by a semidefinite program. We also analytically show that for the Werner states the bound is tight. Second, we show that there exists a hierarchy relation among the three temporal quantum correlations: temporal inseparability, temporal steering, and macrorealism. Given that the temporal inseparability can be used to define a measure of quantum causality, similarly, the quantification of temporal steering can be viewed as a weaker measure of direct cause and can be used to distinguish between direct cause and common cause in a quantum network.

[1] Ku, H.-Y. et al. Temporal steering in four dimensions with applications to
coupled qubits and magnetoreception. Phys. Rev. A 94, 062126 (2016). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.062126.
[2] Ku, H.-Y. et al. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering: Its geometric quanti cation
and witness. Phys. Rev. A 97, 022338 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022338.
[3] Ku, H.-Y., Chen, S.-L., Lambert, N., Chen, Y.-N. & Nori, F. Hierarchy
in temporal quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. A 98, 022104 (2018). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022104.
[4] Chen, G.-T., Kuo, P.-C., Ku, H.-Y., Chen, G.-Y. & Chen, Y.-N. Probing
higher-order transitions through scattering of microwave photons in the
ultrastrong-coupling regime of circuit QED. Phys. Rev. A 98, 043803 (2018).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.043803.
[5] Ku, H.-Y., Chen, S.-L., Chen, H.-B., Nori, F. & Chen, Y.-N. Measurementdevice-independent measure of steerability and witnesses for all steerable resources.
arXiv e-prints arXiv:1807.08901 (2018). 1807.08901.
[6] Zhao, Y.-Y. et al. Experimental measurement-device-independent quanti
cation of quantum steering. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1901.08298 (2019).
1901.08298.
[7] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-mechanical description
of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777{780 (1935).
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
[8] Schrodinger, E. Discussion of probability relations between separated systems.
Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 31, 555563 (1935).
[9] Cleve, R. & Buhrman, H. Substituting quantum entanglement for communication.
Phys. Rev. A 56, 1201{1204 (1997). URL https://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.1201.
[10] Ekert, A. K. Quantum cryptography based on bell's theorem. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 67, 661{663 (1991). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.67.661.
[11] Ac n, A., Massar, S. & Pironio, S. E cient quantum key distribution secure
against no-signalling eavesdroppers. New Journal of Physics 8, 126 (2006).
URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/8/i=8/a=126.
[12] Bennett, C. H. et al. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895{1899 (1993).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895.
[13] Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V. & Wehner, S. Bell nonlocality.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419.
[14] Ac i n, A. et al. Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against
collective attacks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007). URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.230501.
[15] Gallego, R., Brunner, N., Hadley, C. & Ac n, A. Device-independent tests of
classical and quantum dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 230501 (2010). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.230501.
[16] Bell, J. S. On the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964).
[17] Freedman, S. J. & Clauser, J. F. Experimental test of local hidden-variable
theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938{941 (1972). URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938.
[18] Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. & Roger, G. Experimental test of Bell's inequalities
using time- varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804{1807 (1982). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804.
[19] Hensen, B. et al. Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins
separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature (London) 526, 682{686 (2015). URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature15759.
[20] Christensen, B. G., Liang, Y.-C., Brunner, N., Gisin, N. & Kwiat, P. G. Exploring
the limits of quantum nonlocality with entangled photons. Phys. Rev.
X 5, 041052 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.
5.041052.
[21] Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557, 212{216 (2018).
URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3.
[22] Rauch, D. et al. Cosmic bell test using random measurement settings from
high-redshift quasars. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080403 (2018). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403.
[23] Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H. & Zeilinger, A. Violation
of Bell's inequality under strict einstein locality conditions. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 81, 5039{5043 (1998). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.81.5039.
[24] Rowe, M. A. et al. Experimental violation of a bell's inequality with e cient
detection. Nature (London) 409, 791{794 (2001). URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/35057215.
[25] Matsukevich, D. N., Maunz, P., Moehring, D. L., Olmschenk, S. & Monroe,
C. Bell inequality violation with two remote atomic qubits. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 100, 150404 (2008). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.100.150404.
[26] Ansmann, M. et al. Violation of Bell's inequality in josephson phase
qubits. Nature 461, 504{506 (2009). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature08363.
[27] Scheidl, T. et al. Violation of local realism with freedom of choice. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 19708{19713 (2010). URL http://
www.pnas.org/content/107/46/19708.abstract. http://www.pnas.org/
content/107/46/19708.full.pdf.
