Realism vs. locality in EPR/Bell arena I understand that this is a much debated issue, so I will try to be precise in order to narrow the question.
Bell inequality violation rules out Local Realism. 
From this, I understand that by giving up just one of the two conditions (Locality or Realism) one could generate a viable model.
My questions:


*

*Could we provide a local and non realistic model that reproduces the observed correlations? (in particular I do not see how a local theory can reproduce correlations outside of the light cone)

*Could we provide a non local and realistic model that reproduces the observed correlations?

*What about QM? I this (non) local and/or (non) realistic? Is this just a matter of interpretation?


Claims on these points in the literature are often unclear and (to me) confusing (see for example http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/Entanglement/aspect_nature446.pdf) so I would like to see explicit model for my points 1. and 2.
 A: There are a number of local theories that violate Bell's inequality. This is partially because there are lots of hidden assumptions in Bell's theory which are well described by Wiseman.
The best example I know of is a Event-based simulation of quantum physics experiments where they show that a simple classical event-based simulation can reproduce Bell-CHSH inequalities. It can also be done with negative probabilities. Neither of these are a complete theory, however.
A: 1.) You have to give up not only Einstein-locality (locality itself would be unproblematic), but also causality, because there are variants of the proof which rely on causality only, with Reichenbach's principle of common cause as the base. I do not think theories which reject causality and realism make sense for a scientist, who wants to study the real world and find causal explanations for unexplained correlations. But, in principle, one could use the minimal interpretation of QT for this.
2.)+3.) There are realistic interpretations of QT, namely the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. 
