skip to main content
10.1145/3055399.3055433acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hardness amplification for entangled games via anchoring

Published:19 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We study the parallel repetition of one-round games involving players that can use quantum entanglement. A major open question in this area is whether parallel repetition reduces the entangled value of a game at an exponential rate - in other words, does an analogue of Raz's parallel repetition theorem hold for games with players sharing quantum entanglement? Previous results only apply to special classes of games.

We introduce a class of games we call anchored. We then introduce a simple transformation on games called anchoring, inspired in part by the Feige-Kilian transformation, that turns any (multiplayer) game into an anchored game. Unlike the Feige-Kilian transformation, our anchoring transformation is completeness preserving.

We prove an exponential-decay parallel repetition theorem for anchored games that involve any number of entangled players. We also prove a threshold version of our parallel repetition theorem for anchored games.

Together, our parallel repetition theorems and anchoring transformation provide the first hardness amplification techniques for general entangled games. We give an application to the games version of the Quantum PCP Conjecture.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

d2_sa_t3.mp4

mp4

172 MB

References

  1. Scott Aaronson, Russell Impagliazzo, and Dana Moshkovitz. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Am with multiple merlins. In Computational Complexity (CCC), 2014 IEEE 29th Conference on. IEEE, 44–55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, and Thomas Vidick. 2013. Guest column: the quantum PCP conjecture. Acm sigact news 44, 2 (2013), 47–79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Boaz Barak, Moritz Hardt, Ishay Haviv, Anup Rao, Oded Regev, and David Steurer. 2008. Rounding parallel repetitions of unique games. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2008. FOCS’08. IEEE 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 374–383. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mohammad Bavarian, Thomas Vidick, and Henry Yuen. 2015. Anchoring games for parallel repetition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.07466 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mohammad Bavarian, Thomas Vidick, and Henry Yuen. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Parallel repetition via fortification: analytic view and the quantum case. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.05349 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. John S Bell. 1964. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 3 (1964).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michael Ben-Or, Shafi Goldwasser, Joe Kilian, and Avi Wigderson. 1988. Multiprover interactive proofs: How to remove intractability assumptions. In Proceedings of Symposium on Theory of computing (STOC). STOC’17, June 2017, Montreal, Canada Mohammad Bavarian, Thomas Vidick, and Henry Yuen Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Mark Braverman and Ankit Garg. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Small Value Parallel Repetition for General Games. In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark Braverman, Ankit Garg, Young Kun Ko, Jieming Mao, and Dave Touchette. 2015. Near-optimal bounds on bounded-round quantum communication complexity of disjointness. In Proceedings of Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)—to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mark Braverman, Anup Rao, Omri Weinstein, and Amir Yehudayoff. 2013. Direct products in communication complexity. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 746–755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. André Chailloux and Giannicola Scarpa. 2014. Parallel Repetition of Entangled Games with Exponential Decay via the Superposed Information Cost. In 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming - (ICALP). 296–307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kai-Min Chung, Xiaodi Wu, and Henry Yuen. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Parallel Repetition for Entangled k-player Games via Fast Quantum Search. In 30th Conference on Computational Complexity. 512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. John F Clauser, Michael A Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A Holt. 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23, 15 (1969), 880–884.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Richard Cleve, William Slofstra, Falk Unger, and Sarvagya Upadhyay. 2008. Perfect parallel repetition theorem for quantum XOR proof systems. Computational Complexity 17, 2 (2008), 282–299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Irit Dinur, Prahladh Harsha, Rakesh Venkat, and Henry Yuen. 2016. Multiplayer parallel repetition for expander games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08349 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Irit Dinur and David Steurer. 2014. Analytical approach to parallel repetition. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 624–633. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Irit Dinur, David Steurer, and Thomas Vidick. 2014. A Parallel Repetition Theorem for Entangled Projection Games. In the 29th Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC. 197–208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Uriel Feige. 1995. Error Reduction by Parallel Repetition: The State of the Art. Technical Report CS95-32 of the Weizmann Institute (1995). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Uriel Feige and Joe Kilian. 2000. Two-Prover Protocols—Low Error at Affordable Rates. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 1 (2000), 324–346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Uriel Feige and Oleg Verbitsky. 2002. Error reduction by parallel repetition: a negative result. Combinatorica 22, 4 (2002), 461–478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Joseph Fitzsimons and Thomas Vidick. 2015. A multiprover interactive proof system for the local Hamiltonian problem. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. ACM, 103–112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Lance Fortnow, John Rompel, and Michael Sipser. 1988. On the power of multipower interactive protocols. In Proceedings of Structure in Complexity Theory Conference (CCC). 