Quantum Entanglement and Communication Complexity

We consider a variation of the communication complexity scenario, where the parties are supplied with an extra resource: particles in an entangled quantum state. We note that "quantum nonlocality" can be naturally expressed in the language of communication complexity. These are communication complexity problems where the "output" is embodied in the correlations between the outputs of the individual parties. Without entanglement, the parties must communicate to produce the required correlations; whereas, with entanglement, no communication is necessary to produce the correlations. In this sense, nonlocality proofs can also be viewed as communication complexity problems where the presence of quantum entanglement reduces the amount of necessary communication. We show how to transform examples of nonlocality into more traditional communication complexity problems, where the output is explicitly determined by each individual party. The resulting problems require communication with or without entanglement, but the required communication is less when entanglement is available. All these results are a noteworthy contrast to the well-known fact that entanglement cannot be used to actually simulate or compress classical communication between remote parties.

[1]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[2]  A. Shimony,et al.  Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden Variable Theories. , 1969 .

[3]  A. Einstein,et al.  The Born-Einstein letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916-1955, with commentaries by Max Born; , 1971 .

[4]  W. Wootters,et al.  A single quantum cannot be cloned , 1982, Nature.

[5]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Quantum theory and measurement , 1983 .

[6]  N. David Mermin,et al.  Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory , 1985 .

[7]  Peter Frankl,et al.  Complexity classes in communication complexity theory , 1986, 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986).

[8]  Bala Kalyanasundaram,et al.  The Probabilistic Communication Complexity of Set Intersection , 1992, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[9]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem , 2007, 0712.0921.

[10]  M. Kafatos.  Bell's theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe , 1989 .

[11]  N. Mermin.  What's Wrong with these Elements of Reality? , 1990 .

[12]  D. Deutsch,et al.  Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[13]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  On the Distributional Complexity of Disjointness , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Michael Ben-Or,et al.  Computing Algebraic Formulas Using a Constant Number of Registers , 1992, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  L. Ballentine,et al.  Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods , 1994 .

[16]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Quantum Circuit Complexity , 1993, FOCS.

[17]  Schumacher,et al.  Classical information capacity of a quantum channel. , 1996, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[18]  Gonzalo E. Reyes,et al.  A Note on Frame Distributions , 1997 .

[19]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Relational Semantics of Non-Deterministic Dataflow , 1997 .

[20]  R. Cleve,et al.  SUBSTITUTING QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION , 1997, quant-ph/9704026.

[21]  Lov K. Grover.  Quantum Telecomputation , 1997 .

[22]  Alessandro Panconesi,et al.  Fast Distributed Algorithms for Brooks-Vizing Colourings (Extended Abstract) , 1997 .

[23]  Peter Hoyer,et al.  Multiparty quantum communication complexity. , 1997 .

[24]  Ian Stark.  Names, Equations, Relations: Practical Ways to Reason about new , 1997, TLCA.

[25]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Quantum vs. classical communication and computation , 1998, STOC '98.

[26]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  The quantum communication complexity of sampling , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[27]  Alessandro Panconesi,et al.  On the distributed complexity of computing maximal matchings , 1997, SODA '98.

[28]  Thore Husfeldt,et al.  Hardness Results for Dynamic Problems by Extensions of Fredman and Saks' Chronogram Method , 1998, ICALP.

[29]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  A theory of recursive domains with applications to concurrency , 1997, Proceedings. Thirteenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36226).

[30]  John Watrous,et al.  PSPACE has constant-round quantum interactive proof systems , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

[31]  Ran Raz,et al.  Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity , 1999, STOC '99.

[32]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Cost of Exactly Simulating Quantum Entanglement with Classical Communication , 1999 .

[33]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Characterization of Non-Deterministic Quantum Query and Quantum Communication Complexity , 2000, CCC.

[34]  Alexei Y. Kitaev,et al.  Parallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems , 2000, STOC '00.

[35]  Hartmut Klauck,et al.  On quantum and probabilistic communication: Las Vegas and one-way protocols , 2000, STOC '00.

[36]  Hartmut Klauck,et al.  Interaction in quantum communication and the complexity of set disjointness , 2001, STOC '01.

[37]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Communication complexity lower bounds by polynomials , 1999, Proceedings 16th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[38]  Dave Bacon,et al.  Classical simulation of quantum entanglement without local hidden variables , 2001 .