Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
column

What can be computed without communications?

Published: 17 September 2014 Publication History

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to provide illustrative examples of distributed computing problems for which it is possible to design tight lower bounds for quantum algorithms without having to manipulate concepts from quantum mechanics, at all. As a case study, we address the following class of 2-player problems. Alice (resp., Bob) receives a boolean x (resp., y) as input, and must return a boolean a (resp., b) as output. A game between Alice and Bob is defined by a pair (?, f) of boolean functions. The objective of Alice and Bob playing game (?, f) is, for every pair (x, y) of inputs, to output values a and b, respectively, satisfying ?(a, b) = f(x, y), in absence of any communication between the two players, but in presence of shared resources. The ability of the two players to solve the game then depends on the type of resources they share. It is known that, for the so-called CHSH game, i.e., for the game a ? b = x ? y, the ability for the players to use entangled quantum bits (qubits) helps. We show that, apart from the CHSH game, quantum correlations do not help, in the sense that, for every game not equivalent to the CHSH game, there exists a classical protocol (using shared randomness) whose probability of success is at least as large as the one of any protocol using quantum resources. This result holds for both worst case and average case analysis. It is achieved by considering a model stronger than quantum correlations, the non-signaling model, which subsumes quantum mechanics, but is far easier to handle.

References

[1]
N. Alon, L. Babai, and A. Itai. A fast and simple randomized parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. J. Algorithms 7(4):567--583, 1986.
[2]
H. Arfaoui and P. Fraigniaud. What can be computed without communications? In proc. 19th Int. Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO), pages 135--146, 2012.
[3]
H. Arfaoui, P. Fraigniaud, and A. Pelc. Local Decision and Verification with Bounded--Size Outputs. In proc. 15th Int. Symp. on Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems (SSS), 2013.
[4]
L. Barenboim and M. Elkin. Distributed (? + 1)-coloring in linear (in delta) time. In Proc. 41st ACM Symp. on Theory of computing (STOC), pages 111--120, 2009.
[5]
L. Barenboim, M. Elkin, S. Pettie, and J. Schneider. The Locality of Distributed Symmetry Breaking. In Proc. 53rd IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 321--330, 2012.
[6]
J. Barrett, N. Linden, S. Massar, S. Pironio, S. Popescu, and D. Roberts. Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource. Physical Review A 71(2):1--11, 2005.
[7]
J. Barrett and S. Pironio. Popescu--Rohrlich correlations as a unit of nonlocality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95(14), 2005.
[8]
J. S. Bell. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1(3):195--200, 1964.
[9]
G. Brassard, A. Broadbent, and A. Tapp. Quantum pseudo-telepathy. Foundations of Physics 5:18771907, 2005.
[10]
A. Broadbent, A. Tapp. Can quantum mechanics help distributed computing? SIGACT News 39(3): 67--76 (2008)
[11]
H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. deWolf. Non-locality and communication complexity. Reviews of Modern Physics 82:665--698, 2010.
[12]
H. Buhrman and H. Röhrig. Distributed Quantum Computing. In proc 28th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), LNCS 2747, pp. 120, 2003.
[13]
B. S. Cirel'son. Quantum generalizations of bell's inequality. Letters in Math. Phys. 4(2):93--100, 1980.
[14]
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local Hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23(15):880--884, 1969.
[15]
W. van Dam. Implausible Consequences of Superstrong Nonlocality. Natural Computing 12(1): 9--12 (2013)
[16]
V. Denchev and G. Pandurangan. Distributed quantum computing: a new frontier in distributed systems or science fiction? SIGACT News 39(3): 77--95 (2008)
[17]
B. Derbel, C. Gavoille, D. Peleg, and L. Viennot. On the locality of distributed sparse spanner construction. In proc. 27th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 273--282, 2008.
[18]
F. Dupuis, N. Gisin, A. Hasidim, A. Allan Méthot, and H. Pilpel. No nonlocal box is universal. J. Math. Phys. 48(082107), 2007.
[19]
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777--780, 1935.
[20]
M. Elkin. A near-optimal fully dynamic distributed algorithm for maintaining sparse spanners. In proc. 26th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 195--204, 2007.
