Classical and Quantum Partition Bound and Detector Inefficiency
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.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
- 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.Yao, A.C.: Lower bounds by probabilistic arguments. In: Proc. 24th FOCS 1983, pp. 420–428 (1983)Google Scholar
- 9.Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)Google Scholar
- 11.Massar, S.: Non locality, closing the detection loophole and communication complexity. Phys. Rev. A 65, 032121 (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.Buhrman, H., Høyer, P., Massar, S., Röhrig, H.: Combinatorics and quantum nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 048301 (2003)Google Scholar
- 16.Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Wigderson, A.: Quantum vs classical communication and computation. In: Proc. 30th STOC 1998, pp. 63–68 (1998)Google Scholar
- 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.Lovász, L.: Communication Complexity: a Survey. In: Paths, Flows, and VLSI Layout, B.H. Korte edition. Springer (1990)Google Scholar
- 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.Babai, L., Nisan, N., Szegedy, M.: Multiparty protocols and logspace-hard pseudorandom sequences. In: Proc. 21st STOC 1989, pp. 1–11 (1989)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.Braverman, M., Weinstein, O.: A discrepancy lower bound for information complexity. Technical Report 12-164, ECCC (2011)Google Scholar
- 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.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.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