[28] Hofmann, J. et al. Heralded entanglement between widely separated
atoms. Science 337, 72{75 (2012). URL http://science.sciencemag.org/
content/337/6090/72. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/
6090/72.full.pdf.
[29] Giustina, M. et al. Bell violation using entangled photons without the fairsampling
assumption. Nature 497, 227{230 (2013). URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature12012.
[30] Cavalcanti, D., Rabelo, R. & Scarani, V. Nonlocality tests enhanced by a
third observer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 040402 (2012). URL https://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.040402.
[31] Werner, R. F. Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations
admitting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277{4281 (1989). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277.
[32] Brunner, N. et al. Testing the dimension of hilbert spaces. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 100, 210503 (2008). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.100.210503.
[33] V ertesi, T. & P al, K. F. Generalized clauser-horne-shimony-holt inequalities
maximally violated by higher-dimensional systems. Phys. Rev. A 77, 042106
(2008). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.042106.
[34] Pironio, S. et al. Random numbers certi ed by Bell's theorems theorem.
Nature (London) 464, 1021 (2010). URL http://www.nature.com/nature/
journal/v464/n7291/abs/nature09008.html.
[35] Buscemi, F. All entangled quantum states are nonlocal. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,
200401 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
108.200401.
[36] Branciard, C., Rosset, D., Liang, Y.-C. & Gisin, N. Measurement-deviceindependent
entanglement witnesses for all entangled quantum states. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 110, 060405 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.110.060405.
[37] Shahandeh, F., Hall, M. J. W. & Ralph, T. C. Measurement-deviceindependent
approach to entanglement measures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118,
150505 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
118.150505.
[38] Bowles, J., Supi c, I., Cavalcanti, D. & Ac n, A. Device-independent entanglement
certi cation of all entangled states. arXiv:1801.10444 (2018). URL
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180110444B.
[39] Supi c, I., Skrzypczyk, P. & Cavalcanti, D. Measurement-device-independent
entanglement and randomness estimation in quantum networks. Phys. Rev. A
95, 042340 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.
95.042340.
[40] Verbanis, E. et al. Resource-e cient measurement-device-independent entanglement
witness. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 190501 (2016). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.190501.
[41] Rosset, D., Martin, A., Verbanis, E., Lim, C. C. W. & Thew, R. Practical
measurement-device-independent entanglement quanti cation. Phys. Rev. A
98, 052332 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.
98.052332.
[42] Reid, M. D. Demonstration of the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox using nondegenerate
parametric ampli cation. Phys. Rev. A 40, 913{923 (1989). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.913.
[43] Wiseman, H. M., Jones, S. J. & Doherty, A. C. Steering, entanglement,
nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98,
140402 (2007). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.
140402.
[44] Jones, S. J., Wiseman, H. M. & Doherty, A. C. Entanglement, einsteinpodolsky-
rosen correlations, bell nonlocality, and steering. Phys. Rev. A 76,
052116 (2007). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.
052116.
[45] Cavalcanti, E. G., Jones, S. J., Wiseman, H. M. & Reid, M. D. Experimental
criteria for steering and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox. Phys. Rev. A
80, 032112 (2009). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.
80.032112.
[46] Ou, Z. Y., Pereira, S. F., Kimble, H. J. & Peng, K. C. Realization of the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables. Phys. Rev. Lett.
68, 3663 (1992). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3663.
[47] Hald, J., S rensen, J. L., Schori, C. & Polzik, E. S. Spin squeezed atoms: A
macroscopic entangled ensemble created by light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1319
(1999). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1319.
[48] Bowen, W. P., Schnabel, R., Lam, P. K. & Ralph, T. C. Experimental investigation
of criteria for continuous variable entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett.
90, 043601 (2003). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.
043601.
[49] Howell, J. C., Bennink, R. S., Bentley, S. J. & Boyd, R. W. Realization of the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox using momentum- and position-entangled
photons from spontaneous parametric down conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett.
92, 210403 (2004). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.
210403.
[50] Saunders, D. J., Jones, S. J., Wiseman, H. M. & Pryde, G. J. Experimental
EPR-steering using Bell-local states. Nat. Phys. 6, 845{849 (2010). URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1766.
[51] Wittmann, B. et al. Loophole-free Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment via
quantum steering. New J. Phys. 14, 053030 (2012). URL http://stacks.
iop.org/1367-2630/14/i=5/a=053030.
[52] Bennet, A. J. et al. Arbitrarily loss-tolerant Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering
allowing a demonstration over 1 km of optical ber with no detection loophole.
Phys. Rev. X 2, 031003 (2012).
[53] Handchen, V. et al. Observation of one-way Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering.
Nat. Photon. 6, 596{599 (2012).
[54] Smith, D. H. et al. Conclusive quantum steering with superconducting
transition-edge sensors. Nature communications 3 (2012). URL http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1628.
[55] Steinlechner, S., Bauchrowitz, J., Eberle, T. & Schnabel, R. Strong Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen steering with unconditional entangled states. Phys. Rev. A
87, 022104 (2013).
[56] Schneeloch, J., Dixon, P. B., Howland, G. A., Broadbent, C. J. & Howell,
J. C. Violation of continuous-variable Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering with
discrete measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 130407 (2013). URL http:
//dx.doi.org/110.1103/PhysRevLett.110.130407.
[57] Su, H. Y., Chen, J. L., Wu, C., Deng, D. L. & Oh, C. H. Detecting Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen steering for continuous variable wavefunctions. I. J. Quant.
Infor. 11, 1350019 (2013).
[58] Sun, K. et al. Experimental quanti cation of asymmetric Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 160404 (2016). URL http://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.160404.
[59] Tischler, N. et al. Conclusive experimental demonstration of one-way einsteinpodolsky-
rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 100401 (2018). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.100401.
[60] He, Q. Y. & Reid, M. D. Genuine multipartite einstein-podolsky-rosen steering.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 250403 (2013). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.250403.
[61] Li, C.-M. et al. Genuine high-order Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 115, 010402 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.115.010402.
[62] Xiang, Y., Kogias, I., Adesso, G. & He, Q. Multipartite Gaussian steering:
Monogamy constraints and quantum cryptography applications. Phys. Rev.
A 95, 010101 (2017). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.
95.010101.
[63] Milne, A., Jevtic, S., Jennings, D., Wiseman, H. & Rudolph, T. Quantum
steering ellipsoids, extremal physical states and monogamy. New Journal of
Physics 16, 083017 (2014). URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/16/
i=8/a=083017.
[64] Cheng, S., Milne, A., Hall, M. J. W. & Wiseman, H. M. Volume monogamy of
quantum steering ellipsoids for multiqubit systems. Phys. Rev. A 94, 042105
(2016). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.042105.
[65] Cavalcanti, D. & Skrzypczyk, P. Quantitative relations between measurement
incompatibility, quantum steering, and nonlocality. Phys. Rev. A 93, 052112
(2016). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052112.
[66] Uola, R., Moroder, T. & Guhne, O. Joint measurability of generalized measurements
implies classicality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160403 (2014). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.160403.
[67] Quintino, M. T., V ertesi, T. & Brunner, N. Joint measurability, einsteinpodolsky-
rosen steering, and bell nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113,
160402 (2014). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
113.160402.
[68] Chen, S.-L., Budroni, C., Liang, Y.-C. & Chen, Y.-N. Natural framework
for device-independent quanti cation of quantum steerability, measurement
incompatibility, and self-testing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240401 (2016). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.240401.
[69] Uola, R., Budroni, C., Guhne, O. & Pellonpaa, J.-P. One-to-one mapping
between steering and joint measurability problems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,
230402 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
115.230402.
[70] Wollmann, S., Walk, N., Bennet, A. J., Wiseman, H. M. & Pryde, G. J.
Observation of genuine one-way Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 116, 160403 (2016). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.116.160403.
[71] Skrzypczyk, P., Navascu es, M. & Cavalcanti, D. Quantifying Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180404 (2014). URL http:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.180404.
[72] Cavalcanti, D. & Skrzypczyk, P. Quantum steering: a review with focus
on semide nite programming. Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 024001 (2017). URL
http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/80/i=2/a=024001.
[73] Tischler, N. et al. Conclusive experimental demonstration of one-way einsteinpodolsky-
rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 100401 (2018). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.100401.
[74] Branciard, C., Cavalcanti, E. G., Walborn, S. P., Scarani, V. & Wiseman,
H. M. One-sided device-independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasibility,
and the connection with steering. Phys. Rev. A 85, 010301(R) (2012).