[21]
M. Elkin, H. Klauck, D. Nanongkai, and G. Pandurangan. Quantum Lower Bounds for Distributed Network Computing. Tech. Report arXiv:1207.5211 (2013)
[22]
P. Fraigniaud, A. Korman, and D. Peleg. Local distributed decision. In proc. 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp 708--717, 2011.
[23]
P. Fraigniaud, S. Rajsbaum, and C. Travers. Locality and checkability in wait-free computing. 25th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), pp 333--347, 2011.
[24]
P. Fraigniaud, S. Rajsbaum, and C. Travers. An Impossibility Result for Run-Time Monitoring. Submitted, 2013.
[25]
S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938--941 (1972)
[26]
C. Gavoille, R. Klasing, A. Kosowski, L. Kuszner, and A. Navarra. On the complexity of distributed graph coloring with local minimality constraints. Networks 54(1): 12--19 (2009)
[27]
C. Gavoille, A. Kosowski, and M. Markiewicz. What Can Be Observed Locally? In proc. 23rd Int. Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), pages 243--257, 2009.
[28]
Ghirardi, G. C. and Rimini, A. and Weber, T. A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process Lett. Nuovo Cimento 27:293--298, 1980.
[29]
A. Korman, S. Kutten, and D. Peleg. Proof labeling schemes. Distributed Computing 22, (2010), 215--233.
[30]
F. Kuhn. Weak graph colorings: distributed algorithms and applications. In Proc. 21st ACM Symp. on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pages 138--144, 2009.
[31]
F. Kuhn, T. Moscibroda, and R. Wattenhofer. What cannot be computed locally! In proc 23rd ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 300--309, 2004.
[32]
N. Linial. Locality in Distributed Graph Algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 21(1): 193--201 (1992)
[33]
M. Luby. A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. SIAM J. Comput. 15:1036--1053 (1986).
[34]
M. Naor and L. Stockmeyer. What can be computed locally? SIAM J. Comput. 24(6): 1259--1277 (1995).
[35]
A. Panconesi and A. Srinivasan. On the Complexity of Distributed Network Decomposition. J. Algorithms 20(2): 356--374 (1996).
[36]
D. Peleg. Distributed computing: A locality-sensitive approach. SIAM, 2000.
[37]
S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Foundations of Physics 24(3):379--385, 1994.
[38]
J. Schneider and R. Wattenhofer. A new technique for distributed symmetry breaking. In Proc. 29th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 257--266, 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On the Power of Quantum Distributed ProofsProceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing10.1145/3662158.3662788(220-230)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)No Distributed Quantum Advantage for Approximate Graph ColoringProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing10.1145/3618260.3649679(1901-1910)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
  • (2021)Randomized Local Network Computing: Derandomization Beyond Locally Checkable LabelingsACM Transactions on Parallel Computing10.1145/34706408:4(1-25)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGACT News
ACM SIGACT News  Volume 45, Issue 3
September 2014
126 pages
ISSN:0163-5700
DOI:10.1145/2670418
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 September 2014
Published in SIGACT Volume 45, Issue 3

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Column

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)33
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)On the Power of Quantum Distributed ProofsProceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing10.1145/3662158.3662788(220-230)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)No Distributed Quantum Advantage for Approximate Graph ColoringProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing10.1145/3618260.3649679(1901-1910)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
  • (2021)Randomized Local Network Computing: Derandomization Beyond Locally Checkable LabelingsACM Transactions on Parallel Computing10.1145/34706408:4(1-25)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2021
  • (2020)A hierarchy of local decisionTheoretical Computer Science10.1016/j.tcs.2020.12.017Online publication date: Dec-2020
  • (2015)Randomized Local Network ComputingProceedings of the 27th ACM symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures10.1145/2755573.2755596(340-349)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2015

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media