In a recent paper, Junge and Palazuelos presented two two-player games exhibiting interesting properties. In their first game, entangled players can perform notably better than classical players. The quantitative gap between the two cases is remarkably large, especially as a function of the number of inputs to the players. In their second game, entangled players can perform notably better than players that are restricted to using a maximally entangled state (of arbitrary dimension). This was the first game exhibiting such a behavior. The analysis of both games is heavily based on non-trivial results from Banach space theory and operator space theory. Here we present two games exhibiting a similar behavior, but with proofs that are arguably simpler, using elementary probabilistic techniques and standard quantum information arguments. Our games also give better quantitative bounds.
In a recent paper, Junge and Palazuelos presented two two-player games exhibiting interesting properties. In their first game, entangled players can perform notably better than classical players. The quantitative gap between the two cases is remarkably large, especially as a function of the number of inputs to the players. In their second game, entangled players can perform notably better than players that are restricted to using a maximally entangled state (of arbitrary dimension). This was the first game exhibiting such a behavior. The analysis of both games is heavily based on non-trivial results from Banach space theory and operator space theory. Here we present two games exhibiting a similar behavior, but with proofs that are arguably simpler, using elementary probabilistic techniques and standard quantum information arguments. Our games also give better quantitative bounds.
In a recent paper, Junge and Palazuelos presented two two-player games exhibiting interesting properties. In their first game, entangled players can perform notably better than classical players. The quantitative gap between the two cases is remarkably large, especially as a function of the number of inputs to the players. In their second game, entangled players can perform notably better than players that are restricted to using a maximally entangled state (of arbitrary dimension). This was the first game exhibiting such a behavior. The analysis of both games is heavily based on non-trivial results from Banach space theory and operator space theory. Here we provide alternative proofs of these two results. Our proofs are arguably simpler, use elementary probabilistic techniques and standard quantum information arguments, and also give better quantitative bounds.
Entangled quantum systems can exhibit correlations that cannot be simulated classically. For historical reasons such correlations are called “Bell inequality violations.” We give two new two-player games with Bell inequality violations that are stronger, fully explicit, and arguably simpler than earlier work. The first game is based on the Hidden Matching problem of quantum communication complexity, introduced by Bar-Yossef, Jayram, and Kerenidis. This game can be won with probability 1 by a strategy using a maximally entangled state with local dimension n (e.g., logn EPR-pairs), while we show that the winning probability of any classical strategy differs from 21 by at most O((logn)/n). The second game is based on the integrality gap for Unique Games by Khot and Vishnoi and the quantum rounding procedure of Kempe, Regev, and Toner. Here n-dimensional entanglement allows the game to be won with probability 1/(logn)2, while the best winning probability without entanglement is 1/n. This near-linear ratio is almost optimal, both in terms of the local dimension of the entangled state, and in terms of the number of possible outputs of the two players. An earlier version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 157--166, 2011.
Bell inequality violations correspond to behavior of entangled quantum systems that cannot be simulated classically. We give two new two-player games with Bell inequality violations that are stronger, fully explicit, and arguably simpler than earlier work.The first game is based on the Hidden Matching problem of quantum communication complexity, introduced by Bar-Yossef, Jayram, and Kerenidis. This game can be won with probability 1 by a quantum strategy using a maximally entangled state with local dimension n (e.g., log n EPR-pairs), while we show that the winning probability of any classical strategy differs from 1/2 by at most O(log n/√n).The second game is based on the integrality gap for Unique Games by Khot and Vishnoi and the quantum rounding procedure of Kempe, Regev, and Toner. Here n-dimensional entanglement allows to win the game with probability 1/(log n)2, while the best winning probability without entanglement is 1/n. This near-linear ratio ("Bell inequality violation'') is near-optimal, both in terms of the local dimension of the entangled state, and in terms of the number of possible outputs of the two players.
We introduce quantum XOR games, a model of two-player, one-round games that extends the model of XOR games by allowing the referee’s questions to the players to be quantum states. We give examples showing that quantum XOR games exhibit a wide range of behaviors that are known not to exist for standard XOR games, such as cases in which the use of entanglement leads to an arbitrarily large advantage over the use of no entanglement. By invoking two deep extensions of Grothendieck’s inequality, we present an efficient algorithm that gives a constant-factor approximation to the best performance that players can obtain in a given game, both in the case that they have no shared entanglement and that they share unlimited entanglement. As a byproduct of the algorithm, we prove some additional interesting properties of quantum XOR games, such as the fact that sharing a maximally entangled state of arbitrary dimension gives only a small advantage over having no entanglement at all.
We introduce quantum XOR games, a model of two-player one-round games that extends the model of XOR games by allowing the referee's questions to the players to be quantum states. We give examples showing that quantum XOR games exhibit a wide range of behaviors that are known not to exist for standard XOR games, such as cases in which the use of entanglement leads to an arbitrarily large advantage over the use of no entanglement. By invoking two deep extensions of Grothendieck's inequality, we present an efficient algorithm that gives a constant-factor approximation to the best performance players can obtain in a given game, both in case they have no shared entanglement and in case they share unlimited entanglement. As a byproduct of the algorithm we prove some additional interesting properties of quantum XOR games, such as the fact that sharing a maximally entangled state of arbitrary dimension gives only a small advantage over having no entanglement at all.
We introduce quantum XOR games, a model of two-player one-round games that extends the model of XOR games by allowing the referee's questions to the players to be quantum states. We give examples showing that quantum XOR games exhibit a wide range of behaviors that are known not to exist for standard XOR games, such as cases in which the use of entanglement leads to an arbitrarily large advantage over the use of no entanglement. By invoking two deep extensions of Grothendieck's inequality, we present an efficient algorithm that gives a constant-factor approximation to the best performance players can obtain in a given game, both in case they have no shared entanglement and in case they share unlimited entanglement. As a byproduct of the algorithm we prove some additional interesting properties of quantum XOR games, such as the fact that sharing a maximally entangled state of arbitrary dimension gives only a small advantage over having no entanglement at all.