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.010301.
[75] Tatham, R., Mi sta, L., Adesso, G. & Korolkova, N. Nonclassical correlations
in continuous-variable non-Gaussian Werner states. Phys. Rev. A 85, 022326
(2012). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.022326.
[76] He, Q., Rosales-Z arate, L., Adesso, G. & Reid, M. D. Secure continuous variable
teleportation and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,
180502 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
115.180502.
[77] Wang, C. et al. Phase-reference-free experiment of measurement-deviceindependent
quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 160502 (2015).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.160502.
[78] Cavalcanti, E. G., Hall, M. J. W. & Wiseman, H. M. Entanglement veri cation
and steering when alice and bob cannot be trusted. Phys. Rev. A 87, 032306
(2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032306.
[79] Kocsis, S. et al. Experimental measurement-device-independent veri cation
of quantum steering. Nat. Comm. 6, 5886 (2015). URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/ncomms6886.
[80] Leggett, A. J. & Garg, A. Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism:
Is the
ux there when nobody looks? Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.857.
[81] Emary, C., Lambert, N. & Nori, F. Leggettgarg inequalities. Reports
on Progress in Physics 77, 016001 (2014). URL http://stacks.iop.org/
0034-4885/77/i=1/a=016001.
[82] Fritz, T. Quantum correlations in the temporal Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt
(chsh) scenario. New Journal of Physics 12, 083055 (2010). URL http:
//stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/12/i=8/a=083055.
[83] Ko
er, J. & Brukner, i. c. v. Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the
leggett-garg inequalities. Phys. Rev. A 87, 052115 (2013). URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.052115.
[84] Clemente, L. & Ko
er, J. Necessary and su cient conditions for macroscopic
realism from quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 91, 062103 (2015). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.062103.
[85] Clemente, L. & Ko
er, J. No ne theorem for macrorealism: Limitations
of the leggett-garg inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150401 (2016). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150401.
[86] Halliwell, J. J. Leggett-garg inequalities and no-signaling in time: A quasiprobability
approach. Phys. Rev. A 93, 022123 (2016). URL https://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.022123.
[87] Uola, R., Vitagliano, G. & Budroni, C. Leggett-Garg macrorealism and the
quantum nondisturbance conditions. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1812.02346 (2018).
1812.02346.
[88] Budroni, C. & Emary, C. Temporal quantum correlations and leggett-garg
inequalities in multilevel systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 050401 (2014). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.050401.
[89] Budroni, C. et al. Quantum nondemolition measurement enables macroscopic
leggett-garg tests. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 200403 (2015). URL https://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.200403.
[90] Emary, C., Lambert, N. & Nori, F. Leggett-garg inequality in electron interferometers.
Phys. Rev. B 86, 235447 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.235447.
[91] Lambert, N., Emary, C., Chen, Y. N. & Nori, F. Distinguishing quantum
and classical transport through nanostructures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105,
176801 (2010). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
105.176801.
[92] Goggin, M. E. et al. Violation of the leggettgarg inequality with weak measurements
of photons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 1256{
1261 (2011). URL http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1256.abstract.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1256.full.pdf.
[93] Knee, G. C. et al. Violation of a leggettgarg inequality with ideal non-invasive
measurements. Nat. Comm. 3, 606 (2012). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/ncomms1614.
[94] Robens, C., Alt, W., Meschede, D., Emary, C. & Alberti, A. Ideal negative
measurements in quantum walks disprove theories based on classical trajectories.
Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevX.5.011003.
[95] Knee, G. C. et al. A strict experimental test of macroscopic realism in a
superconducting
ux qubit. Nat. Comm. 7, 13253 (2016). URL http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13253.
[96] Dressel, J., Broadbent, C. J., Howell, J. C. & Jordan, A. N. Experimental
violation of two-party leggett-garg inequalities with semiweak measurements.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 040402 (2011). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.106.040402.
[97] Palacios-Laloy, A. et al. Experimental violation of a Bell/'s inequality in
time with weak measurement. Nat. Phys. 6, 442{447 (2010). URL http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1641.
[98] Fedrizzi, A., Almeida, M. P., Broome, M. A., White, A. G. & Barbieri, M.
Hardy's paradox and violation of a state-independent Bell inequality in time.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 200402 (2011). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.106.200402.