156–161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Iftach Haitner. 2009. A parallel repetition theorem for any interactive argument. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2009. FOCS’09. 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 241–250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Johan Håstad. 2001. Some optimal inapproximability results. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 48, 4 (2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Johan Håstad, Rafael Pass, Douglas Wikström, and Krzysztof Pietrzak. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. An efficient parallel repetition theorem. In Theory of Cryptography Conference. Springer, 1–18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jan Hazła, Thomas Holenstein, and Anup Rao. 2016. Forbidden Subgraph Bounds for Parallel Repetition and the Density Hales-Jewett Theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.05757 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas Holenstein. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Parallel Repetition: Simplification and the No-Signaling Case. 5, 1 (2009), 141–172. DOI:https://Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. v005a008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahul Jain, Attila Pereszlényi, and Penghui Yao. 2014. A Parallel Repetition Theorem for Entangled Two-Player One-Round Games under Product Distributions. In the 29th Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zhengfeng Ji. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Classical verification of quantum proofs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07432 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhengfeng Ji. 2016. Compression of Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03133 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Julia Kempe, Oded Regev, and Ben Toner. 2008. Unique games with entangled provers are easy. In Proceedings of Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Julia Kempe and Thomas Vidick. 2011. Parallel repetition of entangled games. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC). 353–362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Alexei Yu Kitaev, Alexander Shen, and Mikhail N Vyalyi. 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Classical and quantum computation. Vol. 47. American Mathematical Society Providence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Dominic Mayers and Andrew Yao. 1998. Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 503–509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Carl A Miller and Yaoyun Shi. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Optimal Robust Self-Testing by Binary Nonlocal XOR Games. In 8th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography. 254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Dana Moshkovitz. 2014. Parallel repetition from fortification. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on. IEEE, 414–423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Anand Natarajan and Thomas Vidick. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Constant-Soundness Interactive Proofs for Local Hamiltonians. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.02090 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Rafael Pass and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam. 2007. An efficient parallel repetition theorem for Arthur-Merlin games. In Proceedings of the thirtyninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, 420–429. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Anup Rao. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Parallel repetition in projection games and a concentration bound. SIAM J. Comput. 40, 6 (2011), 1871–1891. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Ran Raz. 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. A parallel repetition theorem. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 3 (1998), 763–803. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ran Raz. 2010. Parallel Repetition of Two Prover Games (Invited Survey). In 2010 25th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity. IEEE, 3–6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Ran Raz. 2011. A counterexample to strong parallel repetition. SIAM J. Comput. 40, 3 (2011), 771–777. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Alexander A. Razborov. 1992. On the distributional complexity of disjointness. Theoretical Computer Science 106, 2 (1992), 385–390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Ben W Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani. 2013. Classical command of quantum systems. Nature 496, 7446 (2013), 456–460.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Dave Touchette. 2014. Quantum information complexity and amortized communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.3733 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Umesh Vazirani and Thomas Vidick. 2012. Certifiable quantum dice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 1971 (2012), 3432–3448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Umesh Vazirani and Thomas Vidick. 2014. Fully device-independent quantum key distribution. Physical review letters 113, 14 (2014), 140501.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Vijay V Vazirani. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Approximation algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Oleg Verbitsky. 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Towards the parallel repetition conjecture. Theoretical Computer Science 157, 2 (1996), 277–282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Thomas Vidick. 2013. Three-player entangled XOR games are NP-hard to approximate. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 766–775. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Mark M Wilde. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Quantum information theory. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Hardness amplification for entangled games via anchoring

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      STOC 2017: Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing
      June 2017
      1268 pages
      ISBN:9781450345286
      DOI:10.1145/3055399

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 June 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      STOC '24
      56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
      June 24 - 28, 2024
      Vancouver , BC , Canada

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader