arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 10 Feb 2013

Transcription

1 Provable Advantage for Quantum Strategies in Random Symmetric XOR Games Andris Ambainis, Jānis Iraids arxiv: v [quant-ph] Feb 23 Faculty of Computing, University of Latvia, Raiņa bulvāris 9, Riga, LV-586, Latvia Abstract. Non-local games are widely studied as a model to investigate the properties of quantum mechanics as opposed to classical mechanics. In this paper, we consider a subset of non-local games: symmetric XOR games of n players with - valued questions. For this class of games, each player receives an input bit and responds with an output bit without communicating to the other players. The winning condition only depends on XOR of output bits and is constant w.r.t. permutation of players. We prove that for almost any n-player symmetric XOR game the entangled value of the game is Θ lnn n /4 adapting an old result by Salem and Zygmund on the asymptotics of random trigonometric polynomials. Consequently, we show that the classical-quantum gap is Θ lnn for almost any symmetric XOR game. Introduction Non-local games provide a simple way to test the difference between quantum mechanics and the classical world. A prototypical example of a non-local game is the CHSH game [6] based on the CHSH inequality of [5]. In the CHSH game, we have two players who cannot communicate between themselves but may share common random bits or a bipartite quantum state which has been exchanged before the beginning of the game. A referee sends one uniformly random bit a {,} to the st player and another bit to the 2 nd player. Players respond by sending one-bit answers x,y {,}. They win in the following 2 cases: a If at least one of a,b is equal to, players win if they produce x,y such that x = y; b If a = b =, players win if they produce x,y such that x y; Classically, CHSH game can be won with probability at most.75. In contrast, if players use an entangled quantum state, they can win the game with probability = Other non-local games can be defined by changing the number of players, the number of possible questions and answers and the winning condition. Many non-local games have been studied and, in many cases, strategies that use an entangled quantum state outperform any classical strategy.

2 Recently [], it has been shown that, for a large class of non-local games, quantum strategies are better than any classical strategy for almost all games in this class. Namely, [] considered 2-player games in which the questions a, b are taken from the set {,2,...,n} and the winning condition is either x = y or x y, depending on a,b. Games with a winning condition of such form are called XOR games. [] showed that, for o fraction of all such games, the entangled value of the game is at least.2... times its classical value. Then [2], it was discovered that a similar effect might hold for another class of games: n-player symmetric XOR games with binary questions. Namely, [2] showed a gap between entangled and classical values of order Ω logn - assuming that a non-rigorous argument about the entangled value is correct. In this paper, we make this gap rigorous, by proving upper and lower bounds on the entangled value of a randomgame in this class. We show that, with a high probability, the entangled value is equal to Θ logn. The quantum-vs-classical n /4 gap of Θ logn follows by combining this with the fact that the classical value is of the order Θ shown in [2]. n /4 To prove this result, we use an expression for the entangled value of a symmetric n-player XOR game with entangled answers from [3]. This expression reduces finding the entangled value to maximizing the absolute value of a polynomial in one complex variable. If conditions for the XOR game are chosen at random, this expression reduces to random trigonometric polynomials studied in [7]. Although maxima of random trigonometric polynomials have been studied in [7], they have been studied under different conditions. For this reason, we cannot apply the results from [7] directly. Instead, we adapt the ideas from [7] to prove a bound on maxima of random trigonometric polynomials that would be applicable in our setting. 2 Definitions A non-local game with n players proceeds as follows: Players are separated so that they cannot communicate hence the name non-local, 2 The players receive inputs x,x 2,...,x n I where I is the set of possible inputs. i-th player receives x i, 3 The players respond with outputs y,y 2,...,y n O where O is the set of possible outputs. 4 The winning condition Px,...,x n,y,...,y n is consulted to determine whether the players win or lose. The condition is known to everyone at the start of the game. The players are informed of the rules of the game and they can agree upon a strategy and exchange other information. In the classical case players may only use shared randomness. In the quantum case they can use an entangled quantum state which is distributed to the players before the start of the game.

