Abstract
We introduce quantum XOR games, a model of two-player, one-round games that extends the model of XOR games by allowing the referee’s questions to the players to be quantum states. We give examples showing that quantum XOR games exhibit a wide range of behaviors that are known not to exist for standard XOR games, such as cases in which the use of entanglement leads to an arbitrarily large advantage over the use of no entanglement. By invoking two deep extensions of Grothendieck’s inequality, we present an efficient algorithm that gives a constant-factor approximation to the best performance that players can obtain in a given game, both in the case that they have no shared entanglement and that they share unlimited entanglement. As a byproduct of the algorithm, we prove some additional interesting properties of quantum XOR games, such as the fact that sharing a maximally entangled state of arbitrary dimension gives only a small advantage over having no entanglement at all.
- Noga Alon and Assaf Naor. 2006. Approximating the Cut-Norm via Grothendieck’s Inequality. SIAM Journal on Computing 35, 4, 787--803. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. 1998. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. Journal of the ACM 45, 3, 501--555. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. 1998. Probabilistic checking of proofs: A new characterization of NP. Journal of the ACM 45, 1, 70--122. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- László Babai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. 1991. Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computational Complexity 1, 1, 3--40. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John S. Bell. 1964. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195--200.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Michael Ben-Or, Shafi Goldwasser, Joe Kilian, and Avi Wigderson. 1988. Multi-prover interactive proofs: How to remove intractability assumptions. In Procedings of the 20th STOC. 113--131. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, Christopher A. Fuchs, Tal Mor, Eric Rains, Peter W. Shor, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. 1999. Quantum nonlocality without entanglement. Physical Review A 59, 2, 1070--1091. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1070Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Åke Björck. 1996. Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
- David P. Blecher. 1988. Geometry of the tensor product of C* algebras. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
- David P. Blecher. 1989. Tracially completely bounded multilinear maps on C*-Algebras. Journal of the London Mathematical Society s2-39, 3, 514--524.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ola Bratelli and Derek Robinson. 1987. Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 2. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Mark Braverman, Konstantin Makarychev, Yuri Makarychev, and Assaf Naor. 2011. The Grothendieck constant is strictly smaller than Krivine’s Bound. In Proceedings of the 52nd FOCS. 453--462. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jop Briët and Thomas Vidick. 2013. Explicit lower and upper bounds on the entangled value of multiplayer XOR games. Communications in Mathematical Physics 321, 1, 181--207.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Harry Buhrman, Oded Regev, Giannicola Scarpa, and Ronald de Wolf. 2011. Near-optimal and explicit Bell inequality violations. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’11). 157--166. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Francesco Buscemi. 2012. All entangled quantum states are nonlocal. Physical Review Letters 108, 20, 200401. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.200401Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andrew M. Childs, Debbie Leung, Laura Mancinska, and Maris Ozols. 2013. A framework for bounding nonlocality of state discrimination. Communications in Mathematical Physics 323, 3, 1121--1153.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. 1969. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23, 880--884.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Cleve, Peter Høyer, Ben Toner, and John Watrous. 2004. Consequences and limits of nonlocal strategies. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’04). 236--249. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Richard Cleve, William Slofstra, Falk Unger, and Sarvagya Upadhyay. 2008. Perfect parallel repetition theorem for quantum XOR proof systems. Computational Complexity 17, 2, 282--299. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tom Cooney, Marius Junge, Carlos Palazuelos, and David Pérez-García. 2011. Rank-one quantum games. Technical report arXiv:1112.3563.Google Scholar
- Andrew C. Doherty, Yeong-Cherng Liang, Ben Toner, and Stephanie Wehner. 2008. The quantum moment problem and bounds on entangled multi-prover games. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’08). 199--210. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Uriel Feige, Shafi Goldwasser, Laszlo Lovász, Shmuel Safra, and Mario Szegedy. 1996. Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques. Journal of the ACM 43, 2, 268--292. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexander Grothendieck. 1953. Résumé de la théorie métrique des produits tensoriels topologiques. Bol. Soc. Mat. São Paulo 8, 1--79.Google Scholar
- Uffe Haagerup. 1985. The Grothendieck inequality for bilinear forms on C*-algebras. Advances in Mathematics 56, 2, 93--116.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Uffe Haagerup. 1987. A new upper bound for the complex Grothendieck constant. Israel Journal of Mathematics 60, 2, 199--224.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Uffe Haagerup and Takashi Itoh. 1995. Grothendieck type norms for bilinear forms on C*-algebras. Journal of Operator Theory 34, 2, 263--283.Google Scholar
