1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{amsthm}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{subfigure}
6: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
7:
8: \newtheorem{theorem}[definition]{Theorem}
9: \newtheorem{corollary}[definition]{Corollary}
10: \newtheorem{proposition}[definition]{Proposition}
11: \newtheorem{lemma}[definition]{Lemma}
12: \newtheorem{claim}[definition]{Claim}
13: \newtheorem{fact}[definition]{Fact}
14: \newtheorem{conjecture}[definition]{Conjecture}
15:
16: \usepackage{typearea}
17: \newcommand{\SD}[2]{\|#1 - #2\|}
18: \newcommand*{\n}{\penalty 100\relax}
19: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
20: \newcommand{\B}{\backslash}
21: \newcommand{\xvec}{x^n}
22: \newcommand{\yvec}{y^n}
23: \newcommand{\xkvec}{x^k}
24: \newcommand{\ykvec}{y^k}
25: \newcommand{\ukvec}{u^k}
26: \newcommand{\vkvec}{v^k}
27: \newcommand*{\Pd}{\mathsf{P}}
28: \newcommand*{\cupdisj}{\mathbin{\dot{\cup}}}
29: \DeclareMathOperator{\cov}{cov}
30: \DeclareMathOperator*{\E}{E}
31: \DeclareMathOperator*{\val}{val}
32: \newcommand*{\bbN}{\mathbb{N}}
33: \newcommand*{\cbar}{\bar{c}}
34: \newcommand*{\ibar}{\bar{i}}
35: \newcommand*{\pbar}{\bar{p}}
36: \newcommand*{\vbar}{\bar{v}}
37: \newcommand*{\xbar}{\bar{x}}
38: \newcommand*{\ybar}{\bar{y}}
39: \newcommand*{\Abar}{\overline{A}}
40: \newcommand*{\Bbar}{\overline{B}}
41: \newcommand*{\Lbar}{\overline{L}}
42: \newcommand*{\Ubar}{\overline{U}}
43: \newcommand*{\Sbar}{\overline{S}}
44: \newcommand*{\Tbar}{\overline{T}}
45: \newcommand*{\Wbar}{\overline{W}}
46: \newcommand*{\Xbar}{\overline{X}}
47: \newcommand*{\Ybar}{\overline{Y}}
48: \newcommand*{\cA}{\mathcal{A}}
49: \newcommand*{\cB}{\mathcal{B}}
50: \newcommand*{\cE}{\mathcal{E}}
51: \newcommand*{\cR}{\mathcal{R}}
52: \newcommand*{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}
53: \newcommand*{\cT}{\mathcal{T}}
54: \newcommand*{\cU}{\mathcal{U}}
55: \newcommand*{\cV}{\mathcal{V}}
56: \newcommand*{\cX}{\mathcal{X}}
57: \newcommand*{\cY}{\mathcal{Y}}
58: \newcommand*{\cZ}{\mathcal{Z}}
59: \newcommand*{\Atilde}{\widetilde{A}}
60: \newcommand*{\Btilde}{\widetilde{B}}
61: \newcommand*{\Stilde}{\widetilde{S}}
62: \newcommand*{\Ttilde}{\widetilde{T}}
63: \newcommand*{\Utilde}{\widetilde{U}}
64: \newcommand*{\Vtilde}{\widetilde{V}}
65: \newcommand*{\Xtilde}{\widetilde{X}}
66: \newcommand*{\Ytilde}{\widetilde{Y}}
67: \newcommand{\mkA}{\mathfrak{A}}
68: \newcommand{\mkB}{\mathfrak{B}}
69: \newcommand{\mkG}{\mathfrak{G}}
70: \newcommand{\mkL}{\mathfrak{L}}
71: \newcommand{\mkN}{\mathfrak{N}}
72: \newcommand{\mkQ}{\mathfrak{Q}}
73: \newcommand{\mkW}{\mathfrak{W}}
74: \newcommand{\Wevent}{W}
75: \newcommand{\NoJ}{{(\backslash j)}}
76: \newcommand{\Tot}{\mathrm{Tot}}
77:
78: \newcommand{\vns}{v_{ns}}
79:
80: \newcommand{\cancel}[1]{}
81: \newcommand{\nocancel}{}
82: \title{Parallel Repetition: \\
83: Simplifications and the No-Signaling Case}
84: \author{Thomas Holenstein\thanks{Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley;
85: \texttt{thomahol@microsoft.com}. This work was done while the author was at ETH Zurich.}}
86: \date{}
87: \begin{document}
88: \maketitle
89: \begin{abstract}
90: Consider a game where a referee chooses~$(x,y)$ according
91: to a publicly known distribution~$\Pd_{XY}$, sends~$x$ to Alice, and
92: $y$ to Bob. Without communicating with each other, Alice responds
93: with a value~$a$ and Bob responds with a value~$b$. Alice and Bob
94: jointly win if a publicly known predicate~$Q(x,y,a,b)$ holds.
95:
96: Let such a game be given and assume that the maximum probability
97: that Alice and Bob can win is~$v<1$. Raz (SIAM J.~Comput.~27, 1998)
98: shows that if the game is repeated~$n$ times in parallel, then the
99: probability that Alice and Bob win \emph{all} games simultaneously
100: is at most~$\vbar^{\tfrac{n}{\log(s)}}$, where $s$ is the maximal
101: number of possible responses from Alice and Bob in the initial game,
102: and $\vbar<1$ is a constant depending only on~$v$.
103:
104: In this work, we simplify Raz's proof in various ways and thus
105: shorten it significantly. Further we study the case where Alice and
106: Bob are not restricted to local computations and can use any
107: strategy which does not imply communication among them.
108: \end{abstract}
109: \section{Introduction}
110:
111: %\sloppy
112:
113: The question how much parallel repetition of a game as in the abstract
114: reduces the winning probability of the players was motivated by the
115: study of two-prover interactive proofs, initiated by Ben-Or et al.
116: \cite{BGKW88}. It was first conjectured that in a game which is
117: repeated~$n$ times in parallel, the probability that Alice and Bob win
118: all the games simultaneously is at most~$v^n$ (see \cite{FoRoSi94}).
119: However, later a counterexample to this conjecture was given
120: \cite{Fortno89}.
121:
122: \paragraph{Related Work}
123: Various papers give upper bounds on the winning probability of a game
124: which is repeated~$n$ times in parallel
125: \cite{CaCoLi92,Feige91,LapSha95,Raz98,Verbit94}. However, the upper
126: bound given by Raz \cite{Raz98} is the only explicit bound for
127: arbitrary distributions~$\Pd_{XY}$ (it is also quantitatively the
128: strongest). Parnafes, Raz, and Wigderson \cite{PaRaWi97} modify Raz's
129: proof to show that the term~$\log(s)$ can be replaced by a parameter
130: which is much smaller for some games.
131:
132: Games for which the~$n$-fold parallel repetition decreases the winning
133: probability less than from~$v$ to~$v^n$ were also constructed: Fortnow
134: \cite{Fortno89} gives\footnote{For readers not familiar with such
135: counter-examples, a variation of Fortnow's game is reproduced in
136: Appendix~\ref{app:nontriviality}.} a game for which the maximal
137: winning probability in two repetitions is larger than~$v^2$ (see also
138: \cite{FeiLov92}), Feige \cite{Feige91} constructs a game where the
139: winning probability in two parallel repetitions does not decrease at
140: all, and Feige and Verbitsky \cite{FeiVer02} give, for infinitely
141: many~$s$, a game where~$\Theta(\frac{\log(s)}{\log{\log(s)}})$
142: repetitions decrease the winning probability from at most~$\frac34$ to
143: at least~$\frac18$, where $s$ is the number of possible answers Alice
144: and Bob can give. This last result shows that in general Raz's bound
145: is close to optimal.
146:
147: \paragraph{No-signaling strategies}
148: No-signaling strategies are all those strategies which do not imply
149: communication. Popescu and Rohrlich \cite{PopRoh94} give an example
150: of such a strategy: Alice receives a bit~$x$, Bob receives a bit~$y$,
151: and they respond with uniform random bits~$a$ and~$b$ such
152: that~$a\oplus b = x\land y$. Note that even though we cannot
153: implement this strategy with shared randomness and without
154: communication, Alice and Bob cannot communicate if they only have
155: black-box access to such functionality.
156:
157: The study of no-signaling strategies is motivated by the idea that if
158: Alice and Bob share some entangled quantum state, the set of possible
159: strategies they might use increases, but stays a subset of the
160: no-signaling strategies (this subset is strict: for example the above
161: strategy which achieves~$a\oplus b=x\land y$ from~$(x,y)$ cannot be
162: simulated perfectly using quantum mechanics \cite[Problem
163: 2.3]{NieChu00}, \cite{Cirels80} --- the corresponding game is called
164: the CHSH-game \cite{CHSH69}).
165:
166: We remark that there are games which can be won with probability 1
167: given a shared quantum state (and thus with a no-signaling strategy),
168: but not using local strategies. Those are called ``pseudo-telepathy
169: games'' (see \cite{BrBrTa05} and the references therein).
170:
171: A parallel repetition theorem for the case where Alice and Bob share
172: a quantum state and the decision of the referee only depends on the
173: XOR of the binary answers of Alice and Bob was recently given by
174: Cleve et al.~\cite{CSUU06}.
175:
176: \paragraph{Contributions of this paper}
177: In this paper we simplify Raz's proof. Most importantly, we replace a
178: large part (essentially Section 6) of Raz's paper with the simpler
179: Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre}. This also allows us to
180: give an explicit bound on the maximal winning probability of a game
181: repeated~$n$ times in parallel (Raz does not explicitly describe the
182: dependence of~$\vbar$ on~$v$).
183:
184: The use of Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre} also makes
185: the rest of the argument simpler. We shortly explain why: The main
186: part of the proof consists of showing that the information the players
187: get in the~$n$-fold repetition does not help them to win the subgame
188: in some coordinate~$j$, even conditioned on the event that certain
189: other subgames are won. This is done in three steps. In two of these
190: steps the information does not help the players because they can
191: generate this information themselves with local computation only.
192: Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre} shows that this also holds
193: for the third step. This allows us to merge some of the steps, which
194: simplifies the overal structure.
195:
196: We also study how much the term~$\log(s)$ in the exponent in the
197: parallel repetition theorem can be reduced. In \cite{PaRaWi97} it is
198: shown that the logarithm of the partition number of the accepance
199: predicate can be used instead of~$\log(s)$. Based on the ideas from
200: there, Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local_strengthened} gives a bound which
201: might be stronger for some games.
202:
203: Finally, we prove a parallel repetition theorem in case Alice and Bob
204: are restricted to no-signaling strategies (in both the given game and
205: the parallel repetition of it).
206:
207: \section{Notation and Basic Facts}
208: \subsection{Probability Distributions}\label{sec:probdistr}
209:
210: We use calligraphic letters to denote sets. We denote random
211: variables using capital letters, and values with lower case letters.
212: We use superscripts to denote tuples, e.g., $X^n := (X_1, \ldots,
213: X_{n})$ and $x^n :=\n (x_1, \ldots, x_{n})$.
214:
215: If a distribution $\Pd_{XY}$ over~$\cX \times \cY$ is given, we write
216: $\Pd_X$ or~$\Pd_Y$ to denote the marginal distribution, e.g.,
217: $\Pd_X(x) := \n\sum_{y\in\cY}\Pd_{XY}(x,y)$. The conditional
218: distribution~$\Pd_{Y|X=x}$ is $\Pd_{Y|X=x}(y) :=
219: \Pd_{XY}(x,y)/\Pd_X(x)$.
220:
221: Let~$\Pd_{X_0}$ be a distribution over~$\cX$ and~$\Pd_{Y_1|X_1=x}$ be
222: a conditional distribution over~$\cY$. We define the
223: distribution~$\Pd_{X_0}\Pd_{Y_1|X_1}$ over~$\cX\times\cY$ as
224: \begin{align}\label{eq:29}
225: (\Pd_{X_0} \Pd_{Y_1|X_1})(x,y) := \Pd_{X_0}(x) \cdot \Pd_{Y_1|X_1=x}(y).
226: \end{align}
227: For this, it is necessary that $\Pd_{Y_1|X_1=x}$ is defined for
228: every~$x\in\cX$. We also use this notation when~$\Pd_{Y_1|X_1=x}$ is
229: defined as marginal of a given distribution $\Pd_{X_1Y_1}$. In this
230: case, we define~$\Pd_{Y_1|X_1=x}$ in an arbitrary way
231: if~$\Pd_{X_1}(x)=0$. This notation is used for example in
232: Corollary~\ref{cor:LocallyComputableCommonPart} in the form
233: $\Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{S|X}$, where it is understood as
234: $(\Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{S|X})(x,y,s) := \Pd_{X_0Y_0}(x,y)\Pd_{S|X=x}(s)$.
235: Note that the conditional distribution~$\Pd_{S|X=x}$ is defined
236: there by the marginal distribution~$\Pd_{SX}$ of the given
237: distribution~$\Pd_{SXY}$. Our notation is not explicit since it does
238: not specify which random variables are associated with each other.
239: However, this will always be clear from the context.
240:
241: For two probability distributions~$\Pd_{X_0}$ and~$\Pd_{X_1}$
242: over the same set~$\cX$ we define the statistical distance
243: \begin{align}
244: \|\Pd_{X_0} - \Pd_{X_1}\| :=
245: \frac12\sum_{x\in\cX} \bigl|\Pd_{X_0}(x)-\Pd_{X_1}(x)\bigr|.
