Paper detail

Explicit lower and upper bounds on the entangled value of multiplayer XOR games

XOR games are the simplest model in which the nonlocal properties of entanglement manifest themselves. When there are two players, it is well known that the bias --- the maximum advantage over random play --- of entangled players can be at most a constant times greater than that of classical players. Recently, Pérez-García et al. [Comm. Math. Phys. 279 (2), 2008] showed that no such bound holds when there are three or more players: the advantage of entangled players over classical players can become unbounded, and scale with the number of questions in the game. Their proof relies on non-trivial results from operator space theory, and gives a non-explicit existence proof, leading to a game with a very large number of questions and only a loose control over the local dimension of the players' shared entanglement. We give a new, simple and explicit (though still probabilistic) construction of a family of three-player XOR games which achieve a large quantum-classical gap (QC-gap). This QC-gap is exponentially larger than the one given by Pérez-García et. al. in terms of the size of the game, achieving a QC-gap of order $\sqrt{N}$ with $N^2$ questions per player. In terms of the dimension of the entangled state required, we achieve the same (optimal) QC-gap of $\sqrt{N}$ for a state of local dimension $N$ per player. Moreover, the optimal entangled strategy is very simple, involving observables defined by tensor products of the Pauli matrices. Additionally, we give the first upper bound on the maximal QC-gap in terms of the number of questions per player, showing that our construction is only quadratically off in that respect. Our results rely on probabilistic estimates on the norm of random matrices and higher-order tensors which may be of independent interest.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.