Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Quantum Simulation
Quantum State Preparation Representation
Quantum soundness of the classical low individual degree test
arXiv
Authors: Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright, Henry Yuen
Year
2020
Paper ID
20386
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
190
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Low degree tests play an important role in classical complexity theory, serving as basic ingredients in foundational results such as mathsf{MIP} = mathsf{NEXP} [BFL91] and the PCP theorem [AS98,ALM+98]. Over the last ten years, versions of these tests which are sound against quantum provers have found increasing applications to the study of nonlocal games and the complexity class mathsf{MIP}^*. The culmination of this line of work is the result mathsf{MIP}^* = mathsf{RE} [arXiv:2001.04383]. One of the key ingredients in the first reported proof of mathsf{MIP}^* = mathsf{RE} is a two-prover variant of the low degree test, initially shown to be sound against multiple quantum provers in [arXiv:1302.1242]. Unfortunately a mistake was recently discovered in the latter result, invalidating the main result of [arXiv:1302.1242] as well as its use in subsequent works, including [arXiv:2001.04383]. We analyze a variant of the low degree test called the low individual degree test. Our main result is that the two-player version of this test is sound against quantum provers. This soundness result is sufficient to re-derive several bounds on mathsf{MIP}^* that relied on [arXiv:1302.1242], including mathsf{MIP}^* = mathsf{RE}.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Low degree tests play an important role in classical complexity theory, serving as basic ingredients in foundational results such as mathsfMIP = mathsfNEXP [BFL91] and the PCP...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.