Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 47 references

This paper proves that classically reproducing joint measurement statistics on n d-dimensional systems requires at least n^(d-1) classical symbols per party, so a qubit has no finite classical description once it is measured jointly with en

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A star-network exclusion game is won perfectly with quantum d-level messages, but classically needs a message of at least n^{d-1} symbols, so no fixed-size classical qubit description can simulate joint measurements on many qubits.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A clean, self-contained proof of a new n^{d-1} quantum-classical message separation on a star network; the task is contrived but the result is real.

arxiv 2608.03986 v1 pith:C5IIAUOS submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

A lower bound on the classical simulation cost of star-network correlations

Martin J. Renner This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum communication complexitystar networkantidistinguishabilityexclusion taskspherical codesclassical simulation of quantum correlationsPBR theoremjoint measurements
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how much classical communication is needed to imitate what a central experimenter sees when many independently prepared quantum systems are measured together. The answer, for the exclusion task introduced here, is that a classical message of fewer than n^(d-1) distinct values from every party cannot reproduce the correlations, while sending genuinely d-dimensional quantum states solves the task perfectly. This gives a quantum advantage that grows with both the number of parties and the local dimension. It also contrasts with the single-qubit prepare-and-measure case, where two classical bits plus shared randomness are enough: joint measurements force the classical message size to grow without bound, so no finite classical description of a qubit survives once it is measured jointly with sufficiently many other qubits.

Core claim

The central claim is Theorems 2 and 4: if m d-dimensional states exist whose pairwise overlaps are bounded by a threshold f(n), then n parties can win the exclusion task perfectly by each sending the appropriate state and having Bob measure in a basis of 2^n entangled states that are individually orthogonal to the 2^n possible tensor-product preparations; but any classical strategy in which every party sends fewer than m distinct messages loses on some input by the pigeonhole principle. Since the paper constructs, via a spherical-cap volume argument, at least n^(d-1) such states in dimension d, the conclusion follows: a classical simulation with all message alphabets smaller than n^(d-1) is

What carries the argument

Antidistinguishability is the load-bearing mechanism: a set of states is antidistinguishable when a POVM contains an outcome that never occurs for one of the states, so that outcome certifies 'not that state'. The paper combines this with complex spherical codes—collections of m states with |⟨Ψj|Ψk⟩| at most f(n)=[1-(n√2-1)^2]/[1+(n√2-1)^2]—and with Bob's final n-qubit measurement in the PBR-type basis |Φ_r⟩, whose defining property is ⟨Φ_r|Ω_r⟩=0 for every one of the 2^n candidate tensor products. Bob maps each Alice's two candidate states into a standard pair separated by angle 2α_c, with tan α_c = n√2 - 1, so every candidate preparation is orthogonal to one measurement outcome. The classi

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the volume-counting claim that one can always find at least n^(d-1) d-dimensional states whose pairwise overlaps are below the threshold f(n); if the true maximum were smaller, the quantum strategy would not exist.

What would settle it

Compute the true value of the largest allowed spherical code for n=3, d=3: the paper's bound requires at least 9 states with pairwise overlap at most f(3) ≈ 0.873. If a search finds at most 8 such states, the n^(d-1) lower bound from Eq. (20) is false; alternatively, a classical strategy using only 8-symbol messages that wins the exclusion task perfectly would falsify Theorem 4.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For n=2, a d-dimensional quantum message outperforms any classical message with fewer than 2^(d-1) distinct values, an exponential gap in the local dimension.
  • For qubits (d=2), the classical message size must grow at least as n distinct values per party, so no fixed, finite-size classical description of a qubit can reproduce the statistics of joint measurements on arbitrarily many qubits.
  • The separation is achieved with a measurement using only 2^n outcomes and no shared entanglement among the senders, so the gap is not an artefact of exotic resources.
  • The same construction turns the two-bit single-qubit simulation result into a sharp boundary: what holds for one qubit in a prepare-and-measure scenario fails as soon as several qubits are measured jointly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit: the exclusion game could serve as a quantitative benchmark for classical simulators, since a simulator with a fixed communication budget should fail at a predictable number of parties.
  • It would be natural to ask whether allowing shared entanglement among the Alices, or allowing them to send mixed states, changes the n^(d-1) threshold; the classical pigeonhole proof suggests the lower bound may persist in some form, but the paper does not address these variants.
  • The results point to a broader principle: any ontological or hidden-state model that reproduces single-system statistics with a finite classical message should be testable by joint measurements on sufficiently many copies, because the simulation cost will eventually exceed the model's message bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a star-network exclusion task (Task 1) with n senders, each holding an input x_i in {1,...,m}, and a central receiver Bob who receives for each Alice a promise (x~0_i, x~1_i) that contains the actual input. Bob must output an n-tuple that differs from the actual input tuple in at least one coordinate. The authors prove three things. First (Theorem 2 and Appendix A), if there is a complex spherical code of m d-dimensional pure states with pairwise inner-product magnitude at most f(n) = (1 - (2^{1/n}-1)^2)/(1 + (2^{1/n}-1)^2), then the task can be won perfectly by sending d-dimensional quantum systems: after a local unitary reduction, the PBR-type states |Omega_r> are antidistinguishable by the explicit basis |Phi_r>, with the overlap vanishing by the choice of f(n). Second (Theorem 4 and Appendix C), any classical strategy in which each party's message alphabet has fewer than m symbols fails on some input with certainty, even with shared randomness; the proof is a pigeonhole argument combined with a finite-union bound over inputs. Third (Section VII and Appendix D), a volumetric greedy argument on the complex unit sphere gives spherical codes of size at least about n^{d-1}, more precisely ar m(n,d) >= [(1+x^2)/(2x)]^{2(d-1)} with x=2^{1/n}-1, and in particular ar m(n,d) >= n^{d-1}. Combining these yields the advertised lower bound: exact classical simulation of the task requires more than n^{d-1} symbols per party. The concluding application is that no fix

Significance. The central contribution is a clean, explicit quantum-classical separation for a multipartite communication task. The quantum strategy is constructive and the antidistinguishability calculation is exact; the threshold f(n) is chosen algebraically rather than fitted, and the classical lower bound is elementary and robust to shared randomness. The spherical-code volume argument is standard but correctly yields the n^{d-1} scaling, and the application to finite classical descriptions of qubits under joint measurements is striking and clearly contrasted with the single-qubit prepare-and-measure simulation result. If correct, the paper provides a simple proof that bounded-size ontological models of a qubit cannot reproduce joint-measurement statistics, a significant and timely result. The manuscript is self-contained, with appendices supplying the key derivations.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§VII and Table I] The symbol \bar m(n,d) is defined as the maximum m for which a perfect quantum strategy exists, but Table I and the surrounding discussion use it for the largest complex spherical code satisfying Eq. (9). These quantities need not coincide: the pairwise-overlap condition is sufficient for the quantum strategy, not necessary. In particular, the fact that 13 icosahedral-type vectors do not exist does not by itself rule out a perfect 13-input strategy. Please rephrase the n=3 sentence as a lower bound (12 codewords exist, hence at least 12 classical symbols are needed) and relabel Table I as the maximal spherical-code size, distinct from \bar m(n,d).
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A4)-(A5)] For n=1, f(1)=0, so cos(2\alpha_c^n)=0 and the ancilla unitary in Eqs. (A4)-(A5) is ill-defined. The n=1 case is trivial and can be handled separately (orthogonal states and a direct measurement). Please state explicitly that the reduction in Appendix A applies for n>=2, or add the separate n=1 argument.
  3. [Throughout] The notation 'n√2−1' denotes the nth root of 2, i.e. \sqrt[n]{2}, but the radical is easily misread as n times \sqrt{2}. Please typeset it as \sqrt[n]{2} and define it at first use.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The winning-probability formula is terse. The factor 1/2^n is justified because Bob can win with certainty whenever at least one Alice's promise pair is not collapsed by her encoding; only when every Alice's promise is bad does the success probability drop to 1 - 2^{-n}. A one-sentence explanation would improve readability.
  5. [§V] The phrase 'if no Alice is allowed to send a message of at least m symbols' should read 'if every Alice is allowed to send fewer than m symbols' to match the statement of Theorem 1 and Theorem 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the quantum and classical bounds are independently derived and self-contained.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The classical lower bound (Theorem 1 and Theorem 4, Appendix C) uses only the pigeonhole principle on finite input/message sets plus a union bound over shared randomness; it does not assume the quantum threshold. The quantum upper bound (Theorem 2, Appendix A) gives an explicit unitary reduction of any pair of states with overlap at most f(n) to the PBR-type states and an explicit antidistinguishing basis; Eq. (17) is verified by a direct binomial calculation, with f(n) chosen algebraically (tan alpha_c = n-root(2)-1) to make the expression vanish, not fitted to data. The existence of m ~ n^{d-1} admissible states is supplied by the greedy spherical-cap covering argument in Section VII A and Appendix D: Eq. (D2) computes the cap fraction from the Beta(1,d-1) distribution, and Eq. (20) is the reciprocal cap-cover lower bound. The self-citations [13,14] (qubit simulation by two classical bits) are used only as a contrast for n=1 and are not load-bearing for the central result. The acknowledged lack of noise robustness is a limitation of the task, not a circular step. No prediction reduces to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing premise is justified by a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum theory, the classical communication model, a volumetric packing bound for spherical codes, and external spherical-code data for illustrative values. No free parameters are fitted to data; the threshold f(n) is a proof-design choice. No invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • critical angle alpha_n^c and threshold f(n) = tan(alpha_n^c) = 2^{1/n} - 1
    Chosen by hand so the PBR-style overlap expression in Eq. (17) vanishes. This is a proof-construction parameter, not a data fit; it sets the exponent in the n^{d-1} bound.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Born's rule and Bob's ability to perform arbitrary joint POVMs including ancilla-assisted operations.
    Used in Eq. (1) and the quantum strategy in Sections IV-VI; the result is a statement within quantum theory.
  • domain assumption The classical model in Eq. (2): messages depend on input and shared randomness, with no communication among Alices.
    Defines the communication complexity model the lower bound applies to.
  • standard math Pigeonhole principle.
    Basis of the classical impossibility proof in Appendix C.
  • standard math Haar measure on the complex unit sphere and the Beta(1,d-1) distribution of |<z,v>|^2.
    Used to derive the cap volume fraction in Appendix D, Eq. (19).
  • domain assumption External spherical-code tables (Refs 36-39) for the exact d=2 maxima in Table I.
    Used for illustrative optimal numbers; the main n^{d-1} theorem does not require them.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A lower bound on the classical simulation cost of star-network correlations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5IIAUOS

