Optical quantum communication complexity in the simultaneous-message-passing model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The communication cost of a classical protocol is typically measured in terms of the number of bits communicated for this determines the time required for communication during the protocol. Similarly, for quantum communication protocols, which use finite-dimensional quantum states, the communication cost is measured in terms of the number of qubits communicated. However, in quantum physics, one can also use infinite-dimensional states, like optical quantum states, for communication protocols. Communication cost measures based on counting the (equivalent) number of qubits transmitted during communication cannot be directly used to measure the cost of such protocols, which use infinite-dimensional states. Moreover, one cannot infer any physical property of infinite-dimensional protocols using such qubit-based communication costs. In this paper, we provide a framework to understand the growth of physical resources in infinite-dimensional protocols. We focus on optical protocols for the sake of concreteness. The time required for communication and the energy expended during communication are identified as the important physical resources of such protocols. In an optical protocol, the time required for communication is determined by the number of time-bin modes that are transmitted from one party to another. The mean photon number of the messages sent determines the energy required during communication in the protocol. We prove a lower bound on the tradeoff between the growth of these two quantities with the growth of the problem size. We call such tradeoff relations optical quantum communication complexity relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".