246: \end{align}
247: \subsection{Games}
248: \begin{definition}\label{def:game}
249: A \emph{game~$\mkG=(\Pd_{XY},Q)$
250: over~$\cX\times\cY\times\cA\times\cB$} is a
251: distribution~$\Pd_{XY}$ over~$\cX \times\cY$ and a predicate~$Q$
252: over~$\cX\times\cY\times\cA\times\cB$. The \emph{value}~$v(\mkG)$
253: of a game is
254: \begin{align*}
255: v(\mkG) := \max_{h_a,h_b} \Pr_{XY}[Q(X,Y,h_a(X),h_b(Y))],
256: \end{align*}
257: where the maximization is over functions~$h_a: \cX \rightarrow \cA$
258: and~$h_b: \cY\rightarrow\cB$.
259: A \emph{strategy}~$(h_a,h_b)$ for a game is a pair of such functions.
260: \end{definition}
261:
262: Sometimes also randomized strategies for Alice and Bob are considered,
263: where~$h_a$ and~$h_b$ also depend on (the same) shared randomness~$r$ chosen
264: according to some distribution~$\Pd_{R}$. However, there always exists
265: an~$r\in\cR$ such that
266: \begin{align}
267: \Pr_{RXY}[Q(X,Y,h_a(X,R),h_b(Y,R))]
268: &=
269: \E_R\bigl[\Pr_{XY}[Q(X,Y,h_a(X,R),h_b(Y,R))]\bigr]\nonumber\\
270: &\leq
271: \Pr_{XY}[Q(X,Y,h_a(X,r),h_b(Y,r))],\label{eq:5}
272: \end{align}
273: and we see that the definition of the value is robust against such a
274: change. Individual (local) randomness can be obtained from shared
275: randomness and is thus a special case of the above.
276:
277: \begin{definition}\label{def:nfoldrepetition}
278: The~\emph{$n$-fold parallel repetition}~$\mkG^{n}$ of a game~$\mkG =
279: (\Pd_{XY},Q)$ over~$\cX\times\cY\times\cA\times\cB$ is the game over
280: $\cX^n\times\cY^n\times\cA^n\times\cB^n$ which is given by~$\mkG^{n}
281: := (\Pd_{X^nY^n}, Q^{\land n})$ where
282: \begin{align*}
283: \Pd_{X^nY^n}(x^n,y^n) &:=
284: \prod_{i=1}^n\Pd_{XY}(x_i,y_i),\text{\quad and}\\
285: Q^{\land n}(x^n,y^n,a^n,b^n) &:= \bigwedge_{i=1}^n Q(x_i,y_i,a_i,b_i).
286: \end{align*}
287: \end{definition}
288: If a strategy is given, the distribution~$\Pd_{X^nY^nA^nB^n}$ of
289: queries and answers is defined in the obvious way. We further define,
290: for all~$i$, the event~$W_i$ which occurs if the~$i$th subgame is won.
291: \begin{definition}\label{def:randomvars}
292: For a game~$\mkG^{n}$ and a strategy~$(h_a,h_b)$ the
293: distribution~$\Pd_{X^n Y^n A^n B^n}$
294: over~$\cX^n\times\cY^n\times\cA^n \times\cB^n$ is given by
295: \begin{align*}
296: \Pd_{X^n Y^n A^n B^n}(x^n, y^n,a^n,b^n)
297: &:=
298: \begin{cases}
299: \Pd_{X^nY^n}(x^n,y^n) & \text{if $h_a(x^n)=a^n$ and
300: $h_b(y^n) = b^n$}\\
301: 0& \text{otherwise.}\\
302: \end{cases}
303: \end{align*}
304: Further, $W^n$ is the tuple of events~$(W_1,\ldots,W_n)$ where~$W_i
305: :\iff Q(X_i,Y_i,A_i,B_i)$.
306: \end{definition}
307:
308: We prove the following version of the parallel repetition theorem.
309: \begin{theorem}[Parallel Repetition Theorem]\label{thm:pr_local}
310: For any game~$\mkG$ with value~$v := v(\mkG)$ and any integer~$n$:
311: \begin{align*}
312: v(\mkG^{ n}) \leq
313: \Bigl(1-\frac{(1-v)^3}{6000}\Bigr)^{\frac{n}{\log(|\cA||\cB|)}}.
314: \end{align*}
315: \end{theorem}
316: The constant 6000 could be improved by a more carful analysis (we will
317: not optimize constants which would improve it during the proof).
318: However, we do not know whether the 3 in the exponent can be reduced.
319:
320: In \cite{PaRaWi97} it is shown that in Raz's proof the term
321: $\log(|\cA||\cB|)$ in the exponent can be reduced to the maximum of
322: the logarithm of the partition number of $Q(x,y,\cdot,\cdot)$. As
323: shown by Beame \cite{Beame06}, the argument can be adapted to work
324: with the proof given here. We give a slightly different argument in
325: Section~\ref{sec:reducingtheexponent} which shows how the term can be
326: reduced to a quantity which is a lower bound on the logarithm of the
327: partition number.
328:
329: \section{Proof Sketch}
330: Fix an arbitrary game~$\mkG$, its $n$-fold parallel
331: repetition~$\mkG^{n}$, and a strategy~$h_a$,~$h_b$ for~$\mkG^{n}$.
332: With the notation from Definition~\ref{def:randomvars}, the parallel
333: repetition theorem is simply an upper bound on $\Pr[W_1\land\dots\land
334: W_n]$. To get such an upper bound, we show that for arbitrary
335: indices~$i_1,\ldots,i_m$ there exists an index~$j$ such that
336: \begin{align}
337: \Pr[W_{j}|W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]\leq v(\mkG) + \eps, \label{eq:1}
338: \end{align}
339: where $\eps$ depends on~$m$,~$n$, $\log(|\cA||\cB|)$, and
340: $\Pr[W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]$ (this is
341: Lemma~\ref{lem:gameconditionedvalue}). From~(\ref{eq:1}) a simple
342: induction gives the parallel repetition theorem, thus we now
343: concentrate on the proof of~(\ref{eq:1}).
344:
345: \paragraph{Locally Computable Embeddings}
346: In order to prove~(\ref{eq:1}) we define the
347: distribution
348: \begin{align}\label{eq:10}
349: \Pd_{\Xtilde^n \Ytilde^n} := \Pd_{X^nY^n|W_{i_1}\land\dots\land
350: W_{i_m}}
351: \end{align}
352: (i.e., the distribution of the message which the referee sends to
353: Alice and Bob conditioned on the event that the games~$i_1$ to~$i_m$
354: are won).
355:
356: We show (Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame}) that for some~$j$ the
357: following can be achieved by Alice and Bob without communication and
358: using shared randomness only:
359: \begin{enumerate}
360: \item Alice, on input~$x$, produces a tuple~$\xbar^n$
361: with~$\xbar_j = x$.
362: \item Bob, on input~$y$, produces a tuple~$\ybar^n$ with~$\ybar_j
363: = y$.
364: \item Let $\Pd_{\Xbar^n\Ybar^n}$ be the resulting joint distribution
365: of the tuples~$(\xbar^n,\ybar^n)$, assuming that $(x,y)$ is chosen
366: according to $\Pd_{XY}$. Then
367: \begin{align*}
368: \| \Pd_{\Xbar^n\Ybar^n} - \Pd_{\Xtilde^n\Ytilde^n} \| \leq \eps.
369: \end{align*}
370: \end{enumerate}
371: We say that~$(X,Y)$ can be $1-\eps$-embedded into
372: $(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$ with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$ by local
373: computation.
374:
375: If such an embedding is given, we can consider the following strategy
376: for the initial game~$\mkG$: Alice and Bob embed their inputs $(X,Y)$
377: in $(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$ with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$, and
378: answer with coordinate~$j$ of~$h_a(\Xtilde^n)$ and~$h_b(\Ytilde^n)$.
379: This strategy wins with probability at
380: least~$\Pr[W_j|W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]-\eps$. Since no
381: strategy for the initial game has higher winning probability than
382: $v(\mkG)$ this implies (\ref{eq:1}).
383:
384: We remark that a necessary condition for such an embedding to exist is
385: that
386: \begin{align}\label{eq:2}
387: \| \Pd_{XY} - \Pd_{\Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} \| \leq \eps,
388: \end{align}
389: and indeed this follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions} for~$U_j
390: = (X_j,Y_j)$ (of course this condition is not a sufficient one).
391:
392: \paragraph{Constructing an Embedding}
393: We now give a more detailled explanation how Alice and Bob can
394: embed~$(X,Y)$ into~$(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$
395: with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$. For this, given values~$(x,y)$
396: distributed according to~$\Pd_{XY}$, Alice and Bob proceed as follows:
397: \begin{enumerate}
398: \item Alice and Bob use shared randomness to produce queries and
399: responses for all the won games, i.e.,
400: values~$(x_{i_1},y_{i_1},a_{i_1},b_{i_1})$
401: to~$(x_{i_m},y_{i_m},a_{i_m},b_{i_m})$. Here, Alice and
402: Bob \emph{both} produce \emph{all} these values.
403: \item For every index~$i \notin \{i_1,\ldots,i_m,j\}$, Alice and Bob
404: examine a shared random bit~$d_i$. If~$d_i = 1$ both locally
405: produce~$x_i$, otherwise both locally produce~$y_i$. Again, Alice
406: and Bob both produce all these values.
407: \item Using individual randomness, Alice and Bob locally expand their
408: information such that Alice gets~$x^n$ and Bob~$y^n$.
409: \end{enumerate}
410: In steps 1 and 2 we have to take care of two things: first, the values
411: produced should be distributed according to the the respective
412: marginal of the distribution
413: $\Pd_{\Atilde^n\Btilde^n\Xtilde^n\Ytilde^n|\Xtilde_j=x \land
414: \Ytilde_j=y}$ (where $\Pd_{\Atilde^n\Btilde^n\Xtilde^n\Ytilde^n}$ is
415: defined analogously to (\ref{eq:10})). Second, Alice and Bob should
416: produce \emph{equal values} (otherwise the resulting random
417: variables~$(\Xbar^n,\Ybar^n)$ will not have the correct overall
418: distribution).
419:
420: For step 1 achieving both is simple: it follows from
421: Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} that Alice and Bob can choose the
422: values~$(x_{i_1},y_{i_1},a_{i_1},b_{i_1}),\ldots,(x_{i_m},y_{i_m},a_{i_m},b_{i_m})$
423: independently of~$(x,y)$ according to
424: $\Pd_{\Xtilde_{i_1}\Ytilde_{i_1}\Atilde_{i_1}\Btilde_{i_1} \cdots
425: \Xtilde_{i_m}\Ytilde_{i_m}\Atilde_{i_m}\Btilde_{i_m}}$. Using
426: shared randomness this can be done such that both get the same tuple.
427:
428: The second step is harder, as in this case the values cannot be chosen
429: independently of~$(x_j,y_j)$ anymore.\footnote{The values~$d_i$ can be
430: chosen independently, but \emph{not} the values of $x_i$ respective
431: $y_i$. We quickly explain why this is impossible in general.
432: Assume that the random variables~$X$ and~$Y$ contain a shared
433: bit~$B$. The game~$\mkG^n$ and the strategy~$(h_a,h_b)$ may be such
434: that Alice and Bob win subgame~$i_1$ in case~$B_1\oplus\dots\oplus
435: B_n=0$. Generating the values independently of~$(x,y)$ would now
436: produce a distribution with statistical distance at least~$\frac12$
437: from the target distribution. Therefore, a bit which is contained
438: in both $x$ and~$y$ \emph{must} be considered when generating the
439: values of~$x_i$ and~$y_i$.} However, let~$\Stilde$ be the random
440: variables which Alice and Bob produce in this step. It will follow
441: from Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} that
442: $\|\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Xtilde_j} - \Pd_{XY\Stilde}\|$ and
443: $\|\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Ytilde_j} - \Pd_{XY\Stilde}\|$ are both
444: small, and Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre} implies that
445: this is sufficient to generate~$\Stilde$ locally.
446:
447: In fact, Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps}
448: and Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre} are strong enough to do
449: steps 1 and 2 at the same time, and thus these steps are done
450: simultaneously in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame}.
451:
452: Step 3 will be simpler to implement. Because the players also
453: computed~$a_{i_\ell}$ and~$b_{i_\ell}$ in step 1, they can expand
454: their known values according to the given distributions and the
455: resulting distribution will be correct (this follows from
456: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableMarkov}, and a detailed explanation
457: is in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame}).
458:
459:
460: \section{Conditioned Distributions}
461:
462: The following lemma is essentially Claim~5.1 in Raz's paper
463: \cite{Raz98} (and we use the proof given there). It states that if
464: random variables $U_i$ are chosen independently, then conditioning on
465: an event does not change the individual distributions a lot on
466: average.
467:
468: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:basicrepetitions}
469: Let $\Pd_{U^k} := \Pd_{U_1} \dots \Pd_{U_k}$ be a probability
470: distribution over~$\cU^k$, $\Wevent$ an event. Then,
471: \begin{align}\label{eq:50}
472: \Pr[W] \leq 2^{-\sum_{j=1}^k (\SD{\Pd_{U_j|\Wevent}}{\Pd_{U_j}})^2}.
473: \end{align}
474: \end{lemma}
475: As an example, let $U_i$ be uniform and independent bits and~$W$ be
476: the event that at least~$k(\frac{1}{2}+\eps)$ of these bits are one.
477: Then $\|P_{U_i|W} - \Pd_{U_i}\| \geq \eps$ and the lemma states that
478: $\Pr[W] \leq 2^{-k\eps^2}$, which is a version of Chernoff's
479: inequality (note that this implies that
480: Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions} is almost tight; see, for example,
481: \cite{HolRen06}).
482:
483: Using $(\sum_{j=1}^k a_j)^2 \leq k \sum_{j=1}^k a_j^2$ one easily checks that
484: \eqref{eq:50} implies
485: \begin{align}\label{eq:52}
486: \sum_{j=1}^k \| \Pd_{U_j|W} - \Pd_{U_j}\| \leq
487: \sqrt{k\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}\;,
488: \end{align}
489: which is the form we use later.
