Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Entangled games are hard to approximate
arXiv
Authors: Julia Kempe, Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto, Ben Toner, Thomas Vidick
Year
2007
Paper ID
50514
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
185
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We establish the first hardness results for the problem of computing the value of one-round games played by a verifier and a team of provers who can share quantum entanglement. In particular, we show that it is NP-hard to approximate within an inverse polynomial the value of a one-round game with (i) quantum verifier and two entangled provers or (ii) classical verifier and three entangled provers. Previously it was not even known if computing the value exactly is NP-hard. We also describe a mathematical conjecture, which, if true, would imply hardness of approximation to within a constant. We start our proof by describing two ways to modify classical multi-prover games to make them resistant to entangled provers. We then show that a strategy for the modified game that uses entanglement can be "rounded" to one that does not. The results then follow from classical inapproximability bounds. Our work implies that, unless P=NP, the values of entangled-prover games cannot be computed by semidefinite programs that are polynomial in the size of the verifier's system, a method that has been successful for more restricted quantum games.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Entanglement Theory & Quantum Correlations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We establish the first hardness results for the problem of computing the value of one-round games played by a verifier and a team of provers who can share quantum entanglement.
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.