Paper detail

Near-Optimal and Explicit Bell Inequality Violations

Entangled quantum systems can exhibit correlations that cannot be simulated classically. For historical reasons such correlations are called "Bell inequality violations." We give two new two-player games with Bell inequality violations that are stronger, fully explicit, and arguably simpler than earlier work. The first game is based on the Hidden Matching problem of quantum communication complexity, introduced by Bar-Yossef, Jayram, and Kerenidis. This game can be won with probability 1 by a strategy using a maximally entangled state with local dimension $n$ (e.g., $\log n$ EPR-pairs), while we show that the winning probability of any classical strategy differs from ${1}/{2}$ by at most $O((\log n)/\sqrt{n})$. The second game is based on the integrality gap for Unique Games by Khot and Vishnoi and the quantum rounding procedure of Kempe, Regev, and Toner. Here $n$-dimensional entanglement allows the game to be won with probability $1/(\log n)^2$, while the best winning probability without entanglement is $1/n$. This near-linear ratio is almost optimal, both in terms of the local dimension of the entangled state, and in terms of the number of possible outputs of the two players.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.