490:
491: \begin{proof}
492: For two distributions~$\Pd_{S}$ and~$\Pd_{T}$ over the same
493: set~$\cS$, the \emph{relative entropy} $D(\Pd_{S}\|\Pd_{T})$ is
494: defined as
495: \begin{align}\label{eq:8}
496: D(\Pd_{S}\|\Pd_{T}) := \sum_{s \in \cS} \Pd_{S}(s)\log\Bigl(\frac{\Pd_{S}(s)}{\Pd_{T}(s)}\Bigr).
497: \end{align}
498: This quantity satisfies $D(\Pd_{S}\|\Pd_{T}) \geq
499: \bigl(\|\Pd_{S}-\Pd_{T}\|\bigr)^2$ (see \cite[Lemma
500: 12.6.1]{CovTho91}). Also, if~$\Pd_{U^k} = \Pd_{U_1}\dots
501: \Pd_{U_k}$ and~$\Pd_{V^k}$ are distributions over the set~$\cU^k$,
502: then $\sum_{j=1}^k D(\Pd_{V_j}\|\Pd_{U_j}) \leq
503: D(\Pd_{V^k}\|\Pd_{U^k})$ (see Appendix~\ref{app:relentrlemma}).
504:
505: Using the above we get
506: \begin{align*}
507: \sum_{j=1}^k\Bigl(\SD{\Pd_{U_j|\Wevent}}{\Pd_{U_j}}\Bigr)^2
508: &\leq \sum_{j=1}^k D(\Pd_{U_j|\Wevent}\|{\Pd_{U_j}})\\
509: &\leq D(\Pd_{U^k|\Wevent}\|\Pd_{U^k})\displaybreak[2]\\
510: &= \sum_{u^k} \Pd_{U^k|\Wevent}(u^k)
511: \log\Bigl(\frac{\Pd_{U^k|\Wevent}(u^k)}{\Pd_{U^k}(u^k)}\Bigr)\\
512: &= \sum_{u^k} \Pd_{U^k|\Wevent}(u^k)
513: \log\Bigl(\frac{\Pr[\Wevent|U^k=u^k]}{\Pr[\Wevent]}\Bigr)\\
514: &= \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[\Wevent]}\Bigr) +
515: \sum_{u^k} \Pd_{U^k|\Wevent}(u^k)
516: \log\bigl(\Pr[\Wevent|U^k=u^k]\bigr)\\
517: &\leq \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[\Wevent]}\Bigr).\qedhere
518: \end{align*}
519: \end{proof}
520:
521: We now give a slight extension of this lemma (this makes it simpler to
522: apply later). First, the~$U_j$ are independent given the value of an
523: additional random variable~$T$. Second, an arbitrary third random
524: variable~$V$ with bounded alphabet size gives side information
525: about~$U_j$. Then, choosing~$U_j$ without considering the fact that
526: an event~$W$ happened and ignoring~$V$ does not change the
527: distribution of~$U_j$ too much on average. For the notation in the
528: following corollary we refer to Section~\ref{sec:probdistr}, equation
529: (\ref{eq:29}) and the subsequent remarks.
530: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:disjointreps}
531: Let~$\Pd_{T U^k V} := \Pd_{T}
532: \Pd_{U_1|T}\Pd_{U_2|T}\dots\Pd_{U_k|T} \Pd_{V|T U^k}$
533: be a probability distribution over~$\cT\times\cU^k \times \cV$,~$\Wevent$
534: be an event. Then,
535: \begin{align*}
536: \sum_{j=1}^k
537: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T U_j V|\Wevent} -
538: \Pd_{T V|\Wevent}\Pd_{U_j|T} \Bigr\|
539: &\leq \sqrt{k} \sqrt{\log(|\cV^*|) +
540: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[\Wevent]}\Bigr)},
541: \end{align*}
542: where $\cV^* := \{ v \in \cV | \Pd_{V|W}(v) > 0\}$.
543: \end{corollary}
544: The proof is essentially an application of Jensen's inequality on
545: Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions}.
546: \begin{proof}
547: Fix a pair $(t,v)\in\cT\times\cV$ and consider the
548: distributions~$\Pd_{U^k|T=t,V=v,\Wevent}$ and $\Pd_{U^k|T=t}$. We
549: apply Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions} (in the form given by
550: \eqref{eq:52}) on these distributions (with the
551: event~$(V\mathord{=}v) \land \Wevent$) and get
552: \begin{align}
553: \sum_{j=1}^k
554: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T U_j V|\Wevent} \!-\!
555: \Pd_{T V|\Wevent}\Pd_{U_j|T} \Bigr\|
556: &=\sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*} \Pd_{TV|\Wevent}(t,v) \cdot
557: \sum_{j=1}^k \Bigl\| \Pd_{U_j|T=t, V=v,\Wevent} - \Pd_{U_j|T=t} \Bigr\|\nonumber\\
558: &\leq
559: \sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*} \Pd_{TV|\Wevent}(t,v)
560: \sqrt{k \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[\Wevent\land V=v|T=t]}\Bigr)}\nonumber\\
561: &\leq
562: \sqrt{k\log\Bigl(\sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*} \Pd_{TV|\Wevent}(t,v)
563: \frac{1}{\Pr[\Wevent\land V=v|T=t]}\Bigr)},\label{eq:17}
564: \end{align}
565: where the last inequality is Jensen's inequality applied
566: on the function~$\sqrt{\log(\cdot)}$ which is concave on~$[1,\infty)$. We compute
567: \begin{align}
568: \sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*}\!\!\!\!\!\!
569: \Pd_{TV|\Wevent}(t,v) \frac{1}{\Pr[W\land V=v|T=t]}
570: &=
571: \sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*} \frac{\Pr[{T=t} \land
572: {V=v}|\Wevent]}{\Pr[\Wevent\land V=v|T=t]} \nonumber\\
573: &=
574: \sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*}
575: \frac{\Pr[{T=t} \land {V=v} \land \Wevent] \Pr[T=t]}{\Pr[\Wevent]
576: \Pr[V=v \land T=t \land \Wevent]} \nonumber\\
577: &=
578: \sum_{t \in \cT,v\in\cV^*}
579: \frac{\Pr[T=t]}{\Pr[\Wevent]}
580: =
581: \frac{|\cV^*|}{\Pr[\Wevent]}.\nonumber
582: \end{align}
583: Inserting this into (\ref{eq:17}) completes the proof.
584: \end{proof}
585:
586: \section{Embedding by Local Computation}
587: We next study under what conditions random variables can be embedded
588: into other random variables by local computations.
589: \begin{definition}[Embeddable]
590: For two distributions~$\Pd_{X_0 Y_0}$ and $\Pd_{X_1 S
591: Y_1 T}$ we say that $(X_0, Y_0)$ is $1-\eps$-embeddable in
592: $(X_1 S, Y_1 T)$ with~$(X_1,Y_1)=(X_0,Y_0)$ if
593: there exists a probability measure~$\Pd_{R}$ over a set~$\cR$ and
594: functions~$f_A: \cX\times\cR\rightarrow\cS$, $f_B:\cY\times\cR
595: \rightarrow \cT$, such that
596: \begin{align*}
597: \bigl\| \Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{F_A F_B|XY}
598: - \Pd_{X_1Y_1S T}\bigr\| \leq \eps,
599: \end{align*}
600: where~$\Pd_{F_A F_B|X=xY=y}$ is the distribution defined by the
601: random variable~$(f_A(x,R),\n f_B(y,R))$.
602: \end{definition}
603: The following lemma gives a condition under which $(X,Y)$ is
604: embeddable in~$(XS,\n YS)$. It is one of the main contributions of
605: this paper.
606: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre}
607: Let a distribution~$\Pd_{SXY}$ be given. If
608: \begin{align}
609: \| \Pd_{SXY}-\Pd_{X Y}\Pd_{S|X}\| \leq \eps_1 \label{eq:12}
610: \intertext{and}
611: \| \Pd_{SXY}-\Pd_{X Y}\Pd_{S|Y}\| \leq \eps_2 ,\label{eq:13}
612: \end{align}
613: then~$(X, Y)$ is $1-2\eps_1-2\eps_2$-embeddable\footnote{It is
614: understood that the embedding satisfies $(X,Y)=(X,Y)$, i.e., that
615: the original random variables will result if from the resulting
616: $(XS,YS)$ the $S$-part is omitted.}
617: in~$(XS, YS)$.
618: \end{lemma}
619:
620: Even if~$\eps_1=\eps_2=0$, equations (\ref{eq:12}) and (\ref{eq:13})
621: do not imply that~$S$ is independent of~$X$ and~$Y$. For example, if
622: $X$ and~$Y$ contain the
623: same uniform random bit, then $S$ can depend on this bit.
624: However, if~$\eps_1=\eps_2 = 0$ the lemma is obviously true: Alice
625: uses shared randomness to choose~$S$ according to~$\Pd_{S|X=x}$ (more
626: concretely: Alice chooses a uniform random real~$\rho \in [0,1]$ and
627: uses the smallest element~$s$ for which the cumulative distribution
628: function~$\sum_{s'\leq s}\Pd_{S|X=x}(s')$ is larger than~$\rho$).
629: Since Bob has the same distribution~$\Pd_{S|Y=y}$ he will find the
630: same value if he uses the same shared randomness.
631:
632: In case~$\eps_1>0$ and~$\eps_2>0$, we have to overcome the following
633: problem: $\Pd_{S|Y=y}$ is unknown to Alice (since~$y$ is unknown to
634: Alice), and analogously $\Pd_{S|X=x}$ is unknown to Bob. The solution
635: is to define the function $f_A: \cX \times \cR \rightarrow \cS$ with
636: the following process: Alice chooses, using shared randomness, a
637: uniform random element~$s$ from $\cS$ and a uniform random real
638: number~$\rho\in[0,1]$. If $\Pd_{S|X=x}(s)>\rho$ she outputs~$s$,
639: otherwise Alice repeats the above. The function~$f_B: \cY \times \cR
640: \rightarrow \cS$ is defined by the analogous process given~$y$. It is
641: easy to see that Alice outputs elements according to the
642: distribution~$\Pd_{S|X=x}$, Bob according to~$\Pd_{S|Y=y}$. We
643: further show that usually the output of~$f_A$ is equal to the output
644: of~$f_B$.
645: \begin{proof}
646: Let~$\cR := (\cS\times[0,1])^\infty$ be the set of infinite
647: sequences over~$\cS\times[0,1]$. For a fixed~$x,y$ and a sequence $r
648: := \{(s_i,\rho_i)\}_{i\geq 0}$, we define~$f_A(x,r) := s_i$ if~$i$
649: is the smallest index for which $\Pd_{S|X=x}(s_i) > \rho_i$.
650: Analogously, $f_B(y,r) := s_j$ if~$j$ is the smallest index
651: with~$\Pd_{S|Y=y}(s_j)>\rho_j$ and\footnote{The use of~$f_{AB}$ in
652: order to simplify the analysis was suggested by Anup Rao.}
653: $f_{AB}(x,y,r) := s_k$ if~$k$ is the smallest index
654: with~$\Pd_{S|X=xY=y}(s_k)>\rho_k$. If no such index exist the
655: respective function is defined in an arbitrary way (this happens
656: with probability~$0$).
657:
658: Let $\Pd_{XYF_AF_BF_{AB}}$ be the joint distribution
659: of~$(x,y,f_A(x,r), f_B(y,r),f_{AB}(x,y,r))$ where $(x,y)$ is chosen
660: according to $\Pd_{XY}$ and $r$ uniformly from $\cR$. We have
661: $\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}=\Pd_{S|X=xY=y}$, $\Pd_{F_A|X=x}=\Pd_{S|X=x}$
662: and $\Pd_{F_B|Y=y}=\Pd_{S|Y=y}$, since these equalities hold
663: conditioned on the event that the respective function accepts in
664: round~$i$, for any fixed~$i$.
665:
666: Further, we have $\Pr[F_A=F_{AB}|X=x,Y=y] \geq
667: 1-2\|\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}-\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}\|$: the two values
668: $F_A,F_{AB}$ are equal if $\rho_j <
669: \min(\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}(s_j),\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}(s_j))$ for the
670: smallest $j$ for which $\rho_j <
671: \max(\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}(s_j),\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}(s_j))$ is satisfied.
672: This happens with probability
673: \begin{align*}
674: \frac{\sum_{s}\min(\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}(s_j),\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}(s_j))}
675: {\sum_{s}\max(\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}(s_j),\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}(s_j))}
676: &=\frac{1-\|\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}-\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}\|}{1+\|\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}-\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}\|}\\
677: &\geq 1-2\|\Pd_{F_{A}|X=x}-\Pd_{F_{AB}|X=xY=y}\|.
678: \end{align*}
679: This yields $\Pr[F_A=F_{AB}] \geq 1-2\eps_1$, and analogously we get
680: $\Pr[F_B=F_{AB}] \geq 1-2\eps_2$, and thus $\Pr[F_A=F_B=F_{AB}]\geq
681: 1-2\eps_1-2\eps_2$.
682: This implies
683: \begin{align*}
684: \|\Pd_{XYSS} - \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{F_AF_B|XY}\|
685: &=
686: \|\Pd_{XYF_{AB}F_{AB}} - \Pd_{XYF_AF_B}\| \geq 1-2\eps_1-2\eps_2.\qedhere
687: \end{align*}
688: \end{proof}
689:
690: In the following corollary, the input distribution is changed
691: slightly. This makes it a bit easier to apply later.
692: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:LocallyComputableCommonPart}
693: Let distributions~$\Pd_{SXY}$ and~$\Pd_{X_0 Y_0}$ be given. If
694: \begin{align}
695: \| \Pd_{SXY}-\Pd_{X_0 Y_0}\Pd_{S|X}\| \leq \eps_1 \label{eq:48}
696: \intertext{and}
697: \| \Pd_{SXY}-\Pd_{X_0 Y_0}\Pd_{S|Y}\| \leq \eps_2 ,\label{eq:49}
698: \end{align}
699: then~$(X_0, Y_0)$ is $1-3\eps_1-2\eps_2$-embeddable\footnote{The
700: statement could be made symmetric (i.e., $(X_0,Y_0)$ is
701: $1-2\eps_1-2\eps_2 - \min(\eps_1,\eps_2)$-embeddable).}
702: in~$(XS, YS)$ with~$(X,Y)=(X_0,Y_0)$.
703: \end{corollary}
704: \begin{proof}
705: From (\ref{eq:48}) we get $\| \Pd_{XY}-\Pd_{X_0Y_0}\|\leq\eps_1$.
706: One can now find a joint distribution $\Pd_{XYX_0Y_0}$ with
707: $\Pr[(X,Y)=(X_0,Y_0)] \geq 1-\eps_1$. The corollary now follows by
708: applying $f_A$ and~$f_B$ from
709: Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre}.
710: \end{proof}
711:
712: Random variables~$S,T,U$ form a Markov chain,
713: written~$S\leftrightarrow T\leftrightarrow U$ if $\Pd_{STU} =
714: \Pd_{T}\Pd_{S|T}\Pd_{U|T}$ (i.e., if given~$T$ the probability
715: distribution of $U$ does not depend on~$S$). The following lemma is
716: essentially Lemma~4.1 in Raz's paper.
717:
718: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:locallyComputableMarkov}
719: Let~$\Pd_{XYST}$ be any distribution. If
720: \begin{align*}
721: S \leftrightarrow X \leftrightarrow YT
722: \intertext{and}
723: XS \leftrightarrow Y \leftrightarrow T
724: \end{align*}
725: then~$(X,Y)$ is $1$-embeddable in~$(XS,YT)$.
726: \end{lemma}
727: \begin{proof}
728: Using individual (non-shared) randomness, Alice computes~$S$
729: according to~$\Pd_{S|X=x}$ and Bob computes~$T$ according
730: to~$\Pd_{T|Y=y}$. Since
731: \begin{align}
732: \Pd_{STXY} = \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S|XY}\Pd_{T|SXY} = \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S|X}\Pd_{T|Y}
733: \end{align}
734: this gives the correct (global) distribution.
735: \end{proof}
736:
737:
738: \section{Embeddings for Games}
739: Given a game~$\mkG$ and its~$n$-fold parallel repetition, we now show
740: that $(X,Y)$ can be embedded into~$(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$,
741: where~$\Pd_{\Xtilde^n\Ytilde^n} := \Pd_{X^nY^n|W_{k+1}\land\dots\land W_n}$.
742:
743: We need the following simple fact on statistical distance.
744: \begin{fact}\label{fact:statdistsplit}
745: Let~$\Pd_{Z_0}$ and~$\Pd_{Z_1}$ be distributions over~$\cZ$.
746: Let $\cS \subseteq \cZ$ be such that $\Pr[Z_0 \in \cS] = \Pr[Z_1 \in
747: \cS] = \frac{1}{2}$.
748: Then,
749: \begin{align*}
750: \| \Pd_{Z_0|Z_0 \in \cS} - \Pd_{Z_1|Z_1\in\cS}\|
751: \leq
752: 2\| \Pd_{Z_0} - \Pd_{Z_1}\|\, .
753: \end{align*}
754: \end{fact}
755:
756: Also, we need the following statements about Markov chains.
757:
758: \begin{claim}\label{claim:hmm}
759: Let~$\Pd_{X_0 Y_0}\Pd_{X_1Y_1}$ be a distribution
760: over~$\cX_0\times\cY_0\times\cX_1\times\cY_1$, $f:
761: \cX_0\times\cX_1\rightarrow \cU$ and~$g:
762: \cY_0\times\cY_1\rightarrow\cV$ be arbitrary. Then,
763: \begin{align}\label{eq:22}
764: X_0 X_1 \leftrightarrow X_0 f(X_0,X_1) Y_1 g(Y_0,Y_1)
765: \leftrightarrow Y_0 Y_1.
766: \end{align}
767: \end{claim}
768: \begin{proof}
769: It is sufficient to show this for all possible values~$x_0\in\cX_0$
770: and~$y_1\in\cY_1$. Let~$\Pd_{\Ytilde_0\Xtilde_1} :=
771: \Pd_{Y_0X_1|X_0=x_0 Y_1=y_1} = \Pd_{Y_0|X_0=x_0}\Pd_{X_1|Y_1=y_1}$.
772: In this case, (\ref{eq:22}) reduces to
773: \begin{align*}
774: \Xtilde_1 \leftrightarrow
775: f(x_0,\Xtilde_1) g(\Ytilde_0,y_1)\leftrightarrow \Ytilde_0.
776: \end{align*}
777: Since $\Xtilde_1$ and~$\Ytilde_0$ are independent this is obvious.
778: \end{proof}
779:
780: \begin{claim}\label{claim:markovcondition}
781: Let~$\Pd_{TUV}$ be a distribution
782: over~$\cT\times\cU\times\cV$ and $W$ an event with
783: \begin{align*}
784: T &\leftrightarrow U \leftrightarrow V,\\
785: W &\leftrightarrow U \leftrightarrow TV.
786: \end{align*}
787: Then, for~$\Pd_{\Ttilde\Utilde\Vtilde} := \Pd_{TUV|W}$ we have
788: \begin{align*}
789: \Ttilde\leftrightarrow \Utilde \leftrightarrow \Vtilde.
790: \end{align*}
791: \end{claim}
792: \begin{proof}
793: \begin{align*}
794: \Pd_{\Ttilde\Utilde\Vtilde}(t,u,v) &= \Pd_{TUV|W}(t,u,v)\\
795: &=\Pd_{U|W}(u)\Pd_{TV|U=u,W}(t,v)\\
796: &=\Pd_{U|W}(u)\Pd_{TV|U=u}(t,v)\\
797: &=\Pd_{U|W}(u)\Pd_{T|U=u}(t)\Pd_{V|U=u}(v)\\
798: &=\Pd_{U|W}(u)\Pd_{T|U=u,W}(t)\Pd_{V|U=u,W}(v).\qedhere
799: \end{align*}
800: \end{proof}
801:
802: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:locallyComputableGame}
803: Let a game $\mkG^{ n}=(Q^n, (\Pd_{XY})^n)$, a
804: strategy $(h_a,h_b)$, and $k \leq n$ be given. Let
805: \begin{align*}
806: \Pd_{\Xtilde^n\Ytilde^n} :=
807: \Pd_{X^nY^n|W_{k+1}\land\dots\land W_n}
808: \end{align*}
809:
810: Then, for~$1 \leq j \leq k$, there exists~$\eps_j \geq 0$ such
811: that~$(X,Y)$ is~$1-\eps_j$-embeddable in~$(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$
812: with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$ and
813: \begin{align}
814: \sum_{j=1}^{k}
815: \eps_j \leq
816: 15\sqrt{k}\sqrt{(n-k)\log(|\cA|\,|\cB|)+
817: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{k+1}\land\dots\land W_n]}\Bigr)}.\label{eq:27}
818: \end{align}
819: \end{lemma}
820: \begin{proof}
821: As described in Definition~\ref{def:randomvars} we consider the
822: distribution~$\Pd_{X^nY^nA^nB^nW^n}$ and the corresponding random
823: variables. Additionally, we let~$D_{1}, \ldots, D_{k}$ be uniform
824: and independent bits. For~$1\leq j\leq k$ we define
825: \begin{align*}
826: U_j &:= \begin{cases}
827: X_j & \text{if $D_j = 0$}\\
828: Y_j & \text{otherwise}
829: \end{cases}\\
830: \intertext{and}
831: \Ubar_j &:= \begin{cases}
832: Y_j & \text{if $D_j = 0$}\\
833: X_j & \text{otherwise.}
834: \end{cases}
835: \end{align*}
836: Also, we set
837: \begin{align}
838: T &:= (X_{k+1},\ldots,X_{n}, Y_{k+1},\ldots,Y_n, D^k, \Ubar^k),\label{eq:44}\\
839: V &:= (A_{k+1},\ldots,A_{n},B_{k+1},\ldots,B_n),\label{eq:45}
840: \end{align}
841: and define the event~$W := W_{k+1}\land\dots \land W_n$.
842:
843: From Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} we get
844: \begin{align}
845: \sum_{j=1}^k
846: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T U_jV|W} -
847: \Pd_{T V|W}\Pd_{U_j|T} \Bigr\|
848: &\leq \eps_{\Tot}\label{eq:14}\,,
849: \end{align}
850: where we set \begin{align} \eps_{\Tot} := \sqrt{k}
851: \sqrt{(n-k)\log(|\cA||\cB|)+
852: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}
853: \end{align}
854: (we applied Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} using~$|\cV^*| \leq |\cV|$).
855:
856: In (\ref{eq:14}), we condition on both sides on the event~$D_j=0$,
857: which is, on both sides, a restriction on a subset which has
858: probability~$\frac{1}{2}$. Fact~\ref{fact:statdistsplit} implies
859: \begin{align}
860: \sum_{j=1}^k
861: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T U_jV|W \land (D_j=0)} -
862: \Pd_{T V|W\land (D_j=0)}\Pd_{U_j|T} \Bigr\|
863: &\leq 2\eps_{\Tot}\,,\label{eq:19}
864: \end{align}
865: where we do not need to condition on~$D_j=0$ in~$\Pd_{U_j|T}$ since
866: this is included in the given~$t$ anyhow; in fact we can now
867: write~$\Pd_{X_j|Y_j}$ instead of~$\Pd_{U_j|T}$.
868:
869: For a fixed~$j$, define the random variable
870: \begin{align}
871: T^\NoJ &:=
872: (X_{k+1},\ldots,X_{n}, Y_{k+1},\ldots,Y_n,\nonumber\\
873: &\qquad\qquad D_1,\ldots,D_{j-1},D_{j+1},\ldots,D_k, \nonumber\\
874: &\qquad\qquad\Ubar_1,\ldots,\Ubar_{j-1},\Ubar_{j+1},\ldots,\Ubar_{k}).
875: \end{align}
876: With this notation (\ref{eq:19}) is equivalent to
877: \begin{align}
878: \sum_{j=1}^k
879: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T^{\NoJ}X_j Y_j V|W \land (D_j=0)} -
880: \Pd_{T^{\NoJ} Y_j V|W \land (D_j=0)}\Pd_{X_j|Y_j} \Bigr\|
881: &\leq 2\eps_{\Tot}\,.
882: \end{align}
883: But now nothing depends on~$D_j = 0$ anymore, so this also means
884: \begin{align}\label{eq:4}
885: \sum_{j=1}^k
886: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T^{\NoJ} X_j Y_j V|W} -
887: \Pd_{T^{\NoJ} Y_j V|W}\Pd_{X_j|Y_j} \Bigr\|
888: &\leq 2\eps_{\Tot}\,.
889: \end{align}
890: We set~$S := (T^\NoJ,V)$ and define the probability distribution
891: \begin{align}
892: \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde^n \Ytilde^n} := \Pd_{S X^nY^n|W}.
893: \end{align}
894: With this, (\ref{eq:4}) becomes
895: \begin{align}
896: \sum_{j=1}^k
897: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
898: \Pd_{\Stilde \Ytilde_j}\Pd_{X_j|Y_j} \Bigr\|
899: &\leq 2\eps_{\Tot}\,,
900: \end{align}
901: or, equivalently
902: \begin{align}
903: \sum_{j=1}^k
904: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
905: \Pd_{\Ytilde_j}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Ytilde_j}\Pd_{X|Y} \Bigr\|
906: &\leq 2\eps_{\Tot}\,.
907: \end{align}
908: Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions} implies
909: \begin{align}
910: \sum_{j=1}^k
911: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Ytilde_j} - \Pd_{Y} \Bigl\| \leq \eps_{\Tot},
912: \end{align}
913: and thus
914: \begin{align}\label{eq:25}
915: \sum_{j=1}^k
916: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
917: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Ytilde_j} \Bigr\|
918: &\leq 3\eps_{\Tot}\,.
919: \end{align}
920: Symmetric reasoning yields
921: \begin{align}\label{eq:26}
922: \sum_{j=1}^k
923: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
924: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Xtilde_j} \Bigr\|
925: &\leq 3\eps_{\Tot}\,.
926: \end{align}
927: From~(\ref{eq:25}) and (\ref{eq:26}),
928: Corollary~\ref{cor:LocallyComputableCommonPart} implies that~$(X,Y)$
929: is $1-\eps_j$-embeddable in $(\Xtilde_j\Stilde,\Ytilde_j\Stilde)$
930: with $(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$ and such that $\sum_{j=1}^k
931: {\eps_j} \leq 15\eps_{\Tot}$.
932:
933: We next show that
934: \begin{align}\label{eq:28}
935: X^k \leftrightarrow T V \leftrightarrow Y^k.
936: \end{align}
937: If the bits~$D^k$ and the values $X_{k+1},\ldots,X_n$,
938: $Y_{k+1},\ldots,Y_n$ are fixed, this follows immediately from
939: Claim~\ref{claim:hmm}. Since it holds for all these values it must
940: also hold overall.
941:
942: From (\ref{eq:28}) we easily get
943: \begin{align*}
944: X^n \leftrightarrow X_j S \leftrightarrow
945: Y^n Y_j S\\
946: X^n X_j S \leftrightarrow Y_j S \leftrightarrow
947: Y^n.
948: \end{align*}
949: Claim~\ref{claim:markovcondition} yields
950: \begin{align}
951: \Xtilde^n \leftrightarrow \Xtilde_j \Stilde \leftrightarrow
952: \Ytilde^n\Ytilde_j\Stilde \label{eq:20}\\
953: \Xtilde^n\Xtilde_j\Stilde \leftrightarrow \Ytilde_j\Stilde \leftrightarrow
954: \Ytilde^n.\label{eq:21}
955: \end{align}
956:
957: Above we have seen that $(X,Y)$ is embeddable
958: in~$(\Xtilde_j\Stilde,\Ytilde_j\Stilde)$
959: with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$.
960: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableMarkov} together with (\ref{eq:20})
961: and (\ref{eq:21}) now implies that we can $1$-locally embed this in
962: $(\Xtilde^n\Xtilde_j\Stilde, \Ytilde^n\Ytilde_j\Stilde)$. Since
963: Alice and Bob can then ignore part of the constructed information
964: this completes the proof.
965: \end{proof}
966:
967: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:gameconditionedvalue}
968: Let a game~$\mkG=(Q,\Pd_{XY})$, its~$n$-fold
969: repetition~$\mkG^{n}$, and a strategy $(h_a,h_b)$
970: for~$\mkG^{n}$ be given. Let indices~$i_1,\ldots,i_m$ be
971: given. Then, there exists an index~$i_{m+1}$ such
972: that
973: \begin{align}\label{eq:3}
974: \Pr[W_{i_{m+1}} | &W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}] \nonumber \\
975: &\leq v(\mkG) +
976: 15\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{m\log(|\cA||\cB|) +
977: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]}\Bigr)}.
978: \end{align}
979: \end{lemma}
980: \begin{proof}
981: First, we can assume that the given indices $i_\ell$, $1\leq\ell\leq
982: m$, are pairwise different (otherwise we get a stronger statement).
983: Given this we can even assume that~$i_\ell = n-\ell+1$ by
984: appropriately redefining the functions~$(h_a,h_b)$.
985:
986: Define the distribution~$\Pd_{\Xtilde^n \Ytilde^n} := \Pd_{X^n Y^n|
987: W_{n-m+1}\land\cdots\land W_{n}}$.
988: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame} implies that there exists an
989: index $j$ such that~$(X,Y)$ is~$1-\eps$-embeddable
990: in~$(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$ with $(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$ and
991: \begin{align*}
992: \eps := 15\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{m\log(|\cA||\cB|)+
993: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{n-m+1}\land\dots\land W_{n}]}\Bigr)}.
994: \end{align*}
995: Consider the following strategy for~$\mkG$. On input~$(X,Y)$ Alice
996: and Bob~$1-\eps$-embed this into~$(\Xtilde^n,\Ytilde^n)$
997: with~$(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$. Since the resulting
998: distribution has statistical distance at most~$\eps$
999: from~$\Pd_{\Xtilde^n \Ytilde^n}$, if they output coordinate~$j$
1000: of~$h_a(\Xtilde^n)$ and~$h_b(\Ytilde^n)$ they have probability at
1001: least~$\Pr[W_j | W_{n-m+1}\land\dots\land W_{n}]-\eps$ to win the
1002: initial game. The shared randomness can be eliminated (see the
1003: remark after Definition~\ref{def:game}), and thus
1004: \begin{align*}
1005: v(\mkG) &\geq \Pr[W_j | W_{n-m+1}\land\dots\land
1006: W_{n}]-\eps.\qedhere
1007: \end{align*}
1008: \end{proof}
1009:
1010:
1011: \section{Parallel Repetition Theorem}
1012: \begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local})]
1013: Fix a strategy~$(h_a,h_b)$ for~$\mkG^n$. Then, repeatedly choose
1014: the index~$i_{m+1}$ for which~$\Pr[W_{i_{m+1}}|W_{i_1}\land \dots
1015: \land W_{i_{m}}]$ is minimized. We set $p_0 := 1$ and $p_m :=
1016: \Pr[W_{i_1}\land \dots \land W_{i_{m}}]$.
1017: Lemma~\ref{lem:gameconditionedvalue} implies
1018: \begin{align}
1019: p_{m+1} \leq p_{m} \cdot \biggl(v+15\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{m\log(|\cA||\cB|) +
1020: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{p_{m}}\Bigr)}\biggr).\label{eq:33}
1021: \end{align}
1022: We show per induction that
1023: \begin{align*}
1024: p_m \leq \Bigl(\frac{1+v}{2}\Bigr)^{m},
1025: \end{align*}
1026: as long as $m \leq \frac{(1-v)^2 (n-m)}{2700\log(|\cA||\cB|)}$. The
1027: statement holds for~$m=0$ and we now make a step from~$m$ to~$m+1$.
1028: First, we can assume that~$p_{m} \geq
1029: \bigl(\frac{1+v}{2}\bigr)^{m+1} > \frac{1}{2}^{m+1}$, as otherwise
1030: the induction step is trivial. In this case, \eqref{eq:33} yields
1031: \begin{align}
1032: p_{m+1}
1033: &\leq
1034: p_{m} \cdot \biggl(v+15\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{m\log(|\cA||\cB|) +
1035: (m+1)}\biggr)\nonumber\\
1036: & \leq
1037: p_{m} \cdot \biggl(v+\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{675 m\log(|\cA||\cB|)}\biggr)\label{eq:35}
1038: \end{align}
1039: Since we assume~$m \leq \frac{(1-v)^2}{2700
1040: \log(|\cA||\cB|)}(n-m)$ this proves the induction step.
1041:
1042: In total we get for~$m = \frac{n(1-v)^2}{3000\log(|\cA||\cB|)}$
1043: \begin{align}\label{eq:38}
1044: p_{m} \leq \Bigl(\frac{1+v}{2}\Bigr)^\frac{n(1-v)^2}{3000\log(|\cA||\cB|)}.
1045: \end{align}
1046: We have
1047: \begin{align}
1048: \Bigl(\frac{1+v}{2}\Bigr)^{\frac{(1-v)^2}{3000}}
1049: &= \Bigl(1-\frac{1-v}{2}\Bigr)^{\frac{(1-v)^2}{3000}} \nonumber\\
1050: &\leq 1-\frac{(1-v)^3}{6000},\label{eq:39}
1051: \end{align}
1052: where the last inequality follows from
1053: $(1-b)^a \leq 1-ab$ which holds for all $a \in [0,1]$, $b\leq1$. %%
1054: %%Formelbuch s. 50 oben
1055: Since~$\Pr[W_1\land\dots\land W_n] \leq p_m$, (\ref{eq:38}) and
1056: (\ref{eq:39}) imply the theorem.\footnote{The minimal value of the
1057: sequence defined by $p_0 := 1$ and $p_{m+1} := p_m
1058: \bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{225}{n-m}}\sqrt{m \ell + \log(1/p_m)}\bigr)$
1059: is indeed $\Bigl(1-\Theta((1-v)^3)\Bigr)^{\frac{n}{\ell}}$. The
1060: argument in the proof above shows that the minimal value can
1061: only be lower. On the other hand, the sequence given by $p'_0 := 1$,
1062: $p'_{m+1} := p'_m\Bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{m\ell}{n}}\Bigr)$
1063: is strictly smaller than the sequence $\{p_j\}_{j\geq0}$. This
1064: sequence does not decrease anymore if~$m > m ' := n(1 - v)^2
1065: /\ell$, and
1066: \begin{align*}
1067: p'_{m'} &= \prod_{i=0}^{m'-1} \Bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{i\ell}{n}}\Bigr)
1068: =
1069: \exp\left(\sum_{i=0}^{m'-1} \ln\Bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{i\ell}{n}}\Bigr)\right)\\
1070: &\approx
1071: \exp\left(\int_{0}^{m'} \ln\Bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{i\ell}{n}}\Bigr)\right)
1072: =
1073: \exp\Bigl((4v-1+2v^2 \ln(v) -
1074: 3v^2)\cdot\frac{n}{2\ell}\Bigr)
1075: \approx
1076: \Bigl(1-\frac{(1-v)^3}{2}\Bigr)^{\frac{3n}{4\ell}}.
1077: \end{align*}}
1078: \end{proof}
1079:
1080: \section{Improving the Rate}\label{sec:reducingtheexponent}
1081:
1082: Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local} shows that the~$n$-fold parallel repetition
1083: reduces the winning probability from~$v(\mkG)$ to
1084: $(1-\Theta(1-v(\mkG))^3)^{\Omega(\frac{n}{\log(|\cA||\cB|)})}$. As
1085: shown in \cite{PaRaWi97}, the term~$|\cA|\cdot|\cB|$ in the exponent
1086: can be reduced to the the maximum (over~$x$, $y$) number of
1087: (fractional) rectangles needed to cover the $1$-entries
1088: in~$Q(x,y,\cdot,\cdot)$. Here, we show that it can be reduced to a
1089: quantity which is possibly smaller in some cases.
1090:
1091: \begin{definition}[Exact Fractional Product Cover]
1092: Let~$Q: \cA\times\cB\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ be an arbitrary predicate.
1093: Two functions $f: \cA \times \{1,\ldots,\alpha\} \rightarrow [0,1]$
1094: and~$g: \cB\times \{1,\ldots,\alpha\}\rightarrow [0,1]$ form an
1095: \emph{exact fractional product cover of size~$\alpha$} for~$Q$ if for
1096: all~$a,b$:
1097: \begin{align*}
1098: Q(a,b) = \sum_{i=1}^\alpha f(a,i)g(b,i).
1099: \end{align*}
1100: \end{definition}
1101:
1102: Clearly, any partition by rectangles gives an exact fractional
1103: product cover (by definining $f(a,i)$ and~$g(b,i)$ as appropriate
1104: predicates). We will prove the following strengthening of
1105: Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local}.
1106: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:pr_local_strengthened}
1107: Let~$\mkG = (\Pd_{XY},Q)$ be a game. Let~$\alpha$ be such that for
1108: all~$(x,y)$ there exists an exact fractional product cover of size~$\alpha$
1109: for~$Q_{x,y}(a,b) := Q(x,y,a,b)$.
1110: If~$\alpha > 1$ then
1111: \begin{align}
1112: v(\mkG^{ n}) \leq
1113: \Bigl(1-\frac{(1-v)^3}{6000}\Bigr)^{\frac{n}{\log(\alpha)}},\label{eq:23}
1114: \end{align}
1115: and if~$\alpha = 1$ then
1116: \begin{align}
1117: v(\mkG^{ n}) \leq
1118: \Bigl(1-\frac{(1-v)^2}{6000}\Bigr)^{n}.\label{eq:24}
1119: \end{align}
1120: \end{theorem}
1121:
1122: To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local_strengthened} we first need a
1123: characterization of fractional product covers by Markov chains.
1124:
1125: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:fractionalCovEq}
1126: Let a distribution $\Pd_{ABZ}=\Pd_{A}\Pd_{B}\Pd_{Z|AB}$ be given for which
1127: there exists functions $f(a,z): \cA\times\cZ \rightarrow [0,1]$
1128: and~$g(b,z): \cB\times\cZ\rightarrow[0,1]$ which satisfy
1129: \begin{align}\label{eq:9}
1130: \Pd_{Z|A=a B=b}(z) = f(a,z)\cdot g(b,z).
1131: \end{align}
1132: Then, $A\leftrightarrow Z \leftrightarrow B$.
1133: \end{lemma}
1134: Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq} could be strengthened as follows: if
1135: $\Pd_{Z|AB}$ is such that $A\leftrightarrow Z\leftrightarrow B$ for
1136: all distributions $\Pd_{A}\Pd_{B}$, then $\Pd_{Z|AB}$ is of the form
1137: (\ref{eq:9}) for some functions $f$ and~$g$. For completeness, we
1138: prove this in Appendix~\ref{app:fractEquivalence}.
1139:
1140: Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq} implies the following: if~$Q:
1141: \cA\times\cB \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ has a fractional product cover of
1142: size~$\alpha$, then there exists a random variable~$Z$ over some
1143: set~$\cZ$ given by a conditional distribution~$\Pd_{Z|AB}$ with the
1144: following properties:
1145: \begin{itemize}
1146: \item For any product distribution~$\Pd_{AB}=\Pd_{A}\Pd_{B}$ we
1147: have~$A \leftrightarrow Z \leftrightarrow B$
1148: \item $|\{z \in \cZ|\exists a,b: Q(a,b)=1 \land \Pd_{Z|A=aB=b}(z) >
1149: 0\}| \leq \alpha$
1150: \item $Q(a,b)$ can be inferred from~$z$.
1151: \end{itemize}
1152: (Note that we do not restrict the alphabet size of~$Z$ in
1153: case~$Q(a,b)=0$, which means that in this case $z$ can be, for example,
1154: $(a,b)$.)
1155:
1156: \begin{proof}[Proof (of Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq})]
1157: We get
1158: \begin{align*}
1159: \Pd_{A|B=b Z=z}(a)
1160: &=
1161: \frac{\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b,z)}{\Pd_{BZ}(b,z)}\\
1162: &=
1163: \frac{\Pd_{A}(a)\Pd_{B}(b)f(a,z)g(b,z)}
1164: {\sum_{a'}\Pd_{B}(b)\Pd_{A}(a')f(a',z)g(b,z)}\\
1165: &=
1166: \frac{\Pd_{A}(a)f(a,z)}
1167: {\sum_{a'}\Pd_{A}(a')f(a',z)}\\
1168: &=\frac{\sum_{b'} \Pd_{A}(a)\Pd_{B}(b')f(a,z)g(b',z)}
1169: {\sum_{a',b'}\Pd_{A}(a')\Pd_{B}(b')f(a',z)g(b',z)}\\
1170: &=\frac{\Pd_{AZ}(a,z)}{\Pd_{Z}(z)}\\
1171: &=\Pd_{A|Z=z}(a),
1172: \end{align*}
1173: and thus $\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b,z) = \Pd_{Z}(z)\Pd_{B|Z=z}(b)
1174: \Pd_{A|B=bZ=z}(a) =
1175: \Pd_{Z}(z)\Pd_{B|Z=z}(b)
1176: \Pd_{A|Z=z}(a)$, which means that $A\leftrightarrow
1177: Z \leftrightarrow B$.