[99] Waldherr, G., Neumann, P., Huelga, S. F., Jelezko, F. & Wrachtrup, J. Violation
of a temporal Bell inequality for single spins in a diamond defect center.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.107.090401.
[100] Athalye, V., Roy, S. S. & Mahesh, T. S. Investigation of the leggett-garg
inequality for precessing nuclear spins. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 130402 (2011).
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.130402.
[101] George, R. E. et al. Opening up three quantum boxes causes classically undetectable
wavefunction collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 110, 3777{3781 (2013). URL http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/
3777.abstract. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/3777.full.pdf.
[102] Asadian, A., Brukner, C. & Rabl, P. Probing macroscopic realism via ramsey
correlation measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190402 (2014). URL http:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190402.
[103] Zhou, Z.-Q., Huelga, S. F., Li, C.-F. & Guo, G.-C. Experimental detection
of quantum coherent evolution through the violation of leggett-garg-type inequalities.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 113002 (2015). URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.113002.
[104] White, T. et al. Preserving entanglement during weak measurement demonstrated
with a violation of the Bell-leggett-garg inequality. arXiv:1504.02707
(2015). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02707.
[105] Leggett, A. J. & Garg, A. Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the moon there when nobody looks? Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857{860 (1985). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.857.
[106] Emary, C., Lambert, N. & Nori, F. Leggett-Garg inequality in electron interferometers.
Phys. Rev. B 86, 235447 (2012). URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.235447.
[107] Knee, G. C. et al. Violation of a Leggett{Garg inequality with ideal noninvasive
measurements. Nat. Commun. 3, 606 (2012). URL https://doi.
org/10.1038/ncomms1614.
[108] Wilde, M. M. & Mizel, A. Addressing the clumsiness loophole in a leggettgarg
test of macrorealism. Foundations of Physics 42, 256{265 (2011). URL
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9598-4.
[109] Emary, C. Ambiguous measurements, signaling, and violations of leggett-garg
inequalities. Phys. Rev. A 96, 042102 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.042102.
[110] Clemente, L. & Ko
er, J. Necessary and su cient conditions for macroscopic
realism from quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 91, 062103 (2015). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.062103.
[111] Chen, Y.-N. et al. Temporal steering inequality. Phys. Rev. A 89, 032112
(2014). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.032112.
[112] Li, C.-M., Chen, Y.-N., Lambert, N., Chiu, C.-Y. & Nori, F. Certifying singlesystem
steering for quantum-information processing. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062310
(2015). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062310.
[113] Karthik, H. S., Tej, J. P., Devi, A. R. U. & Rajagopal, A. K. Joint measurability
and temporal steering. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 32, A34{A39 (2015). URL
http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josab-32-4-A34.
[114] Chen, S.-L. et al. Quantifying non-markovianity with temporal steering. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 116, 020503 (2016). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.116.020503.
[115] Bartkiewicz, K., Cernoch, A., Lemr, K., Miranowicz, A. & Nori, F. Experimental
temporal quantum steering. Sci. Rep. 6, 38076 (2016). URL
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38076.
[116] Bennett, C. H. & G., B. Public key distribution and coin tossing. Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Comp. Sys. Sig. Process. 175, 8 (1984). URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1137/1038003.
[117] Bartkiewicz, K., Cernoch, A., Lemr, K., Miranowicz, A. & Nori, F. Temporal
steering and security of quantum key distribution with mutually unbiased
bases against individual attacks. Phys. Rev. A 93, 062345 (2016). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062345.
[118] Xiong, S.-J. et al. Experimental simulation of a quantum channel without
the rotating-wave approximation: testing quantum temporal steering. Op-
tica 4, 1065{1072 (2017). URL http://www.osapublishing.org/optica/
abstract.cfm?URI=optica-4-9-1065.
[119] Bohm, D. uantum Theory ((Englewood Cli s, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1951).
[120] Bleuler, E. & Bradt, H. L. Correlation between the states of polarization of
the two quanta of annihilation radiation. Phys. Rev. 73, 1398{1398 (1948).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.73.1398.
[121] Wu, C. S. & Shaknov, I. The angular correlation of scattered annihilation
radiation. Phys. Rev. 77, 136{136 (1950). URL https://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRev.77.136.
[122] Kocher, C. A. & Commins, E. D. Polarization correlation of photons emitted
in an atomic cascade. Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 575{577 (1967). URL https:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.575.
