The Communication Complexity of Non-signaling Distributions
We study a model of communication complexity that encompasses many well-studied problems, including classical and quantum communication complexity, the complexity of simulating distributions arising from bipartite measurements of shared quantum states, and XOR games. In this model, Alice gets an input x, Bob gets an input y, and their goal is to each produce an output a,b distributed according to some pre-specified joint distribution p(a,b|x,y). Our results apply to any non-signaling distribution, that is, those where Alice’s marginal distribution does not depend on Bob’s input, and vice versa.
By introducing a simple new technique based on affine combinations of lower-complexity distributions, we give the first general technique to apply to all these settings, with elementary proofs and very intuitive interpretations. The lower bounds we obtain can be expressed as linear programs (or SDPs for quantum communication). We show that the dual formulations have a striking interpretation, since they coincide with maximum violations of Bell and Tsirelson inequalities. The dual expressions are closely related to the winning probability of XOR games. Despite their apparent simplicity, these lower bounds subsume many known communication complexity lower bound methods, most notably the recent lower bounds of Linial and Shraibman for the special case of Boolean functions.
We show that as in the case of Boolean functions, the gap between the quantum and classical lower bounds is at most linear in the size of the support of the distribution, and does not depend on the size of the inputs. This translates into a bound on the gap between maximal Bell and Tsirelson inequality violations, which was previously known only for the case of distributions with Boolean outcomes and uniform marginals. It also allows us to show that for some distributions, information theoretic methods are necessary to prove strong lower bounds.
Finally, we give an exponential upper bound on quantum and classical communication complexity in the simultaneous messages model, for any non-signaling distribution.
KeywordsBoolean Function Quantum Correlation Communication Complexity Quantum Communication Bell Inequality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Yao, A.C.C.: Some complexity questions related to distributive computing. In: Proc. 11th STOC, pp. 209–213 (1979)Google Scholar
- 3.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
- 8.Degorre, J., Laplante, S., Roland, J.: Classical simulation of traceless binary observables on any bipartite quantum state. Phys. Rev. A 75(012309) (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Regev, O., Toner, B.: Simulating quantum correlations with finite communication. In: Proc. 48th FOCS, pp. 384–394 (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Randall, C.H., Foulis, D.J.: Operational statistics and tensor products. In: Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theory, Volume Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theory, pp. 21–28. Wissenschaftsverlag, BibliographischesInstitut (1981)Google Scholar
- 16.Foulis, D.J., Randall, C.H.: Empirical logic and tensor products. In: Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theory, Volume Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theory, pp. 1–20. Wissenschaftsverlag, BibliographischesInstitut (1981)Google Scholar
- 19.Barrett, J.: Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories. Phys. Rev. A 75(3), 032304 (2007)Google Scholar
- 21.Tsirelson, B.S.: Zapiski Math. Inst. Steklov (LOMI) 142, 174–194 (1985); English translation in Quantum analogues of the Bell inequalities. The case of two spatially separated domains. J. Soviet Math. 36, 557–570 (1987)Google Scholar
- 23.Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)Google Scholar
- 25.Yao, A.C.C.: On the power of quantum fingerprinting. In: Proc. 35th STOC, pp. 77–81 (2003)Google Scholar
- 26.Gavinsky, D., Kempe, J., de Wolf, R.: Strengths and weaknesses of quantum fingerprinting. In: Proc. 21st CCC, pp. 288–295 (2006)Google Scholar