1178: \end{proof}
1179:
1180: Given the characterization from Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq} we can
1181: now prove Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local_strengthened}.
1182:
1183: \begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local_strengthened})]
1184: We first show that Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame} still holds
1185: if we replace (\ref{eq:27}) by
1186: \begin{align}
1187: \sum_{j=1}^{k}
1188: \eps_j \leq
1189: 15\sqrt{k}\sqrt{(n-k)\log(\alpha)+
1190: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{k+1}\land\dots\land W_n]}\Bigr)}.\label{eq:34}
1191: \end{align}
1192:
1193: For this, we define the random variables~$D^k$, $U^k$, $\Ubar^k$,
1194: and $T$ exactly as in the proof of
1195: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame}. Instead of (\ref{eq:45}) we
1196: now define
1197: \begin{align}
1198: V := (Z_{k+1},\ldots,Z_{n}),
1199: \end{align}
1200: where $Z_i$ is obtained from $(A_i,B_i,X_i,Y_i)$ by a channel that
1201: has alphabet size at most~$\alpha$ in case~$W_i$, which ensures $A_i
1202: \leftrightarrow X_iY_iZ_i\leftrightarrow B_i$ in case $A_i$
1203: and~$B_i$ are independent, and for which $W_i$ can be inferred from
1204: $(X_i,Y_i,Z_i)$. The existence of such a random variable is ensured
1205: by Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq} and the fact that for
1206: every~$(x,y)$ there exists a exact fractional product cover of
1207: size~$\alpha$ for~$Q(x,y,\cdot,\cdot)$ (the alphabet size of~$Z$ in
1208: case $Q(x,y,a,b)=0$ is irrelevant and $Z$ can be defined, for
1209: example, as~$(A,B)$ in this case).
1210:
1211: From Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} we now get
1212: \begin{align}
1213: \sum_{j=1}^k
1214: \Bigl\| \Pd_{T U_jV|W} -
1215: \Pd_{T V|W}\Pd_{U_j|T} \Bigr\|
1216: &\leq \eps_{\Tot}\label{eq:14b}\,,
1217: \end{align}
1218: where we set
1219: \begin{align} \eps_{\Tot} := \sqrt{k}
1220: \sqrt{(n-k)\log(\alpha)+
1221: \log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}.
1222: \end{align}
1223:
1224: For a fixed~$j$ we define $T^\NoJ$ as in the proof of
1225: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame} and obtain in exactly the same
1226: way for $S := (T^\NoJ,V)$ and
1227: \begin{align}
1228: \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde^n \Ytilde^n} := \Pd_{S X^nY^n|W}
1229: \end{align}
1230: the equations
1231: \begin{align}
1232: \sum_{j=1}^k
1233: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
1234: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Ytilde_j} \Bigr\|
1235: &\leq 3\eps_{\Tot}
1236: \end{align}
1237: and
1238: \begin{align}
1239: \sum_{j=1}^k
1240: \Bigl\| \Pd_{\Stilde \Xtilde_j \Ytilde_j} -
1241: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{\Stilde|\Xtilde_j} \Bigr\|
1242: &\leq 3\eps_{\Tot}\,.
1243: \end{align}
1244: Again,
1245: Corollary~\ref{cor:LocallyComputableCommonPart} implies that~$(X,Y)$
1246: is $1-\eps_j$-embeddable in $(\Xtilde_j\Stilde,\Ytilde_j\Stilde)$
1247: with $(\Xtilde_j,\Ytilde_j)=(X,Y)$ and such that $\sum_{j=1}^k
1248: {\eps_j} \leq 15\eps_{\Tot}$.
1249:
1250: Again we get
1251: \begin{align}
1252: X^k \leftrightarrow T V \leftrightarrow Y^k,
1253: \end{align}
1254: now using the properties of the~$Z_i$. (This is done as follows:
1255: clearly, $X^k \leftrightarrow T \leftrightarrow Y^k$, i.e. for a
1256: fixed values~$t$ for~$T$ the $X^k$ and $Y^k$ are independent. Now,
1257: inductively adding $Z_i$ will not change this in any step.)
1258: Claim~\ref{claim:markovcondition} now yields
1259: \begin{align}
1260: \Xtilde^n \leftrightarrow \Xtilde_j \Stilde \leftrightarrow
1261: \Ytilde^n\Ytilde_j\Stilde \label{eq:42}\\
1262: \Xtilde^n\Xtilde_j\Stilde \leftrightarrow \Ytilde_j\Stilde \leftrightarrow
1263: \Ytilde^n,\label{eq:43}
1264: \end{align}
1265: and Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableMarkov} completes the proof that
1266: (\ref{eq:34}) can replace (\ref{eq:27}) in
1267: Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame}.
1268:
1269: From Lemma~\ref{lem:locallyComputableGame} where (\ref{eq:27}) is
1270: replaced by~(\ref{eq:34}) we obtain~(\ref{eq:23}) exactly as in the
1271: proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local}. To get~(\ref{eq:24}) we note
1272: first that in this case (\ref{eq:34}) reduces to
1273: \begin{align}\label{eq:46}
1274: \sum_{j=1}^{k}
1275: \eps_j \leq
1276: 15\sqrt{k}\sqrt{\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{k+1}\land\dots\land W_n]}\Bigr)}.
1277: \end{align}
1278: Using an analogous definition for~$p_m$ as previously, we get
1279: \begin{align}\label{eq:6}
1280: p_{m+1} \leq p_{m} \cdot
1281: \Bigl(v+15\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{p_{m}}\Bigr)}\Bigr).
1282: \end{align}
1283: Here, we show per induction that $p_m \leq (\frac{1+v}2)^m$ as long as
1284: $m+1 \leq \frac{(n-m)(1-v)}{400}$. To make a step from~$m$ to~$m+1$
1285: we can assume~$p_m \geq (\frac{1+v}2)^{m+1}$, which implies $p_m
1286: \geq 2^{-(1-v)(m+1)}$ (since $(1-\frac12)^{1-v} \leq
1287: 1-\frac{1-v}{2}$, see inequality below), which means that
1288: \begin{align}
1289: p_{m+1} &\leq p_{m}
1290: \cdot\Bigl(v+\sqrt{\frac{225(m+1)(1-v)}{n-m}}\Bigr),
1291: \end{align}
1292: for relevant values of~$m$. If $m+1 \leq \frac{(n-m)(1-v)}{900}$
1293: this implies the hypothesis. We thus get for~$m =
1294: \frac{n(1-v)}{1800}$
1295: \begin{align*}
1296: p_m &\leq
1297: \Bigl(\frac{1+v}{2}\Bigr)^{\frac{n(1-v)}{1800}}.
1298: \end{align*}
1299: Finally,
1300: $(\frac{1+v}{2})^{(1-v)/1800} = (1-\frac{(1-v)}{2})^{(1-v)/1800}
1301: \leq 1-\frac{(1-v)^2}{3600}$,
1302: again using $(1-b)^a\leq 1-ab$ for $a\in[0,1]$, $b\leq
1303: 1$.\footnote{Note that in case $p_m \leq
1304: \Bigl(1-\Theta((1-v)^2)\Bigr)^{n}$ equation~(\ref{eq:6})
1305: only implies $p_{m+1} \leq
1306: p_m (v + 15\sqrt{-\log(1-\Theta((1-v)^2))}) =
1307: p_m (v + 15\sqrt{\Theta((1-v)^2)}) =
1308: p_m (v + 1-v) = p_m$,
1309: and thus (\ref{eq:6}) cannot be
1310: used to get a significantly stronger version of the theorem.}
1311: \end{proof}
1312:
1313: \section{No-signaling Strategies}\label{sec:nosignal}
1314:
1315: No-signaling strategies are those where the only restriction on the
1316: response of Alice and Bob is that they do not \emph{imply}
1317: communication.
1318:
1319: \begin{definition}[No-signaling]
1320: A pair~$(h_a,h_b)$ of functions is \emph{no-signaling} if~$h_a:
1321: \cX\times\cY\times\cR \rightarrow \cA$ and~$h_b:
1322: \cX\times\cY\times\cR\rightarrow\cB$ satisfy
1323: \begin{align*}
1324: \Pr_{R}[h_a(x,y,R)] &= \Pr_R[h_a(x,y',R)]\\
1325: \Pr_{R}[h_b(x,y,R)] &= \Pr_R[h_b(x',y,R)],
1326: \end{align*}
1327: for all $x,x',y,y'$.
1328: \end{definition}
1329: \begin{definition}[No-signaling value]
1330: The no-signaling value $\vns(\mkG)$ of a
1331: \emph{game~$\mkG=(\Pd_{XY},Q)$
1332: over~$\cX\times\cY\times\cA\times\cB$} is
1333: \begin{align*}
1334: \vns(\mkG) := \max \Pr_{XYR}[Q(X,Y,h_a(X,Y,R),h_b(X,Y,R))],
1335: \end{align*}
1336: where the maximum is over all no-signaling functions $(h_a,h_b)$.
1337: \end{definition}
1338: Clearly,~$v(\mkG) \leq \vns(\mkG)$, since any local strategy is a
1339: no-signaling strategy. We further note that for no-signaling
1340: strategies $\vns(\mkG^2) > (\vns(\mkG))^2$ is also possible, similar to
1341: the local case (see Appendix~\ref{app:nontriviality}).
1342:
1343: We will prove the following Theorem:
1344: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:pr_nosignaling}
1345: For any game~$\mkG$ with no-signaling value~$\vns := \vns(\mkG)$ and any
1346: integer~$n$:
1347: \begin{align}\label{eq:7}
1348: \vns(\mkG^n) \leq
1349: \Bigl(1-\frac{(1-\vns)^2}{6400}\Bigr)^{n}. %%
1350: \end{align}
1351: \end{theorem}
1352: We remark that the proof of this theorem will be much simpler than the
1353: proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local}.
1354:
1355: We first show that if $\Pd_{XYST}$ a distribution which is close to
1356: no-signalling (i.e., $\|\Pd_{XYS} - \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S|X}\|$ and
1357: $\Pd_{XYT}-\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S|Y}$) then there exists a no-signalling
1358: strategy which produces value which are statistically close to~$S$
1359: and~$T$ from~$X$ and~$Y$.
1360:
1361: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:no-signaling-close-helper}
1362: Let~$\Pd_{ST}$, $\Pd_{S'}$ be arbitrary distributions
1363: over~$\cS\times\cT$ and~$\cS$,~$\cS$ and~$\cT$ finite.
1364: Then, there exists a distribution~$\Pd_{\Sbar\,\Tbar}$ such that
1365: \begin{align}
1366: \| \Pd_{\Sbar\,\Tbar} - \Pd_{ST} \| &\leq \| \Pd_{S'} - \Pd_{S} \|\label{eq:30}\\
1367: \| \Pd_{\Sbar} - \Pd_{S'}\| &= 0\label{eq:31}\\
1368: \| \Pd_{\Tbar} - \Pd_{T} \| &= 0.\label{eq:32}
1369: \end{align}
1370: \end{lemma}
1371: \begin{proof}
1372: We change~$\Pd_{ST}$ gradually to~$\Pd_{\Sbar\,\Tbar}$
1373: such that in the end~(\ref{eq:31}) and (\ref{eq:32}) hold.
1374:
1375: For this, fix values~$s_0$ and~$s_1$ with
1376: \begin{align}\label{eq:18}
1377: \Pd_{S}(s_0) < \Pd_{S'}(s_0) \text{ and }
1378: \Pd_{S}(s_1) > \Pd_{S'}(s_1).
1379: \end{align}
1380: Then, as long as~(\ref{eq:18}) holds find a value~$t$ for
1381: which~$\Pd_{ST}(s_1,t) > 0$. Decrease $\Pd_{ST}(s_1,t)$ by~$\eps$
1382: and increase $\Pd_{ST}(s_0,t)$ by $\eps$, such that afterwards
1383: $\Pd_{ST}(s_1,t) = 0$ or (\ref{eq:18}) does not hold anymore
1384: for~$s_0$, $s_1$. After a finite number of repetitions (\ref{eq:18})
1385: is not true anymore, and we start the process over again with new
1386: values for~$s_0,s_1$. However, this can also only happen a finite
1387: number of times, thus the process terminates.
1388:
1389: If~(\ref{eq:18}) cannot be satisfied then clearly~(\ref{eq:31})
1390: holds. We never change~$\Pd_{T}(t)$ for any~$t$ which
1391: implies~(\ref{eq:32}). Finally, (\ref{eq:30}) is ensured by the
1392: fact that we only decrease~$\|\Pd_{S'}-\Pd_{S}\|$ and do not change
1393: $\Pd_{ST}$ more than~$\Pd_{S}$.
1394: \end{proof}
1395:
1396: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:nosignalingclose}
1397: Let~$\Pd_{X_0Y_0}$ and $\Pd_{XYST}$ be arbitrary distributions. If
1398: \begin{align}
1399: \| \Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{S|X} - \Pd_{XYS} \| \leq \eps_1,\\
1400: \| \Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{T|Y} - \Pd_{XYT} \| \leq \eps_2,
1401: \end{align}
1402: then there exists a conditional
1403: distribution~$\Pd_{S'T'|X'=xY'=y}$ with $\Pd_{S'|X'=x Y'=y} =
1404: \Pd_{S'|X'=x}$ and $\Pd_{T'|X'=xY'=y} = \Pd_{T'|Y'=y}$ such
1405: that
1406: \begin{align}
1407: \| \Pd_{X_0Y_0}\Pd_{S'T'|XY} - \Pd_{XYST} \| \leq 3\eps_1 + 2\eps_2.
