Advertisement

Equality, Revisited

  • Ralph Bottesch
  • Dmitry Gavinsky
  • Hartmut Klauck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9235)

Abstract

We develop a new lower bound method for analysing the complexity of the Equality function (EQ) in the Simultaneous Message Passing (SMP) model of communication complexity. The new technique gives tight lower bounds of \(\varOmega {\left( \sqrt{n}\right) }\) for both EQ and its negation NE in the non-deterministic version of quantum-classical SMP, where Merlin is also quantum – this is the strongest known version of SMP where the complexity of both EQ and NE remain high (previously known techniques seem to be insufficient for this).

Besides, our analysis provides to a unified view of the communication complexity of EQ and NE, allowing to obtain tight characterisation in all previously studied and a few newly introduced versions of SMP, including all possible combination of either quantum or randomised Alice, Bob and Merlin in the non-deterministic case.

Some of our results highlight that NE is easier than EQ in the presence of classical proofs, whereas the problems have (roughly) the same complexity when a quantum proof is present.

Keywords

Equality Function Communication Complexity Full Version Message Length Classical Message 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S.: Limitations of quantum advice and one-way communication. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 320–332 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaronson, S.: QMA/qpoly \(\subseteq \) pspace/poly: de-merlinizing quantum protocols. In: Proceedings of 21st IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambainis, A.: Communication complexity in a 3-computer model. Algorithmica 16(3), 298–301 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai, L., Kimmel, P.: Randomized simultaneous messages: solution of a problem of yao in communication complexity. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, p. 239 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J., de Wolf, R.: Quantum Fingerprinting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(16), 167902 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dasgupta, S., Gupta, A.: An elementary proof of a theorem of johnson and lindenstrauss. Random Struct. Algorithms 22(1), 60–65 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuchs, C.A., van de Graaf, J.: Cryptographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 45(4), 1216–1227 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gavinsky, D., Regev, O., de Wolf, R.: Simultaneous communication protocols with quantum and classical messages. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 7 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hiai, F., Ohya, M., Tsukada, M.: Sufficiency, KMS condition and relative entropy in von neumann algebras. Pacific J. Math. 96, 99–109 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klauck, H., Nayak, A., Ta-Shma, A., Zuckerman, D.: Interaction in quantum communication and the complexity of set disjointness. In: Proceedings of 33rd ACM STOC, pp. 124–133 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klauck, H., Podder, S.: Two results about quantum messages. In: Csuhaj-Varjú, E., Dietzfelbinger, M., Ésik, Z. (eds.) MFCS 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8635, pp. 445–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobayashi, H., Matsumoto, K., Yamakami, T.: Quantum merlin-arthur proof systems: are multiple merlins more helpful to arthur? In: Ibaraki, T., Katoh, N., Ono, H. (eds.) ISAAC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2906, pp. 189–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kushilevitz, E., Nisan, N.: Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, New York (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newman, I.: Private vs. common random bits in communication complexity. Inf. Process. Lett. 39(2), 67–71 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newman, I., Szegedy,v: Public vs. private coin flips in one round communication games. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 561–570 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Wolf, R.: Quantum communication and complexity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 287(1), 337–353 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao, A.C-C.: Some complexity questions related to distributed computing. In: Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 209–213 (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Bottesch
    • 1
  • Dmitry Gavinsky
    • 2
  • Hartmut Klauck
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Mathematical SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore CitySingapore
  2. 2.Institute of MathematicsAcademy of SciencesPrague 1Czech Republic
  3. 3.Division of Mathematical SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore CitySingapore
  4. 4.Centre for Quantum TechnologiesNational University of SingaporeSingapore CitySingapore

Personalised recommendations