analiza aiqbench
This is a theoretical result on quantum distributed computing: it shows that quantum communication does not let anonymous networks determine their size exactly, even though quantum interference breaks the classical covering-lemma argument. The authors prove a weaker "support-lifting" principle that preserves which local outcomes are possible, and they use it to rule out zero-error counting and exact terminating leader election on the cyclic families studied. For quantum networking readers, the practical takeaway is a limit on what entanglement-assisted or quantum-message protocols can certify without a known size bound. The results are asymptotic and specific to uniform synchronous protocols with independently prepared nodes, so they should not be read as general statements about quantum networks.
A Quantum Analogue of the Covering Lemma: Limits of Exact Anonymous Computation
arXiv:2610.15601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can quantum communication determine the size of an anonymous network when no size bound is known? Classical impossibility proofs rely on the covering lemma: an execution can be reproduced on a larger network with the same local structure. Quantum interference invalidates this argument - a measurement record possible on a network can become impossible on a cover. We show that the impossibility of exact counting nevertheless survives. Our main result is a quantum analogue of the covering lemma that preserves local possibilities rather than complete executions. Within a cyclic covering family, every local measurement outcome possible at a node remains possible at a corresponding node in every sufficiently large network. This holds even after information has travelled around the smaller network, beyond the reach of a simple locality argument. We extend the principle to the universal covering tree and finite covers with sufficiently long cycles. The proof combines tensor-network methods with graph coverings: a common representation across network sizes turns normalization into a constraint on which local outcomes can occur. For uniform synchronous protocols with independently prepared nodes, this support-lifting principle rules out zero-error counting and even the production of a guaranteed finite size bound on anonymous rings and the other cyclic covering families considered here. It also rules out exact leader election with termination in finite time with probability one on these families. Measurements, classical control, and local memory growing with time are allowed; no predetermined running-time bound is assumed. Quantum interference thus defeats execution lifting without enabling infallible certification of network size.
Abstract:Can quantum communication determine the size of an anonymous network when no size bound is known? Classical impossibility proofs rely on the covering lemma: an execution can be reproduced on a larger network with the same local structure. Quantum interference invalidates this argument - a measurement record possible on a network can become impossible on a cover. We show that the impossibility of exact counting nevertheless survives. Our main result is a quantum analogue of the covering lemma that preserves local possibilities rather than complete executions. Within a cyclic covering family, every local measurement outcome possible at a node remains possible at a corresponding node in every sufficiently large network. This holds even after information has travelled around the smaller network, beyond the reach of a simple locality argument. We extend the principle to the universal covering tree and finite covers with sufficiently long cycles. The proof combines tensor-network methods with graph coverings: a common representation across network sizes turns normalization into a constraint on which local outcomes can occur. For uniform synchronous protocols with independently prepared nodes, this support-lifting principle rules out zero-error counting and even the production of a guaranteed finite size bound on anonymous rings and the other cyclic covering families considered here. It also rules out exact leader election with termination in finite time with probability one on these families. Measurements, classical control, and local memory growing with time are allowed; no predetermined running-time bound is assumed. Quantum interference thus defeats execution lifting without enabling infallible certification of network size.
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing (cs.DC); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM)
arXiv:2610.15601 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2610.15601v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15601 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 357 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Edward Farhi, The Physicist Behind QAOA
Quantum Zeitgeist · 30 aug. 2026

Bertrand Russell, the Complete Story of His 1901 Paradox
Quantum Zeitgeist · 30 aug. 2026

Top Photonic Quantum Computing Companies
Quantum Zeitgeist · 27 mai 2026

Michelle Simmons, The Physicist Behind Australia’s First Quantum Computing Company
Quantum Zeitgeist · 30 aug. 2026