3 We will restrict ourselves to the case when I = O = {,} and the vector of inputs x,...,x n ischosenuniformlyatrandom.in anxor game,the winning condition Px,...,x n,y,...,y n depends only on x,...,x n and the parity of the output bits n j= y j. A game is symmetric if the winning condition does not change if x,...,x n are permuted. The winning conditions of a symmetric XOR game can be described by a list of n + bits: G = G,G,...,G n, where the players win if and only if G i = n j= y j when n j= x j = i. The entangled value of the game Val Q G is the probability of winning minus the probability of losing in the conditions that the players can use a shared quantum-physical system. In this paper, we study the value of symmetric XOR games when the winning condition G is chosen randomly from the uniform distribution of all n+-bit lists. We use the following lemma which follows from a more general result by Werner and Wolf for non-symmetric XOR games [8]: Lemma See [3]. The entangled value of a symmetric XOR game [3] is Val Q G = max λ = Gj p j λ j where p j is the probability that players are given an input vector x,...,x n with j variables x i =. In our case, since x,...,x n is uniformly random, we have p j = j n 2. n In the following sections we introduce additional notation to keep the proofs more concise as well as to keep in line with the original proofs in [7]: The Rademacher system is a set of functions {ϕ m t} for m =,...,n over t such that ϕ m t = k, where k is the m-th digit after the binary point in the binary expansion of t. Rademacher system will turn out to be a convenient way to state that {G j } are random variables that follow a uniform distribution: if t is chosen randomly from a uniform distribution on t, then {ϕ m t} n+ m= generates a uniformly random element from {+, }n+. That in turn correspondsto coefficients Gj in eq. being picked randomly. Furthermore, we define n r m = n will be clear from context, m R n = rm, 2 P n x,t = T n = j= m= rm 4, m= r m ϕ m+ tcosmx, m= M n t = max x< P nx,t.

4 3 Main Result By adapting the work of Salem and Zygmund [7] on the asymptotics of random trigonometric polynomials, we show Theorem. Theorem 2. lim n Pr[M nt C Rn lnn] = lim n Pr[M nt C 2 Rn lnn] = Our proof yields C = 4 3 and C 2 = 2. We will now show how these two theorems lead to an asymptotic bound for the entangled value of a random game. Corollary. For almost all n-player symmetric quantum XOR games the value of the game is asymptotically lnn n /4. Proof. From Lemma, Val Q G max λ = Re Gj n j λ j 2 n = max j= α [;] Gj n j cosjα 2 n, and Val Q G max λ = Re Gj n j λ j 2 n j= + max λ = Im Gj n j λ j 2 n j= = = max Gj n j cosjα α [;] 2 n + max Gj n j sinjα α [;] 2 n j= For a random game { Gj } follow the same distribution as {ϕ j+ t} for t uniformly distributed from interval [; ]. Therefore Theorem and Theorem 2 apply. Note that Theorem 2 is true for cosines as well as sines since we only use that cos 2 x, and so [ ] lim Pr Rn lnn Rn lnn C n 2 n Val Q G 2C 2 2 n = 2 j= j= Finally, Rn lnn 2 n = 2n n lnn 2 n 4 n πn lnn 2 n = lnn πn

5 4 Proof of Upper and Lower Bounds We now proceed to prove theorems and 2. Our proof is based on an old result by Salem and Zygmund [7], in which they prove bounds on the asymptotics of random trigonometric polynomials in a different setting in which the coefficients r m are not allowed to depend on n. Due to the difference in the two settings, we cannot immediately apply the results from [7]. Instead, we prove corresponding theorems for our setting, reusing the parts of proof from [7] which also work in our case and replacing other parts with different arguments. Lemma 2 From [7]. Let f n t = n m= c mϕ m+ t, where {ϕ m+ t} is the Rademacher system and c m are real constants. Let C n = n m= c2 m,d n = and let λ be any real number. Then n m= c4 m e 2 λ2 C n λ 4 D n e λfnt dt e 2 λ2 C n. Lemma 3 From [7]. Let gx,y, a x b, c y d, be a bounded real function. Suppose that d b c a gx, y A, g2 x,ydxdy = B. b ad c Then, for any positive number µ, d b c a eµgx,y dxdy +µ B + B b ad c A 2eµA. Furthermore, when d b gx,ydxdy =, c a d b c a eµgx,y dxdy + B b ad c A 2eµA. 3 Lemma 4 From [7]. Let x be real and Px = n m= α mcosmx+β m sinmx be a trigonometric polynomial of order n, with real or imaginary coefficients. Let M denote the maximum of Px and let θ be a positive number less than. Then there exists an interval of length not less than θ n in which Px θm. Lemma 5 From [7]. Let ϕx, and suppose that ϕxdx A >, clearly, A 2 B. Let < δ <. Then ϕ 2 xdx B Pr[ϕx δa x ] δa2 B.