[123] Cavalcanti, E. G., Foster, C. J., Reid, M. D. & Drummond, P. D. Bell inequalities
for continuous-variable correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210405 (2007).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.210405.
[124] Nery, R. V., Taddei, M. M., Chaves, R. & Aolita, L. Quantum steering
beyond instrumental causal networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 140408 (2018).
URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.140408.
[125] Gallego, R. & Aolita, L. Resource theory of steering. Phys. Rev. X 5, 041008
(2015). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.041008.
[126] Vedral, V., Plenio, M. B., Rippin, M. A. & Knight, P. L. Quantifying entanglement.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275{2279 (1997). URL https://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2275.
[127] Kaur, E., Wang, X. & Wilde, M. M. Conditional mutual information and
quantum steering. Phys. Rev. A 96, 022332 (2017). URL https://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.022332.
[128] Pusey, M. F. Negativity and steering: A stronger peres conjecture. Phys. Rev.
A 88, 032313 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.
88.032313.
[129] Piani, M. & Watrous, J. Necessary and su cient quantum information
characterization of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114,
060404 (2015). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
114.060404.
[130] Vandenberghe, L. & Boyd, S. Semide nite programming. SIAM Review 38,
49 (1996).
[131] Fuchs, C. A. & van de Graaf, J. Cryptographic distinguishability measures
for quantum-mechanical states. IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 45, 1216{1227 (1999).
[132] Kaur, E. & Wilde, M. M. Relative entropy of steering: on its de nition and
properties. J. Phys. A 50, 465301 (2017). URL http://stacks.iop.org/
1751-8121/50/i=46/a=465301.
[133] Jevtic, S., Pusey, M., Jennings, D. & Rudolph, T. Quantum steering ellipsoids.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020402 (2014). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.113.020402.
[134] McCloskey, R., Ferraro, A. & Paternostro, M. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering
and quantum steering ellipsoids: Optimal two-qubit states and projective
measurements. Phys. Rev. A 95 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/
physreva.95.012320.
[135] Brukner, C ., Z_ ukowski, M., Pan, J.-W. & Zeilinger, A. Bell's inequalities and
quantum communication complexity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127901 (2004). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.127901.
[136] Budroni, C., Moroder, T., Kleinmann, M. & Guhne, O. Bounding temporal
quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 020403 (2013). URL http:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.020403.
[137] Lambert, N. et al. Leggett-garg inequality violations with a large ensemble of
qubits. Phys. Rev. A 94, 012105 (2016). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012105.
[138] Chen, S.-L. et al. Spatio-temporal steering for testing nonclassical correlations
in quantum networks. Sci. Rep. 7, 3728 (2017). URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-017-03789-4.
[139] Chen, S.-L., Budroni, C., Liang, Y.-C. & Chen, Y.-N. Natural framework
for device-independent quanti cation of quantum steerability, measurement
incompatibility, and self-testing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240401 (2016). URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.240401.
[140] Fitzsimons, J. F., Jones, J. A. & Vedral, V. Quantum correlations which
imply causation. Sci. Rep. 5, 18281 (2015). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/srep18281.
[141] Maassen, H. & U nk, J. B. M. Generalized entropic uncertainty relations.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1103{1106 (1988). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1103.
[142] Halliwell, J. J. Leggett-garg inequalities and no-signaling in time: A quasiprobability
approach. Phys. Rev. A 93, 022123 (2016). URL https://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.022123.
[143] Halliwell, J. J. Comparing conditions for macrorealism: Leggett-garg inequalities
versus no-signaling in time. Phys. Rev. A 96, 012121 (2017). URL
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.012121.
[144] Buscemi, F. All entangled quantum states are nonlocal. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,
200401 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
108.200401.
[145] Cavalcanti, E. G., Hall, M. J. W. & Wiseman, H. M. Entanglement veri cation
and steering when alice and bob cannot be trusted. Phys. Rev. A 87, 032306
(2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032306.
[146] Ruskai, M. Beyond strong subadditivity? improved bounds on the contraction
of generalized relative entropy. Rev. Math. Phys. 06, 1147{
1161 (1994). URL http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/
S0129055X94000407.
[147] Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P. & Horodecki, R. Separability of mixed states:
necessary and su cient conditions. Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996). URL http:
//link.aps.org/doi/10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2.
[148] Peres, A. Separability criterion for density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413{1415 (1996). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.
1413.