@misc{pith2026260803986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A lower bound on the classical simulation cost of star-network correlations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5IIAUOS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03986}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

It is well established that quantum strategies outperform classical ones in several communication tasks. We study the quantum communication complexity of correlations arising from joint measurements on quantum systems distributed across a star network, where several parties each send a quantum system to a central node. We introduce an exclusion task that can be solved perfectly when each party sends a quantum $d$-level system, but would require a large classical message otherwise. In fact, the task cannot be solved with certainty if each of the $n$ parties sends a classical message with less than $n^{(d-1)}$ symbols. This implies an advantage of using quantum over classical messages in that scenario that scales with both, the dimension of the quantum system and the number of systems measured simultaneously. As an application, this shows that no finite-size classical description of a qubit suffices to reproduce the statistics of a joint measurement on sufficiently many qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03986 by Martin J. Renner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The setup: Several Alices receive an input and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Each Alice receives a number between 1 and 6. Given the input, they prepare one of the eigenstates of the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Brassard, Quantum communication complexity, Foundations of Physics33, 1593 (2003)

    G. Brassard, Quantum communication complexity, Foundations of Physics33, 1593 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Non- locality and communication complexity, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics82, 665 (2010), arXiv:0907.3584 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Wiesner, Conjugate coding, SIGACT News15, 78–88 (1983)

    S. Wiesner, Conjugate coding, SIGACT News15, 78–88 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky- rosen states, Physical Review Letters69, 2881 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Raz, Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity, inProceedings of the thirty- first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1999) pp

    R. Raz, Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity, inProceedings of the thirty- first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1999) pp. 358–367

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum Fingerprinting, Physical Review Letters87, 167902 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0102001 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Bar-Yossef, T

    Z. Bar-Yossef, T. S. Jayram, and I. Kerenidis, Exponen- tial separation of quantum and classical one-way com- munication complexity, inProceedings of the Thirty- Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’04 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2004) p. 128–137

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Gavinsky, J

    D. Gavinsky, J. Kempe, I. Kerenidis, R. Raz, and R. de Wolf, Exponential separations for one-way quantum communication complexity, with applications to cryptography, inProceedings of the Thirty-Ninth An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’07 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 6 NY, USA, 2007) pp. 516–525, arXiv:quant-ph/0611209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Brassard, R

    G. Brassard, R. Cleve, and A. Tapp, Cost of Exactly Simulating Quantum Entanglement with Classical Com- munication, Physical Review Letters83, 1874 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9901035 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    B. F. Toner and D. Bacon, Communication Cost of Sim- ulating Bell Correlations, Physical Review Letters91, 187904 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0304076 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Degorre, S

    J. Degorre, S. Laplante, and J. Roland, Simulating quantum correlations as a distributed sampling prob- lem, Physical Review A72, 062314 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0507120 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Approximate simulation of entanglement with a linear cost of communication

    A. Montina, Approximate simulation of entanglement with a linear cost of communication, Physical Review A 84, 042307 (2011), arXiv:1107.4647 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    M. J. Renner, A. Tavakoli, and M. T. Quintino, Classical Cost of Transmitting a Qubit, Physical Review Letters 130, 120801 (2023), arXiv:2207.02244 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    M. J. Renner and M. T. Quintino, The minimal commu- nication cost for simulating entangled qubits, Quantum 7, 1149 (2023), arXiv:2207.12457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Neural Network Approach to the Simulation of Entangled States with One Bit of Communication

    P. Sidajaya, A. D. Lim, B. Yu, and V. Scarani, Neural Network Approach to the Simulation of Entangled States with One Bit of Communication, Quantum7, 1150 (2023), arXiv:2305.19935 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    No-Go Theorem for Generic Simulation of Qubit Channels with Finite Classical Resources

    S. Gopalkrishna Naik, M. Zartab, N. Gisin, and M. Banik, No-go theorem for generic simulation of qubit channels with finite classical resources, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engin- eering Sciences482, 20250831 (2026), arXiv:2501.15807 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Schlösser and M

    S. Schlösser and M. Kleinmann, Bounding the classical cost of simulating quantum behaviors in the prepare-and- measure scenario, (2026), arXiv:2603.01255 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Bowles, N

    J. Bowles, N. Brunner, and M. Pawłowski, Testing di- mension and nonclassicality in communication networks, Physical Review A92, 022351 (2015), arXiv:1505.01736 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Doolittle, F

    B. Doolittle, F. Leditzky, and E. Chitambar, An Op- erational Framework for Nonclassicality in Quantum Communication Networks, Quantum10, 2052 (2026), arXiv:2403.02988 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2052

  20. [20]

    Limits of Classical correlations and Quantum advantages under (Anti-)Distinguishability constraints in Multipartite Communication

    A. Pandit, S. Hazra, S. Manna, A. Chaturvedi, and D. Saha, Limits of classical correlations and quantum advantages under (anti-)distinguishability constraints in multipartite communication, Physical Review A113, 032433 (2026), arXiv:2506.07699 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Exponential Advantage of Multipartite Entanglement over Quantum Communication with Applications to Bounded-Storage Cryptography

    A. Chakraborty, M. Banik, and R. de Wolf, Exponential Advantage of Multipartite Entanglement over Quantum Communication with Applications to Bounded-Storage Cryptography, (2026), arXiv:2607.27957 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments, Physical Review A66, 062111 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0206110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, On the real- ity of the quantum state, Nature Physics8, 476 (2012), arXiv:1111.3328 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    Bandyopadhyay, R

    S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Jain, J. Oppenheim, and C. Perry, Conclusive exclusion of quantum states, Physical Review A89, 022336 (2014), arXiv:1306.4683 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Heinosaari and O

    T. Heinosaari and O. Kerppo, Antidistinguishability of pure quantum states, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General51, 365303 (2018), arXiv:1804.10457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Russo and J

    V. Russo and J. Sikora, Inner products of pure states and their antidistinguishability, Physical Review A107, L030202 (2023), arXiv:2206.08313 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Johnston, V

    N. Johnston, V. Russo, and J. Sikora, Tight bounds for antidistinguishability and circulant sets of pure quantum states, Quantum9, 1622 (2025), arXiv:2311.17047 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Perry, R

    C. Perry, R. Jain, and J. Oppenheim, Communication Tasks with Infinite Quantum-Classical Separation, Phys- ical Review Letters115, 030504 (2015), arXiv:1407.8217 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Heinosaari and O

    T. Heinosaari and O. Kerppo, Communication of partial ignorance with qubits, Journal of Physics A Mathemat- ical General52, 395301 (2019), arXiv:1903.04899 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Havlíček and J

    V. Havlíček and J. Barrett, Simple communication complexity separation from quantum state antidistin- guishability, Physical Review Research2, 013326 (2020), arXiv:1911.01927 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    J. Bae, K. Flatt, T. Heinosaari, O. Kerppo, K. Mo- han, A. Muñoz-Moller, and A. Rai, Random exclu- sion codes: Quantum advantages of single-shot commu- nication, Physical Review Research8, 013171 (2026), arXiv:2506.07701 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Delsarte, J

    P. Delsarte, J. M. Goethals, and J. J. Seidel, Spherical codes and designs, Geometriae Dedicata6, 363 (1977)

    work page 1977

  33. [33]

    J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane,Sphere Packings, Lat- tices and Groups, 3rd ed., Grundlehren der mathemat- ischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 290 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999)

    work page 1999

  34. [34]

