You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.
Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Compression of Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs
arXiv
Authors: Zhengfeng Ji
Year
2016
Paper ID
43031
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
112
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We present a protocol that transforms any quantum multi-prover interactive proof into a nonlocal game in which questions consist of logarithmic number of bits and answers of constant number of bits. As a corollary, this proves that the promise problem corresponding to the approximation of the nonlocal value to inverse polynomial accuracy is complete for QMIP*, and therefore NEXP-hard. This establishes that nonlocal games are provably harder than classical games without any complexity theory assumptions. Our result also indicates that gap amplification for nonlocal games may be impossible in general and provides a negative evidence for the possibility of the gap amplification approach to the multi-prover variant of the quantum PCP conjecture.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2016 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We present a protocol that transforms any quantum multi-prover interactive proof into a nonlocal game in which questions consist of logarithmic number of bits and answers of...
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.