Amortized Communication Complexity of Distributions

  • Jérémie Roland
  • Mario Szegedy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5555)

Abstract

Consider the following general communication problem: Alice and Bob have to simulate a probabilistic function p, that with every \((x,y)\in{\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}}\) associates a probability distribution on \({\mathcal{A}} \times {\mathcal{B}}\). The two parties, upon receiving inputs x and y, need to output \(a\in{\mathcal{A}}\), \(b\in{\mathcal{B}}\) in such a manner that the (a,b) pair is distributed according to p(x,y). They share randomness, and have access to a channel that allows two-way communication. Our main focus is an instance of the above problem coming from the well known EPR experiment in quantum physics. In this paper, we are concerned with the amount of communication required to simulate the EPR experiment when it is repeated in parallel a large number of times, giving rise to a notion of amortized communication complexity.

In the 3-dimensional case, Toner and Bacon showed that this problem could be solved using on average 0.85 bits of communication per repetition [1]. We show that their approach cannot go below 0.414 bits, and we give a fundamentally different technique, relying on the reverse Shannon theorem, which allows us to reduce the amortized communication to 0.28 bits for dimension 3, and 0.410 bits for arbitrary dimension. We also give a lower bound of 0.13 bits for this problem (valid for one-way protocols), and conjecture that this could be improved to match the upper bounds. In our investigation we find interesting connections to a number of different problems in communication complexity, in particular to [2]. The results contained herein are entirely classical and no knowledge of the quantum phenomenon is assumed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Toner, B.F., Bacon, D.: Communication Cost of Simulating Bell Correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187904 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harsha, P., Jain, R., McAllester, D., Radhakrishnan, J.: The communication complexity of correlation. In: Proc. 22nd CCC, pp. 10–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Some complexity questions related to distributive computing. In: Proc. 11th STOC, pp. 209–213 (1979)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bohm, D., Aharonov, Y.: Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Phys. Rev. 108, 1070–1076 (1957)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maudlin, T.: Bell’s inequality, information transmission, and prism models. In: Biennal Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 404–417 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brassard, G., Cleve, R., Tapp, A.: Cost of Exactly Simulating Quantum Entanglement with Classical Communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1874–1877 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steiner, M.: Towards quantifying non-local information transfer: finite-bit non-locality. Phys. Lett. A 270, 239–244 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cerf, N.J., Gisin, N., Massar, S.: Classical Teleportation of a Quantum Bit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2521–2524 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrett, J., Kent, A., Pironio, S.: Maximally nonlocal and monogamous quantum correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(17), 170409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Degorre, J., Laplante, S., Roland, J.: Classical simulation of traceless binary observables on any bipartite quantum state. Phys. Rev. A 75, 012309 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Regev, O., Toner, B.: Simulating quantum correlations with finite communication. In: Proc. 48th FOCS, pp. 384–394 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. In: Proc. 18th FOCS, pp. 222–227 (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Neumann, J.: Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Math. Ann. 100(1), 295–320 (1928)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chakrabarti, A., Shi, Y., Wirth, A., Yao, A.: Informational complexity and the direct sum problem for simultaneous message complexity. In: Proc. 42nd FOCS, pp. 270–278 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bennett, C., Shor, P., Smolin, J., Thapliyal, A.: Entanglement-assisted capacity of a quantum channel and the reverse Shannon theorem. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 48(10), 26–37 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pironio, S.: Violations of Bell inequalities as lower bounds on the communication cost of nonlocal correlations. Phys. Rev. A 68(6), 062102 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Degorre, J., Laplante, S., Roland, J.: Simulating quantum correlations as a distributed sampling problem. Phys. Rev. A 72, 062314 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lovász, L.: On the Shannon capacity of a graph. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 25(1), 1–7 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raz, R.: A parallel repetition theorem. SIAM J. Comput. 27(3), 763–803 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cleve, R., Slofstra, W., Unger, F., Upadhyay, S.: Perfect parallel repetition theorem for quantum XOR proof systems. In: Proc. 22nd CCC, pp. 109–114 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérémie Roland
    • 1
  • Mario Szegedy
    • 2
  1. 1.NEC Laboratories AmericaUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations