We study randomized and quantum efficiency lower bounds in communication complexity. These arise from the study of zero-communication protocols in which players are allowed to abort. Our scenario is inspired by the physics setup of Bell experiments, where two players share a predefined entangled state but are not allowed to communicate. Each is given a measurement as input, which they perform on their share of the system. The outcomes of the measurements should follow a distribution predicted by quantum mechanics; however, in practice, the detectors may fail to produce an output in some of the runs. The efficiency of the experiment is the probability that neither of the detectors fails. When the players share a quantum state, this leads to a new bound on quantum communication complexity (eff*) that subsumes the factorization norm. When players share randomness instead of a quantum state, the efficiency bound (eff), coincides with the partition bound of Jain and Klauck. This is one of the strongest lower bounds known for randomized communication complexity, which subsumes all the known combinatorial and algebraic methods including the rectangle (corruption) bound, the factorization norm, and discrepancy. The lower bound is formulated as a convex optimization problem. In practice, the dual form is more feasible to use, and we show that it amounts to constructing an explicit Bell inequality (for eff) or Tsirelson inequality (for eff*). For one-way communication, we show that the quantum one-way partition bound is tight for classical communication with shared entanglement up to arbitrarily small error.
@cite_39: Bell inequality violations correspond to behavior of entangled quantum systems that cannot be simulated classically. 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 quantum 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 to win the game with probability 1 (log n)^2, while the best winning probability without entanglement is 1 n. This near-linear ratio ( Bell inequality violation'') is near-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.
Buhrman @cite_39 show gaps between quantum and classical winning probability for games where the players are each given inputs and attempt, without communication, to produce outputs that satisfy some predicate. In the classical case they use shared randomness and in the quantum case, they use shared entanglement. Winning probabilities are linear so these translate to large Bell inequality violations.