Paper detail

Parallel Repetition of Prover-Verifier Quantum Interactions

In this thesis, we answer several questions about the behaviour of prover-verifier interactions under parallel repetition when quantum information is allowed, and the verifier acts independently in them. We first consider the case in which a value is associated with each of the possible outcomes of an interaction. We prove that it is not possible for the prover to improve on the optimum average value per repetition by repeating the protocol multiple times in parallel. We look then at games in which the outcomes are classified into two types, winning outcomes and losing outcomes. We ask what is the optimal probability for the prover of winning at least k times out of n parallel repetitions, given that the optimal probability of winning when only one repetition is considered is $p$. A reasonable conjecture for the answer would be \sum_{m \geq k} {n \choose m} p^m (1-p)^{n-m}, as that is the answer when it is optimal for the prover to act independently. This is known to be the correct answer when k=n, and also in the classical case. It is also correct in some generalizations of the classical case that we will discuss later. We will show how this cannot be extended to all cases, presenting an example of an interaction with k=1,n=2 in which p\approx 0.85, but it is possible to always win at least once. We will then give some upper bounds on the optimal probability for the prover of winning k times out of n parallel repetitions. These bounds are expressed as a function of p. Finally, we will connect our results to the study of error reduction for quantum interactive proofs using parallel repetition.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

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.