Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 42 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 53 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 17 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 101 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 217 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 474 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

No Strong Parallel Repetition with Entangled and Non-signaling Provers (0911.0201v1)

Published 1 Nov 2009 in quant-ph and cs.CC

Abstract: We consider one-round games between a classical verifier and two provers. One of the main questions in this area is the \emph{parallel repetition question}: If the game is played $\ell$ times in parallel, does the maximum winning probability decay exponentially in $\ell$? In the classical setting, this question was answered in the affirmative by Raz. More recently the question arose whether the decay is of the form $(1-\Theta(\eps))\ell$ where $1-\eps$ is the value of the game and $\ell$ is the number of repetitions. This question is known as the \emph{strong parallel repetition question} and was motivated by its connections to the unique games conjecture. It was resolved by Raz who showed that strong parallel repetition does \emph{not} hold, even in the very special case of games known as XOR games. This opens the question whether strong parallel repetition holds in the case when the provers share entanglement. Evidence for this is provided by the behavior of XOR games, which have strong (in fact \emph{perfect}) parallel repetition, and by the recently proved strong parallel repetition of linear unique games. A similar question was open for games with so-called non-signaling provers. Here the best known parallel repetition theorem is due to Holenstein, and is of the form $(1-\Theta(\eps2))\ell$. We show that strong parallel repetition holds neither with entangled provers nor with non-signaling provers. In particular we obtain that Holenstein's bound is tight. Along the way we also provide a tight characterization of the asymptotic behavior of the entangled value under parallel repetition of unique games in terms of a semidefinite program.

Citations (33)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube