No Strong Parallel Repetition with Entangled and Non-signaling Provers
Julia Kempe, Oded Regev

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that strong parallel repetition does not hold for games with entangled or non-signaling provers, providing tight bounds and characterizations for these scenarios.
Contribution
It proves the failure of strong parallel repetition in entangled and non-signaling settings and offers a tight characterization of entangled value behavior using semidefinite programming.
Findings
Strong parallel repetition fails with entangled provers.
Strong parallel repetition fails with non-signaling provers.
Holenstein's bound is tight for non-signaling provers.
Abstract
We consider one-round games between a classical verifier and two provers. One of the main questions in this area is the \emph{parallel repetition question}: If the game is played times in parallel, does the maximum winning probability decay exponentially in ? In the classical setting, this question was answered in the affirmative by Raz. More recently the question arose whether the decay is of the form where is the value of the game and is the number of repetitions. This question is known as the \emph{strong parallel repetition question} and was motivated by its connections to the unique games conjecture. It was resolved by Raz who showed that strong parallel repetition does \emph{not} hold, even in the very special case of games known as XOR games. This opens the question whether strong parallel repetition holds in the case when…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs · Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms · Cryptography and Data Security