- Uffe Haagerup and Magdalena Musat. 2008. The Effros-Ruan conjecture for bilinear forms on C*-algebras. Inventiones Mathematicae 174, 139--163. Issue 1.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Johan Håstad. 2001. Some optimal inapproximability results. Journal of the ACM 48, 4, 798--859. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/502090.502098 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Takashi Itoh. 1987. On the completely bounded map of a C*-algebra to its dual space. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 19, 6, 546--550. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/blms/19.6.546Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marius Junge and Carlos Palazuelos. 2011. Large violation of Bell inequalities with low entanglement. Communications in Mathematical Physics 306, 3, 695--746. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-011-1296-8Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marius Junge, Carlos Palazuelos, David Pérez-García, Ignacio Villanueva, and Michael Wolf. 2010. Unbounded violations of bipartite Bell inequalities via Operator Space theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics 300, 3, 715--739.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Julia Kempe, Oded Regev, and Ben Toner. 2010. Unique games with entangled provers are easy. SIAM Journal on Computing 39, 7, 3207--3229. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/090772885 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Subhash Khot. 2002. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. Proceedings of the 34th STOC. 767--775. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jean-Louis Krivine. 1977. Sur la constante de Grothendieck. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. AB 284, 8, A445--A446.Google Scholar
- Jean-Louis Krivine. 1979. Constantes de Grothendieck et fonctions de type positif sur les sphères. Advances in Mathematics 31, 16--30.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Debbie Leung, Ben Toner, and John Watrous. 2008. Coherent state exchange in multi-prover quantum interactive proof systems. Technical report arXiv:0804.4118.Google Scholar
- Joram Lindenstrauss and Aleksander Pełczyński. 1968. Absolutely summing operators in Lp-spaces and their applications. Studia Mathematica 29, 275--326.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Assaf Naor, Oded Regev, and Thomas Vidick. 2013. Efficient rounding for the noncommutative Grothendieck inequality. Proceedings of the 45th STOC. 71--80. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovskii. 1994. Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia, PA. http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9781611970791Google Scholar
- Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2001. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Chris C. Paige and Michael A. Saunders. 1981. Towards a generalized singular value decomposition. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 18, 3, 398--405.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Károly F. Pál and Tamás Vértesi. 2010. Maximal violation of a bipartite three-setting, two-outcome Bell inequality using infinite-dimensional quantum systems. Physical Review A 82, 2, 022116. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022116Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David Pérez-García. 2011. Personal communication.Google Scholar
- David Pérez-García, Michael M. Wolf, Carlos Palazuelos, Ignacio Villanueva, and Marius Junge. 2008. Unbounded violation of tripartite Bell inequalities. Communications in Mathematical Physics 279, 455. doi:10.1007/s00220-008-0418-4Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gilles Pisier. 1978. Grothendieck’s theorem for noncommutative C*-algebras, with an appendix on Grothendieck’s constants. Journal of Functional Analysis 29, 3, 397--415. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(78)90038-1Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gilles Pisier. 2003. Introduction to Operator Space Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Gilles Pisier. 2012. Grothendieck’s Theorem, past and present. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 49, 2, 237--323. Also available at arXiv:1101.4195.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gilles Pisier and Dimitri Shlyakhtenko. 2002. Grothendieck’s theorem for operator spaces. Inventiones Mathematicae 150, 1, 185--217.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Oded Regev. 2012. Bell violations through independent bases games. Quantum Information and Computation 12, 1, 9--20. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Oded Regev and Thomas Vidick. 2014. Elementary proofs of Grothendieck theorems for completely bounded norms. Journal of Operator Theory 71, 2 (2014), 491--506.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- William Slofstra. 2011. Lower bounds on the entanglement needed to play XOR non-local games. Journal of Mathematical Physics 52, 10, 102202. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3652924Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Boris S. Tsirelson. 1980. Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality. Letters in Mathematical Physics 4, 2, 93--100.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Boris S. Tsirelson. 1987. Quantum analogues of the Bell Inequalities. The case of two spatially separated domains. Journal of Soviet Mathematics 36, 557--570.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Wim van Dam and Patrick Hayden. 2003. Universal entanglement transformations without communication. Physical Review A 67, 2, 060302.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John Watrous. 2005. Bipartite subspaces having no bases distinguishable by local operations and classical communication. Physical Review Letters 95, 8, 080505. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.080505Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Charles F. Van Loan. 1975. Generalizing the singular value decomposition. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 13, 1, 76--83.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
Quantum XOR Games
Recommendations
Multipartite entanglement in XOR games
We study multipartite entanglement in the context of XOR games. In particular, we study the ratio of the entangled and classical biases, which measure the maximum advantage of a quantum or classical strategy over a uniformly random strategy. For the ...
Three-Player Entangled XOR Games Are NP-Hard to Approximate
FOCS '13: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer ScienceWe show that for any eps>0 the problem of finding a factor (2-eps) approximation to the entangled value of a three-player XOR game is NP-hard. Equivalently, the problem of approximating the largest possible quantum violation of a tripartite Bell ...
Three-Player Entangled XOR Games are NP-Hard to Approximate
We show that for any $\varepsilon>0$ the problem of finding a factor $(2-\varepsilon)$ approximation to the entangled value of a three-player XOR game is NP-hard. Equivalently, the problem of approximating the largest possible quantum violation of a ...






Comments