1408: \end{align}
1409: \end{lemma}
1410: \begin{proof}
1411: For fixed~$x,y$ we define~$\Pd_{S_0T_0|X=xY=y}$ using
1412: Lemma~\ref{lem:no-signaling-close-helper} with the following properties:
1413: \begin{align*}
1414: \|\Pd_{S_0T_0|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{ST|X=xY=y}\|&\leq\|\Pd_{S|X=x}-\Pd_{S|X=xY=y}\|\\
1415: \|\Pd_{S_0|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{S|X=x}\| & = 0\\
1416: \|\Pd_{T_0|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{T|X=xY=y}\| &= 0.
1417: \end{align*}
1418: Then, again using Lemma~\ref{lem:no-signaling-close-helper} we
1419: define $\Pd_{S'T'|X=xY=y}$ such that
1420: \begin{align*}
1421: \|\Pd_{S'T'|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{S_0T_0|X=xY=y}\| &\leq
1422: \|\Pd_{T_0|Y=y}-\Pd_{T_0|X=xY=y}\|\\
1423: \|\Pd_{T'|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{T_0|Y=y}\| &= 0\\
1424: \|\Pd_{S'|X=xY=y}-\Pd_{S_0|X=xY=y}\| & = 0.
1425: \end{align*}
1426: We see that for all pairs~$x,y$ we have $\Pd_{S'|X=xY=y} =
1427: \Pd_{S'|X=x}$ and $\Pd_{T'|X=xY=y}=\Pd_{T'|Y=y}$.
1428:
1429: We further get
1430: \begin{align*}
1431: \|\Pd_{X_0Y_0}& \Pd_{S'T'|XY}-\Pd_{XYST}\| \\
1432: &\leq
1433: \eps_1+\|\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S'T'|XY} - \Pd_{XYST}\|\\
1434: &=
1435: \eps_1+\sum_{x,y,s,t} \bigl|\Pd_{XY}(x,y)\Pd_{S'T'|X=xY=y}(s,t)
1436: - \Pd_{XY}(x,y)\Pd_{ST|X=xY=y}(s,t) \bigr|\\
1437: &\leq
1438: \eps_1+\sum_{x,y}\Pd_{XY}(x,y)\Bigl( \| \Pd_{S|X=x}-\Pd_{S|X=xY=y}\| +
1439: \|\Pd_{T|Y=y}-\Pd_{T|X=xY=y}\|\Bigr)\\
1440: &\leq
1441: \eps_1+\|\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{S|X}-\Pd_{SXY}\| +
1442: \|\Pd_{XY}\Pd_{T|Y}-\Pd_{TXY}\|\\
1443: &\leq
1444: 3\eps_1+2\eps_2.\qedhere
1445: \end{align*}
1446: \end{proof}
1447:
1448: We can now prove a non-signaling analogue of
1449: Lemma~\ref{lem:gameconditionedvalue}.\footnote{A previous version of
1450: the proof of this lemma contained an error, which was first noticed
1451: by Oded Regev and Ricky Rosen.}
1452: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:ns_gameconditionedvalue}
1453: Let a game~$\mkG=(Q,\Pd_{XY})$, its~$n$-fold repetition~$\mkG^{n}$,
1454: and a no-signaling strategy $(h_a,h_b)$ for~$\mkG^{n}$ be given. Let
1455: indices~$i_1,\ldots,i_m$ be given. Then, there exists an
1456: index~$i_{m+1}$ such that
1457: \begin{align}
1458: \Pr[W_{i_{m+1}} | &W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}] \nonumber \\
1459: &\leq \vns(\mkG) +
1460: 10\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}}\sqrt{\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]}\Bigr)}.
1461: \end{align}
1462: \end{lemma}
1463: \begin{proof}
1464: As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:gameconditionedvalue} we assume
1465: that $i_\ell = n-\ell+1$ and we define~$W :=
1466: W_{n-m+1}\land\dots\land W_{n}$. The no-signaling property of
1467: $(h_a, h_b)$ implies $\Pd_{X^nY^nA^n} =
1468: \Pd_{X^n}\Pd_{Y^n|X^n}\Pd_{A^n | X^n} = \Pd_{A^nX^n}\Pd_{Y^n|X^n}$.
1469: Thus, when we apply Corollary~\ref{cor:disjointreps} on this
1470: distribution (with the event~$W$ and the random variables $T=(X^n,
1471: A^n)$ and $U_j = Y_j$) we get
1472: \begin{align*}
1473: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}\Bigl\| \Pd_{X^nA^nY_j|W} -
1474: \Pd_{X^nA^n|W}\Pd_{Y_j|X_j}\Bigr\| &=
1475: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}\Bigl\| \Pd_{T Y_j|W} - \Pd_{T|W}\Pd_{Y_j|T} \Bigr\|\\
1476: &\leq \sqrt{(n-m)\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}.
1477: \end{align*}
1478: Taking appropriate marginals this gives
1479: \begin{align*}
1480: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}\Bigl\| \Pd_{X_jY_jA_j|W} -
1481: \Pd_{X_jA_j|W}\Pd_{Y_j|X_j}\Bigr\|
1482: \leq \sqrt{(n-m)\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}.
1483: \end{align*}
1484: Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:basicrepetitions} once more and rearranging
1485: we get
1486: \begin{align}\label{eq:15}
1487: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}\Bigl\| \Pd_{X_jY_jA_j|W} -
1488: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{A_j|X_j W}\Bigr\|
1489: \leq 2\sqrt{(n-m)\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)}.
1490: \end{align}
1491: Symmetrically, we obtain
1492: \begin{align}\label{eq:11}
1493: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m} \Bigl\|
1494: \Pd_{X_j Y_j B_j|W} -
1495: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{B_j|Y_j W}
1496: \Bigr\| \leq
1497: 2\sqrt{(n-m)\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr) }.
1498: \end{align}
1499: From (\ref{eq:15}), (\ref{eq:11}), and
1500: Lemma~\ref{lem:nosignalingclose} we get that there exists a
1501: distribution $\Pd_{A_j'B_j'|XY}$ which can be implemented by
1502: no-signaling functions and for which
1503: \begin{align*}
1504: \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}
1505: \Bigl\|
1506: \Pd_{XY}\Pd_{A_j'B_j'|XY} -
1507: \Pd_{X_jY_jA_jB_j|W}
1508: \Bigr\| \leq 10
1509: \sqrt{(n-m)\Bigl(\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{\Pr[W]}\Bigr)\Bigr)}
1510: .
1511: \end{align*}
1512: Thus, if Alice and Bob use the strategy implied by~$\Pd_{A_j'B_j'|XY}$
1513: (which is no-signaling) they can win the initial game with
1514: probability $\Pr[W_j|W] - 10\sqrt{1/(n-m)}\sqrt{\log(1/\Pr[W])}$ for
1515: some~$j$, which implies the lemma.
1516: \end{proof}
1517:
1518: \begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_nosignaling})]
1519: Fix a no-signaling strategy~$(h_a,h_b)$ for~$\mkG$. As in the proof
1520: of Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local} we repeatedly select indices~$i_{m+1}$
1521: such that~$\Pr[W_{i_{m+1}}|W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]$ is
1522: minimized. Let~$p_m := \Pr[W_{i_1}\land\dots\land W_{i_m}]$.
1523: Lemma~\ref{lem:ns_gameconditionedvalue} implies
1524: \begin{align}\label{eq:36}
1525: p_{m+1} \leq p_{m} \cdot
1526: \Bigl(v+10\sqrt{\frac{1}{n-m}\log\Bigl(\frac{1}{p_{m}}\Bigr)}\Bigr).
1527: \end{align}
1528: From (\ref{eq:36}) we obtain (\ref{eq:7}) in the same way as we
1529: obtained (\ref{eq:24}) from (\ref{eq:6}) in the proof of
1530: Theorem~\ref{thm:pr_local_strengthened}.
1531: \end{proof}
1532:
1533: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1534: I would like to thank Paul Beame, Georges Baatz, Ryan O'Donnell, Johan
1535: H\aa{}stad, Bartosz Przydatek, Anup Rao, Ran Raz, Renato Renner, Ricky
1536: Rosen, Stefano Tessaro, Stefan Wolf, and J\"urg Wullschleger for
1537: helpful discussions. Paul Beame pointed out \cite{PaRaWi97} to me and
1538: explained how the strengthening given there can be adapted to the
1539: proof given here; he also simplified an argument in a previous version
1540: of this paper. Anup Rao simplified an argument in the proof of
1541: Lemma~\ref{lem:LocallyComputableCommonPartPre}. Oded Regev and Ricky
1542: Rosen found an error in a previous version of the proof of
1543: Lemma~\ref{lem:ns_gameconditionedvalue}. I was supported by the Swiss
1544: National Science Foundation, project no.~200020-103847/1.
1545:
1546: {
1547: \footnotesize
1548: \begin{thebibliography}{BOGKW88}
1549:
1550: \bibitem[BBT05]{BrBrTa05}
1551: Gilles Brassard, Anne Broadbent, and Alain Tapp.
1552: \newblock Quantum pseudo-telepathy.
1553: \newblock {\em Foundations of Physics}, 35(11):1877--1907, 2005.
1554: \newblock (quant-ph/0407221).
1555:
1556: \bibitem[Bea06]{Beame06}
1557: Paul Beame.
1558: \newblock Personal communication, 2006.
1559:
1560: \bibitem[BOGKW88]{BGKW88}
1561: Michael Ben-Or, Shafi Goldwasser, Joe Kilian, and Avi Wigderson.
1562: \newblock Multi-prover interactive proofs: How to remove intractability
1563: assumptions.
1564: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory
1565: of Computing}, pages 113--132, 1988.
1566:
1567: \bibitem[CCL92]{CaCoLi92}
1568: {Jin-yi} Cai, Anne Condon, and Richard~J. Lipton.
1569: \newblock On games of incomplete information.
1570: \newblock {\em Theoretical Computer Science}, 103(1):25--38, 1992.
1571:
1572: \bibitem[CHSH69]{CHSH69}
1573: John~F. Clauser, Michael~A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard~A. Holt.
1574: \newblock Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.
1575: \newblock {\em Physical Review Letters}, 23(15):880--884, 1969.
1576:
1577: \bibitem[Cir80]{Cirels80}
1578: Boris~S. Cirel'son.
1579: \newblock Quantum generalizations of {B}ell's inequality.
1580: \newblock {\em Letters in Mathematical Physics}, 4(2):93--100, 1980.
1581:
1582: \bibitem[CSUU06]{CSUU06}
1583: Richard Cleve, William Slofstra, Falk Unger, and Sarvagya Upadhyay.
1584: \newblock Strong parallel repetition theorem for quantum {XOR} proof systems,
1585: 2006.
1586: \newblock (quant-ph/0608146).
1587:
1588: \bibitem[CT91]{CovTho91}
1589: Thomas~M. Cover and Joy~A. Thomas.
1590: \newblock {\em Elements of Information Theory}.
1591: \newblock John Wiley~\& Sons,~Inc., first edition, 1991.
1592: \newblock ISBN 0-471-06259-6.
1593:
1594: \bibitem[Fei91]{Feige91}
1595: Uriel Feige.
1596: \newblock On the success probability of the two provers in one-round proof
1597: systems.
1598: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the sixth Annual Structure in Complexity
1599: Theory Conference}, pages 116--123, 1991.
1600:
1601: \bibitem[FL92]{FeiLov92}
1602: Uriel Feige and L{\'a}szl{\'o} L{\'o}vasz.
1603: \newblock Two-prover one-round proof systems: Their power and their problems.
1604: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on
1605: Theory of Computing}, pages 733--744, 1992.
1606:
1607: \bibitem[For89]{Fortno89}
1608: Lance Fortnow.
1609: \newblock {\em Complexity-Theoretic Aspects of Interactive Proof Systems}.
1610: \newblock PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
1611:
1612: \bibitem[FRS94]{FoRoSi94}
1613: Lance Fortnow, John Rompel, and Michael Sipser.
1614: \newblock On the power of multi-prover interactive proof systems.
1615: \newblock {\em Theoretical Computer Science}, 134(21):545--557, 1994.
1616:
1617: \bibitem[FV02]{FeiVer02}
1618: Uriel Feige and Oleg Verbitsky.
1619: \newblock Error reduction by parallel repetition -- a negative result.
1620: \newblock {\em Combinatorica}, 22(4):461--478, 2002.
1621:
1622: \bibitem[HR06]{HolRen06}
1623: Thomas Holenstein and Renato Renner.
1624: \newblock On the randomness of independent experiments, 2006.
1625: \newblock (cs.IT/0608007).
1626:
1627: \bibitem[LS95]{LapSha95}
1628: Dror Lapidot and Adi Shamir.
1629: \newblock A one-round, two-prover, zero-knowledge protocol for {NP}.
1630: \newblock {\em Combinatorica}, 15(2):204--214, 1995.
1631:
1632: \bibitem[NC00]{NieChu00}
1633: Michael~A. Nielsen and Isaac~L. Chuang.
1634: \newblock {\em Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}.
1635: \newblock Cambridge University Press, first edition, 2000.
1636: \newblock ISBN 0-521-63503-9.
1637:
1638: \bibitem[PR94]{PopRoh94}
1639: Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich.
1640: \newblock Nonlocality as an axiom for quantum theory.
1641: \newblock {\em Foundations of Physics}, 24(3):379--385, March 1994.