    Complex spherical designs and codes

    A. Roy and S. Suda, Complex spherical designs and codes, Journal of Combinatorial Designs22, 105 (2014), arXiv:1104.4692 [math.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    S. G. Naik, E. P. Lobo, S. Sen, R. K. Patra, M. Alimud- din, T. Guha, S. S. Bhattacharya, and M. Banik, Com- position of multipartite quantum systems: Perspective from timelike paradigm, Physical Review Letters128, 140401 (2022), arXiv:2107.08675 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    The strong thirteen spheres problem

    O. Musin and A. Tarasov, The strong thirteen spheres problem, Discrete & Computational Geometry48, 128–141 (2012), arXiv:1002.1439 [math.MG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    R. M. Robinson, Arrangement of 24 points on a sphere, Mathematische Annalen144, 17–48 (1961)

    work page 1961

  38. [38]

    N. J. A. Sloane, with the collaboration of R. H. Hardin, W. D. Smith and others, Tables of spherical codes, pub- lished electronically at NeilSloane.com/packings/

    work page

  39. [39]

    Cohn, Table of spherical codeshttps://hdl.handle

    H. Cohn, Table of spherical codeshttps://hdl.handle. net/1721.1/153543andhttps://spherical-codes. org

    work page

  40. [40]

    A. Montina, Communication cost of classically simulat- ing a quantum channel with subsequent rank-1 project- ive measurement, Physical Review A84, 060303 (2011), arXiv:1110.5944 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  42. [42]

    P. E. Frenkel and M. Weiner, Classical Information Stor- age in an n-Level Quantum System, Communications in Mathematical Physics340, 563 (2015), arXiv:1304.5723 [cs.IT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Overcoming Traditional No-Go Theorems: Quantum Advantage in Multiple Access Channels

    A. Chakraborty, S. Gopalkrishna Naik, E. P. Lobo, R. Krishna Patra, S. Sen, M. Alimuddin, A. Mukher- jee,andM.Banik,OvercomingTraditionalNo-GoTheor- ems: Quantum Advantage in Multiple Access Channels, 7 (2023), arXiv:2309.17263 [quant-ph]. [44] M. E. Muller, A note on a method for generating points uniformly on n-dimensional spheres, Commun. ACM2, 19–20 (...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Since unitary transformations preserve the inner product and| ⟨Ψ˜x0 i |Ψ˜x1 i ⟩ | ≤f(n)by (9), we know that| ⟨UiΨ˜x0 i |UiΨ˜x1 i ⟩ |= cos (2αi)≤f(n)

    Step 1: Reducing the angle Bob first applies a unitary transformation (mapping the two states into a qubit subspace) on the received state from Alice-i, satisfying: Ui |Ψ˜x0 i ⟩= cos (α i)|0⟩+ sin (α i)|1⟩(A2) Ui |Ψ˜x1 i ⟩= cos (α i)|0⟩ −sin (αi)|1⟩,(A3) for some angleαi. Since unitary transformations preserve the inner product and| ⟨Ψ˜x0 i |Ψ˜x1 i ⟩ | ≤f...

    work page

  45. [45]

    Step 2: Applying the joint measurement After Step 1, Bob holds a qubit from each Alice, which is either|ψ0⟩or|ψ 1⟩. The total state is one of the2 n possibilities labelled by⃗ r∈ {0,1}n: |Ω⃗ r⟩:=|ψ r1 ⟩ ⊗ |ψr2 ⟩ ⊗...⊗ |ψrn ⟩= X ⃗ z (−1)⃗ r·⃗ zcos(αc n)(n−⃗ z·⃗1) sin(αc n)⃗ z·⃗1 |⃗ z⟩(A11) where ⃗1 = (1,1, ...,1)is a vector where each of thenentries equals...

    work page

  46. [46]

    Proof.Wewanttoshowthateachclassicalstrategyoffewerthanmsymbolsnecessarilyleadstooneinputcombination, in which the parties cannot win with certainty

    Proof of Theorem 1 Theorem 4.If each party sends a classical message of fewer thanmsymbols, then Task 1 cannot be won with certainty, even in the presence of shared randomness. Proof.Wewanttoshowthateachclassicalstrategyoffewerthanmsymbolsnecessarilyleadstooneinputcombination, in which the parties cannot win with certainty. We may absorb, without loss of ...

    work page

  47. [47]

    Consider the task with two Alices, each with input in{1,

    Winning probabilities for a given message length We now analyse how well classical strategies with a given communication budget can perform. Consider the task with two Alices, each with input in{1, . . . ,6}, and each allowed to send two bits. A natural strategy is:c= 00for x= 1;c= 01forx= 2;c= 10forx∈ {3,4};c= 11forx∈ {5,6}. If Bob is told thatx1 ∈ {3,4}...

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.