Classical and Quantum Partition Bound and Detector Inefficiency

  • Sophie Laplante
  • Virginie Lerays
  • Jérémie Roland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7391)

Abstract

We study randomized and quantum efficiency lower bounds in communication complexity. These arise from the study of zero-communication protocols in which players are allowed to abort. Our scenario is inspired by the physics setup of Bell experiments, where two players share a predefined entangled state but are not allowed to communicate. Each is given a measurement as input, which they perform on their share of the system. The outcomes of the measurements should follow a distribution predicted by quantum mechanics; however, in practice, the detectors may fail to produce an output in some of the runs. The efficiency of the experiment is the probability that neither of the detectors fails.

When the players share a quantum state, this leads to a new bound on quantum communication complexity (eff*) that subsumes the factorization norm. When players share randomness instead of a quantum state, the efficiency bound (eff), coincides with the partition bound of Jain and Klauck. This is one of the strongest lower bounds known for randomized communication complexity, which subsumes all the known combinatorial and algebraic methods including the rectangle (corruption) bound, the factorization norm, and discrepancy. The lower bound is formulated as a convex optimization problem. In practice, the dual form is more feasible to use, and we show that it amounts to constructing an explicit Bell inequality (for eff) or Tsirelson inequality (for eff*). For one-way communication, we show that the quantum one-way partition bound is tight for classical communication with shared entanglement up to arbitrarily small error.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jain, R., Klauck, H.: The partition bound for classical complexity and query complexity. In: Proc. 25th CCC 2010, pp. 247–258 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman, I., Szegedy, M.: Public vs. private coin flips in one round communication games. In: Proc. 28th STOC 1996, pp. 561–570 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J., de Wolf, R.: Quantum fingerprinting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(16), 167902 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bar-Yossef, Z., Jayram, T.S., Kerenidis, I.: Exponential separation of quantum and classical one-way communication complexity. SIAM J. Comput. 38(1), 366–384 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gavinsky, D., Kempe, J., Kerenidis, I., Raz, R., de Wolf, R.: Exponential separation for one-way quantum communication complexity, with applications to cryptography. SIAM J. Comput. 38(5), 1695–1708 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klartag, B., Regev, O.: Quantum one-way communication can be exponentially stronger than classical communication. In: Proc. 43rd STOC 2011, pp. 31–40 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yao, A.C.: Lower bounds by probabilistic arguments. In: Proc. 24th FOCS 1983, pp. 420–428 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Graaf, M., de Wolf, R.: On Quantum Versions of the Yao Principle. In: Alt, H., Ferreira, A. (eds.) STACS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2285, pp. 347–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Degorre, J., Kaplan, M., Laplante, S., Roland, J.: The communication complexity of non-signaling distributions. Quantum Information and Computation 11(7-8), 649–676 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massar, S.: Non locality, closing the detection loophole and communication complexity. Phys. Rev. A 65, 032121 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buhrman, H., Høyer, P., Massar, S., Röhrig, H.: Combinatorics and quantum nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 048301 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, T., Shraibman, A.: Lower bounds in communication complexity. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 3(4), 263–399 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linial, N., Shraibman, A.: Lower bounds in communication complexity based on factorization norms. Random Structures and Algorithms 34(3), 368–394 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gisin, B., Gisin, N.: A local hidden variable model of quantum correlation exploiting the detection loophole. Phys. Lett. A 260, 323–327 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Wigderson, A.: Quantum vs classical communication and computation. In: Proc. 30th STOC 1998, pp. 63–68 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brassard, G., Cleve, R., Tapp, A.: Cost of exactly simulating quantum entanglement with classical communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1874–1877 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buhrman, H., Høyer, P., Massar, S., Röhrig, H.: Multipartite nonlocal quantum correlations resistant to imperfections. Phys. Rev. A 73, 012321 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buhrman, H., Regev, O., Scarpa, G., de Wolf, R.: Near-optimal and explicit Bell inequality violations. In: Proc. 26th CCC 2011, pp. 157–166 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lovász, L.: Communication Complexity: a Survey. In: Paths, Flows, and VLSI Layout, B.H. Korte edition. Springer (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karchmer, M., Kushilevitz, E., Nisan, N.: Fractional covers and communication complexity. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 8(1), 76–92 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chor, B., Goldreich, O.: Unbiased bits from sources of weak randomness and probabilistic communication complexity. In: Proc. 26th FOCS 1985, pp. 429–442 (1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Babai, L., Nisan, N., Szegedy, M.: Multiparty protocols and logspace-hard pseudorandom sequences. In: Proc. 21st STOC 1989, pp. 1–11 (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newman, I.: Private vs. common random bits in communication complexity. Information Processing Letters 39(2), 61–71 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khot, S., Vishnoi, N.: The unique games conjecture, integrality gap for cut problems and embeddability of negative type metrics into l 1. In: Proc. 46th FOCS 2005, pp. 53–62 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aaronson, S., Ambainis, A.: Quantum search of spatial regions. Theory of Computing 1, 47–79 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Høyer, P., de Wolf, R.: Improved Quantum Communication Complexity Bounds for Disjointness and Equality. In: Alt, H., Ferreira, A. (eds.) STACS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2285, pp. 299–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jain, R., Klauck, H., Nayak, A.: Direct product theorems for communication complexity via subdistribution bounds. In: Proc. 40th STOC 2008, pp. 599–608 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brunner, N., Pironio, S., Acín, A., Gisin, N., Méthot, A., Scarani, V.: Testing the dimension of Hilbert spaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 210503 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vértesi, T., Pironio, S., Brunner, N.: Closing the detection loophole in Bell experiments using qudits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 060401 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chakrabarti, A., Shi, Y., Wirth, A., Yao, A.: Informational complexity and the direct sum problem for simultaneous message complexity. In: Proc. 42nd FOCS 2001, pp. 270–278 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Braverman, M., Weinstein, O.: A discrepancy lower bound for information complexity. Technical Report 12-164, ECCC (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kerenidis, I., Laplante, S., Lerays, V., Roland, J., Xiao, D.: Lower bounds on information complexity via zero-communication protocols and applications. Technical Report 12-038, ECCC (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Navascués, M., Pironio, S., Acín, A.: A convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations. New Journal of Physics 10(7), 073013 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doherty, A.C., Liang, Y.-C., Toner, B., Wehner, S.: The quantum moment problem and bounds on entangled multi-prover games. In: Proc. 23rd CCC 2008, pp. 199–210 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Laplante
    • 1
  • Virginie Lerays
    • 1
  • Jérémie Roland
    • 2
  1. 1.LRI, Université Paris-Sud 11France
  2. 2.ULB, QuIC, Ecole Polytechnique de BruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations