Advertisement

Multi-party Pseudo-Telepathy

  • Gilles Brassard
  • Anne Broadbent
  • Alain Tapp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2748)

Abstract

Quantum entanglement, perhaps the most non-classical manifestation of quantum information theory, cannot be used to transmit information between remote parties. Yet, it can be used to reducethe amount of communication required to process a variety of distributedcomputational tasks. We speak of pseudo-telepathy when quantum entanglementserves to eliminate the classical need to communicate. In earlier examples of pseudo-telepathy, classical protocols could succeedwith high probability unless the inputs were very large. Here we present a simple multi-party distributed problem for which the inputsand outputsconsist of a single bit per player, and we present a perfectquantum protocolfor it. We prove that no classical protocol can succeedwith a probability that differs from 1/2 by more than a fraction that is exponentially small in the number of players. This could be used to circumvent the detection loophole in experimental tests of nonlocality.

Keywords

Success Probability Quantum Entanglement Classical Strategy Classical Communication Probabilistic Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S., Ambainis, A.: Quantum search of spatial regions. Available as arXiv:quant-ph/0303041 (2003) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels. Physical Review Letters 70, 1895–1899 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brassard, G.: Quantum communication complexity. Foundations of Physics (2003) (to appear) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brassard, G., Cleve, R., Tapp, A.: Cost of exactly simulating quantum entanglement with classical communication. Physical Review Letter 83, 1874–1878 (1878)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Wigderson, A.: Quantum vs. classical communication and computation. In: Proceedings of 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 63–68 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cleve, R., Buhrman, H.: Substituting quantum entanglement for communication. Physical Review A 56, 1201–1204 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gould, H.W.: Combinatorial Identities. Morgantown (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kalyanasundaram, B., Schnitger, G.: The probabilistic communication complexity of set intersection. In: Proceedings of 2nd Annual IEEE Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, pp. 41–47 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massar, S.: Non locality, closing the detection loophole, and communication complexity. Physical Review A 65, 032121-1–032121-5 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raz, R.: Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity. Proceedings of 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 358–367 (1999) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yao, A. C.–C.: Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. Proceedings of 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 222–227 (1977) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yao, A.C.-C.: Quantum circuit complexity. In: Proceedings of 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 352–361 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Brassard
    • 1
  • Anne Broadbent
    • 1
  • Alain Tapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Département IROUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations