Quantum bounds on multiplayer linear games and device-independent witness of genuine tripartite entanglement

Here we study multiplayer linear games, a natural generalization of XOR games to multiple outcomes. We generalize a recently proposed efficiently computable bound, in terms of the norm of a game matrix, on the quantum value of 2-player games to linear games with $n$ players. As an example, we bound the quantum value of a generalization of the well-known CHSH game to $n$ players and $d$ outcomes. We also apply the bound to show in a simple manner that any nontrivial functional box, that could lead to trivialization of communication complexity in a multiparty scenario, cannot be realized in quantum mechanics. We then present a systematic method to derive device-independent witnesses of genuine tripartite entanglement.Comment: 7+8 page

Monogamy of nonlocal quantum correlations

We describe a new technique for obtaining Tsirelson bounds, or upper bounds on the quantum value of a Bell inequality. Since quantum correlations do not allow signaling, we obtain a Tsirelson bound by maximizing over all no-signaling probability distributions. This maximization can be cast as a linear program. In a setting where three parties, A, B, and C, share an entangled quantum state of arbitrary dimension, we: (i) bound the trade-off between AB's and AC's violation of the CHSH inequality, and (ii) demonstrate that forcing B and C to be classically correlated prevents A and B from violating certain Bell inequalities, relevant for interactive proof systems and cryptography.Comment: This is the submitted version. The refereed version, which contains an additional result about strong parallel repetition and corrects some typos, is available on my personal web site at http://bentoner.com/papers/monogamyrs.pdf [PDF

Tsirelson's bound and supersymmetric entangled states

A superqubit, belonging to a $(2|1)$-dimensional super-Hilbert space, constitutes the minimal supersymmetric extension of the conventional qubit. In order to see whether superqubits are more nonlocal than ordinary qubits, we construct a class of two-superqubit entangled states as a nonlocal resource in the CHSH game. Since super Hilbert space amplitudes are Grassmann numbers, the result depends on how we extract real probabilities and we examine three choices of map: (1) DeWitt (2) Trigonometric (3) Modified Rogers. In cases (1) and (2) the winning probability reaches the Tsirelson bound $p_{win}=\cos^2{\pi/8}\simeq0.8536$ of standard quantum mechanics. Case (3) crosses Tsirelson's bound with $p_{win}\simeq0.9265$. Although all states used in the game involve probabilities lying between 0 and 1, case (3) permits other changes of basis inducing negative transition probabilities.Comment: Updated to match published version. Minor modifications. References adde

Unbounded entanglement in nonlocal games

Quantum entanglement is known to provide a strong advantage in many two-party distributed tasks. We investigate the question of how much entanglement is needed to reach optimal performance. For the first time we show that there exists a purely classical scenario for which no finite amount of entanglement suffices. To this end we introduce a simple two-party nonlocal game $H$, inspired by Lucien Hardy's paradox. In our game each player has only two possible questions and can provide bit strings of any finite length as answer. We exhibit a sequence of strategies which use entangled states in increasing dimension $d$ and succeed with probability $1-O(d^{-c})$ for some $c\geq 0.13$. On the other hand, we show that any strategy using an entangled state of local dimension $d$ has success probability at most $1-\Omega(d^{-2})$. In addition, we show that any strategy restricted to producing answers in a set of cardinality at most $d$ has success probability at most $1-\Omega(d^{-2})$. Finally, we generalize our construction to derive similar results starting from any game $G$ with two questions per player and finite answers sets in which quantum strategies have an advantage.Comment: We have removed the inaccurate discussion of infinite-dimensional strategies in Section 5. Other minor correction