6 Lemma 6. n i= n i 4 n n i= n 2 i Proof. If n is even: n i 4 n i= n n i= i 2 n 3 n n 4n n i n n i= n/2 n n i= i = 4n 3 n n 2 n n/2 2n n If n is odd: n i= n n i= i n i 4 2 n+ 2 3 n n 4n n i n n i= n/2 n n i= i = 4n 3 n n 2 n+ n n n Proof of Theorem. Set I n t = e λpnx,t dx. We proceed to give an upper bound for for I ntdt and lower bound for I2 ntdt using Lemma 2. Then we will plug in these bounds in Lemma 5 for ϕ = I n.

7 First, the lower bound clause of Lemma 2 applied to I n t gives for any real λ we will assign its value later, at our convenience, I n tdt = = = > e λpnx,t dx dt = e 2 λ2 n m= rm cosmx2 λ 4 n m= rm cosmx4 dx e 2 λ2 n m= rm cosmx2 λ 4 T n dx = e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n e 2 λ2 n m= rm cosmx2 r2 m 2 dx = e 4 λ2 n m= r2 m cos2mx dx > + n 4 λ2 rm 2 cos2mx m= e λpnx,t dtdx dx The second step is to establish an upper bound for a similar fashion, by applying Lemma 2: I2 n tdt. We start out in Intdt 2 = = e 2 λ2 R n+r 2 e λpnx,t+pny,t dtdxdy e 2 λ2 n m= r2 m cosmx+cosmy2 dxdy = e 2 λ2 S nx,y dxdy where S n x,y = m= One can verify that 2 r2 m cos2mx+ 2 r2 m cos2my+2r2 m cosmxcosmy. a S n x,ydxdy =,

8 b c = + m= m= + = 5 4 T n S n x,y dxdy = 2 r2 mcos2mx dx+ 2 r2 mcos2my dy+ m= 2r 2 m cosmxcosmy dxdy = S n x,y 3R n We apply eq. 3 from Lemma 3 with function g = S n, µ = 2 λ2, A = 3R n and B = 5 4 T n. We get And by Lemma 6, 2 e 2 λ2 S nx,y dxdy T n 9Rn 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n + T n Rn 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n + T n Rn 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n n 2 e 2 λ2 R n So far we have established the two prerequisites for Lemma 5: I n tdt > e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n, I 2 n tdt e 2 λ2 R n+r n 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n. The third step is to apply Lemma 5 with ϕ = I n, A = e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n, B = e 2 λ2 R n+r e 3 n 2 λ2 R n and δ = n η. This results in Pr[I n t n η e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n ] n η e 2 λ2 R n 2λ 4 T n e 2 λ2 R n+r n 2e 3 2 λ2 R n n η e 2λ4 T n 2 λ2 r n 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n

9 Finally we show that for suitably chosen λ, θ and η the claim follows. Set lnn λ = θ R n having θ such that 2 η < θ < 3. We deal with the two claims separately: Claim. I n t n η e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n = M n t C Rn lnn Proof. Note that e λmnt I n t e 4 λ2 R n λ 4 T n ηlnn Thus M n t 4 λr n λ 3 T n η λ lnn = = θ Rn lnn θ 3 R n lnnlnn T n 4 Rn 2 η Rn lnn = θ = θ R n lnn 4 θ34lnn 3 n η θ R n lnn θ 4 η θ But θ 4 η θ = constant >. We can choose θ arbitrarily close to 3 and η arbitrarily close to to obtain C = 4 3. Claim. lim n n η e 2λ4 T n 2 λ2 r n 2 e 2 λ2 R n = Proof. Since η is positive, n η. e 2λ4 T n 2 λ2 r 2 2θ = e 4 lnn Tn R 2 2 θ2 r 2 lnn n Rn e 8 3 n θ4 lnn 2 θ2 r 2 lnn Rn e = 4 3 n 2 e 3 2 λ2 R n = 4 3 n 2 e 3 2 θ2 lnn = 4 3 n3θ2 2 Proof of Theorem 2. We will examine exists < θ < such that: e λ Pnx,t dxdt. By Lemma 4 there e λ Pnx,t dxdt θ n eθλmnt dt

10 On the other hand, by Lemma 2 we obtain: Therefore, = e λ Pnx,t dxdt = = 4πe 2 λ2 R n e λ Pnx,t dtdx e λpnx,t +e λpnx,t dtdx 2e 2 λ2 n m= r2 m cos2 mx dtdx 2e 2 λ2 R n dtdx = e θλmnt dt 4π θ e 2 λ 2 R n+lnn. lnn Have λ = 2 R n and multiply both sides by n 4 η, where η >. Then The sum over all n converges: n= e θλmnt 4+ηlnn dt 4π θ n +η. e θλmnt 4+ηlnn dt n= 4π θ n +η <. Since the exponent function is non-negative and the whole sum converges, it is safe to interchange sum and integral: Therefore, for almost all t e θλmnt 4+ηlnn dt <. n= e θλmnt 4+ηlnn <. n= Hence, for almost all t there exists n such that for all n n θλm n t 4+ηlnn <. It follows that [ lim Pr n M n t < 4+η 2θ ] Rn lnn =.

11 5 Conclusion We have proven that lnn the entangled value of almost any n-player symmetric XOR game is Θ and therefore by a factor of lnn greater than its n /4 classical value. However, our numerical experiments indicate that neither of the coefficients C and 2C 2 in eq. 2 are tight. In Fig. there is plotted the mean.7.6 V aln Rn lnn 2 n n Fig.. V aln Rn lnn 2 n for a random sample of n player games value of the coefficient over a sample of 5 games for each n up to. We speculate that the actual constant is approaching In this paper we have dealt with a small portion of non-local games. In particular, the case of random non-symmetric games is still open and there has been little progress in multiplayer XOR games with m ary input. The primary hurdle in the n-player m-input setting is at the moment it lacks a description in terms of algebraic and analytic expressions. Recently an approach using the theory of operator norms has been successful in proving the entangled value of 3-player, m-input XOR game [4]. References. Ambainis, A., Bačkurs, A., Balodis, K., Kravčenko, D., Ozols, R., Smotrovs, J., Virza, M.: Quantum strategies are better than classical in almost

12 any xor game. In: Czumaj, A., Mehlhorn, K., Pitts, A., Wattenhofer, R. eds. Automata, Languages, and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 739, pp Springer Berlin Heidelberg 22, 2. Ambainis, A., Iraids, J., Kravchenko, D., Virza, M.: Advantage of quantum strategies in random symmetric xor games. In: Kučera, A., Henzinger, T., Nešetřil, J., Vojnar, T., Antoš, D. eds. Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 772, pp Springer Berlin Heidelberg 23, 3. Ambainis, A., Kravchenko, D., Nahimovs, N., Rivosh, A.: Nonlocal quantum xor games for large number of players. In: Kratochvíl, J., Li, A., Fiala, J., Kolman, P. eds. Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 68, pp Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2, 4. Briët, J., Vidick, T.: Explicit lower and upper bounds on the entangled value of multiplayer xor games. Communications in Mathematical Physics pp , 5. Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, Oct 969, 6. Cleve, R., Hoyer, P., Toner, B., Watrous, J.: Consequences and limits of nonlocal strategies. In: Proc. 9th IEEE Annual Conf. Computational Complexity. pp , 7. Salem, R., Zygmund, A.: Some properties of trigonometric series whose terms have random signs. Acta Mathematica 9, , 8. Werner, R.F., Wolf, M.M.: All-multipartite bell-correlation inequalities for two dichotomic observables per site. Phys. Rev. A 64, 322 Aug 2,