1642: \newblock (quant-ph/9508009).
1643:
1644: \bibitem[PRW97]{PaRaWi97}
1645: Itzhak Parnafes, Ran Raz, and Avi Wigderson.
1646: \newblock Direct product results and the {GCD} problem, in old and new
1647: communication models.
1648: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on
1649: Theory of Computing}, pages 363--372, 1997.
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Raz98]{Raz98}
1652: Ran Raz.
1653: \newblock A parallel reptition theorem.
1654: \newblock {\em {SIAM} Journal on Computing}, 27(3):763--803, 1998.
1655:
1656: \bibitem[Ver94]{Verbit94}
1657: Oleg Verbitsky.
1658: \newblock Towards the parallel repetition conjecture.
1659: \newblock In {\em Structure in Complexity Theory Conference}, pages 304--307,
1660: 1994.
1661:
1662: \bibitem[Wat02]{Watrou02}
1663: John Watrous.
1664: \newblock A note on parallel repetition of two-prover quantum-interactive
1665: proofs, 2002.
1666: \newblock Manuscript.
1667:
1668: \end{thebibliography}
1669:
1670: }
1671:
1672: \appendix
1673: \section{Non-triviality}
1674: \label{app:nontriviality}
1675: \paragraph{Local case}
1676: We quickly reproduce a slight modification\footnote{Fortnow also lets
1677: the referee choose~$x=y=1$ with some probability, in which case the
1678: players cannot win the game.} of Fortnow's example \cite{Fortno89}
1679: which shows that in general~$v(\mkG^2) > (v(\mkG))^2$. The same
1680: variation was also considered by Feige and Lov\'asz \cite{FeiLov92}.
1681:
1682: The game we describe is over bits (i.e., all the queries and all the
1683: responses are bits). We
1684: set~$\Pd_{XY}(0,0):=\Pd_{XY}(0,1):=\Pd_{XY}(1,0):=\frac13$, and define
1685: \begin{align}Q(x,y,a,b) := \bigl((x \lor a) \neq (y \lor b)\bigr).
1686: \end{align}
1687: This can be described in words: Alice and Bob receive a bit, and at
1688: least one of these bits is~$0$. If both players receive~$0$,
1689: exactly one player must respond with $1$. If one of the players
1690: receives~$1$, the other must respond with~$0$.
1691:
1692: We first show that for this game~$v=\frac{2}{3}$. Clearly, $v \geq
1693: \frac23$ (e.g.,~both players always answer~$0$). To
1694: show~$v\leq\frac23$ we check all deterministic strategies. If both
1695: players reply~$0$ on query~$0$, this fails in case~$x=y=0$ (and thus
1696: with probability~$\frac13$). If one player, w.l.o.g.~Alice,
1697: answers~$0$ with~$1$ the players fail in case~$x=0$ and~$y=1$.
1698:
1699: If this game is repeated twice in parallel, setting~$(a_1,a_2) :=
1700: (x_2,x_1)$,~$(b_1,b_2) := (y_2,y_1)$ also wins with
1701: probability~$\frac23$. One can check this as follows: for every fixed
1702: query~$(x_1,y_1)$ answering with~$(x_2,y_2)$ wins the first subgame
1703: with probability~$\frac23$. Moreover, with this strategy
1704: $Q(x_1,y_1,a_1,b_1) \equiv
1705: Q(x_2,y_2,a_2,b_2)$ which implies the claim.
1706:
1707: \paragraph{No-signaling case}
1708: We now show that for the above game
1709: \begin{align}\label{eq:41}
1710: v(\mkG)= v(\mkG^2)=\vns(\mkG)=\vns(\mkG^2).
1711: \end{align}
1712: Previously, it was known that quantum strategies do not help Alice and
1713: Bob to win this game \cite{Watrou02} (in both the single instance case
1714: and where two parallel instances are used).
1715:
1716: To show~(\ref{eq:41}) it is sufficient to show that that $v(\mkG) =
1717: \vns(\mkG)$ (since $\vns(\mkG^2)\leq \vns(\mkG)$ and $\vns(\mkG^2)
1718: \geq v(\mkG^2) = v(\mkG)$ are already known). There are two ways to
1719: see that $v(\mkG) = \vns(\mkG)$. First, one can notice that the joint
1720: probability of Alice's and Bob's reply only matters if~$x=y=0$; i.e.,
1721: only for one query. In such a case one can always get a local
1722: strategy which is as good as a given no-signaling strategy.
1723: Alternatively, let $p$ be the probability that Alice replies~$0$ on
1724: query~$0$ and $q$ be the probability that Bob replies~$0$ on
1725: query~$0$. In this case, the players win with probability at most~$p$
1726: on query~$(x,y)=(0,1)$, with probability at most~$q$ on query~$(1,0)$,
1727: and with probability at most $(1-p)+(1-q)$ on query~$(0,0)$, which
1728: gives an overall winnig probability of at most $\frac23$.
1729:
1730: \section{A Lemma on Relative Entropy}\label{app:relentrlemma}
1731:
1732: This following lemma is well known, but we do not know of a standard
1733: reference containing a proof of it.
1734: \begin{lemma}
1735: Let $\Pd_{U^k} = \Pd_{U_1}\dots\Pd_{U_k}$ and
1736: $\Pd_{V^k}$ be distributions over the same set. Then,
1737: \begin{align*}
1738: \sum_{j=1}^k D(\Pd_{V_j}\|\Pd_{U_j}) \leq
1739: D(\Pd_{V^k}\|\Pd_{U^k}).
1740: \end{align*}
1741: \end{lemma}
1742: \begin{proof}
1743: We prove the
1744: bipartite case; the general case follows by induction.
1745: \begin{align*}
1746: D(\Pd_{V_1 V_2}&\|\Pd_{U_1}\Pd_{U_2}) \\
1747: &=
1748: \sum_{(u_1,u_2)}
1749: \Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)\log\Bigl(
1750: \frac{\Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)}
1751: {\Pd_{U_1}(u_1)\Pd_{U_2}(u_2)}\Bigr)\displaybreak[3]\\
1752: &=
1753: \sum_{(u_1,u_2)}
1754: \Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)\log\Bigl(
1755: \frac{\Pd_{V_1}(u_1)}
1756: {\Pd_{U_1}(u_1)}\Bigr)+
1757: \\ &\qquad\qquad+
1758: \sum_{(u_1,u_2)}\!\!
1759: \Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)\log\Bigl(
1760: \frac{\Pd_{V_2|V_1=u_1}(u_2)}
1761: {\Pd_{U_2}(u_2)}\Bigr)\displaybreak[3]\\
1762: &=
1763: D(\Pd_{V_1}\|\Pd_{U_1})
1764: +
1765: \sum_{(u_1,u_2)}
1766: \Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)\log\Bigl(
1767: \frac{\Pd_{V_2}(u_2)}{\Pd_{U_2}(u_2)}\cdot
1768: \frac{\Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)}
1769: {\Pd_{V_1}(u_1)\Pd_{V_2}(u_2)}
1770: \Bigr)\\
1771: &=D(\Pd_{V_1}\|\Pd_{U_1})+D(\Pd_{V_2}\|\Pd_{U_2})
1772: +\!\!\sum_{(u_1,u_2)}\!\!
1773: \Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)\log\Bigl(
1774: \frac{\Pd_{V_1 V_2}(u_1,u_2)}
1775: {\Pd_{V_1}(u_1)\Pd_{V_2}(u_2)}\Bigr)\\
1776: &\geq D(\Pd_{V_1}\|\Pd_{U_1})+D(\Pd_{V_2}\|\Pd_{U_2}),
1777: \end{align*}
1778: where the last inequality follows from the log-sum inequality (see
1779: \cite[Theorem 2.7.1]{CovTho91}).
1780: \end{proof}
1781:
1782: \section{Converse of Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq}}
1783: \label{app:fractEquivalence}
1784:
1785: In this appendix we show that Lemma~\ref{lem:fractionalCovEq} can be
1786: strengthened to get an ``if and only if'' condition.
1787: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:converse}
1788: Let a conditional distribution $\Pd_{Z|AB}$ be given. If, for all
1789: product distributions~$\Pd_{AB}=\Pd_{A}\Pd_{B}$ the Markov condition
1790: $A\leftrightarrow Z \leftrightarrow B$ is satisfied, then there
1791: exists functions $f(a,z): \cA\times\cZ \rightarrow [0,1]$
1792: and~$g(b,z): \cB\times\cZ\rightarrow[0,1]$ such that
1793: \begin{align}
1794: \Pd_{Z|A=a B=b} = f(a,z)\cdot g(b,z).
1795: \end{align}
1796: \end{lemma}
1797: \begin{proof}
1798: Fix an arbitrary~$z$ throughout the proof, and consider
1799: arbitrary elements $a,a'\in\cA$ and $b,b' \in \cB$. We
1800: set~$\Pd_{A}(a) = \Pd_{A}(a') = \frac12$ and $\Pd_{B}(b) =
1801: \Pd_{B}(b') = \frac12$. The Markov condition implies
1802: \begin{align*}
1803: \Pd_{A|Z=z B=b}(a) = \Pd_{A|Z=z B=b'}(a)
1804: \end{align*}
1805: which is equivalent to
1806: \begin{align*}
1807: \frac{\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b,z)}{\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b,z)+\Pd_{ABZ}(a',b,z)} =
1808: \frac{\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b',z)}{\Pd_{ABZ}(a,b',z)+\Pd_{ABZ}(a',b',z)}
1809: \end{align*}
1810: or (because of our choice of~$\Pd_{AB}$)
1811: \begin{align*}
1812: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b}(z)}{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b}(z)+\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b}(z)} =
1813: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b'}(z)}{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b'}(z)+\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b'}(z)}.
1814: \end{align*}
1815: Analogously one gets (by swapping the roles of~$a$ and~$a'$)
1816: \begin{align*}
1817: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b}(z)}{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b}(z)+\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b}(z)} =
1818: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b'}(z)}{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b'}(z)+\Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b'}(z)}.
1819: \end{align*}
1820: Together, this implies
1821: \begin{align}\label{eq:16}
1822: \Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b}(z) \Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b'}(z) =
1823: \Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b'}(z) \Pd_{Z|A=a',B=b}(z).
1824: \end{align}
1825:
1826: Fix now~$z$ and let~$f(\cdot,z)$ and~$g(\cdot,z)$ be functions onto~$[0,1]$
1827: which satisfy
1828: \begin{align}\label{eq:40}
1829: f(a,z)g(b,z) \geq \Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b}(z)
1830: \end{align}
1831: for all~$(a,b)$ and for which the number of pairs $(a,b)$ for which
1832: $f(a,z)g(b,z) > \Pd_{Z|A=aB=b}(z)$ is minimal (such functions exist
1833: since $f(a,z) = g(b,z) = 1$ satisfy~(\ref{eq:40})). We assume this
1834: number is non-zero and obtain a contradiction. For this,
1835: let~$(a_1,b_1)$ be a pair for which $f(a_1,z)g(b_1,z) > 0$ and for
1836: which the quotient $\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)/f(a_1,z)g(b_1,z) < 1$ is
1837: minimal.
1838:
1839: We define
1840: \begin{align*}
1841: f'(a,z) &:= \begin{cases}
1842: f(a,z) & \text{if $a\neq a_1$,}\\
1843: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a,B=b_1}(z)}{g(b_1,z)} & \text{if $a = a_1$}
1844: \end{cases}\\
1845: \intertext{and}
1846: g'(b,z) &:= \begin{cases}
1847: g(b,z) & \text{if $b\neq b_1$,}\\
1848: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b}(z)}{f(a_1,z)} & \text{if $b=b_1$}.
1849: \end{cases}
1850: \end{align*}
1851: We note that $f'$ and~$g'$ cannot take values larger than~$1$. For
1852: example, $f'(a_1,z)>1$ implies $\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)>g(b_1,z) \geq
1853: f(a_1,z) g(b_1,z)$, which contradicts~(\ref{eq:40}). We further
1854: claim that either the pair $(f',g)$ or $(f,g')$ still
1855: satisfies~(\ref{eq:40}). Otherwise, there are values~$a_2$
1856: and~$b_2$ such that
1857: \begin{align*}
1858: f'(a_1,z)g(b_2,z) &= \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)}{g(b_1,z)}
1859: g(b_2,z) > \Pd_{Z|A=a_1 B=b_2}(z) \\
1860: \intertext{and}
1861: f(a_2,z)g'(b_1,z) &= f(a_2,z) \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)}{f(a_1,z)}
1862: > \Pd_{Z|A=a_2 B=b_1}(z),
1863: \end{align*}
1864: which implies
1865: \begin{align*}
1866: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)}{g(b_1,z)}\frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)}{f(a_1,z)}
1867: g(b_2,z)f(a_2,z) > \Pd_{Z|A=a_2 B=b_1}(z) \Pd_{Z|A=a_1 B=b_2}(z),
1868: \end{align*}
1869: and using~(\ref{eq:16})
1870: \begin{align*}
1871: \frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_1,B=b_1}(z)}{f(a_1,z)g(b_1,z)}
1872: >\frac{\Pd_{Z|A=a_2,B=b_2}(z)}{g(b_2,z)f(a_2,z)}
1873: \end{align*}
1874: contradicting the way we chose $(a_1,b_1)$. Thus, either $(f',g)$
1875: or~$(f,g')$ still satisfies (\ref{eq:40}) and since the
1876: respective version of (\ref{eq:40}) is satisfied with equality for
1877: at least one more pair $(a,b)$ (namely for $(a_1,b_1)$) than for
1878: which $(f,g)$ satisfies it, we get a contradiction.
1879: \end{proof}
1880: \end{document}
1881:
1882: %%% Local Variables:
1883: %%% mode: latex
1884: %%% TeX-master: t
1885: %%% End:
1886: