-
Quantum Sabotage Complexity
Authors:
Arjan Cornelissen,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Subhasree Patro
Abstract:
Given a Boolean function $f:\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}$, the goal in the usual query model is to compute $f$ on an unknown input $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ while minimizing the number of queries to $x$. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$: given an input $x \in f^{-1}(0)$ and an input $y \in f^{-1}(1)$, either all differing locations are replaced by a $*$, or all differi…
▽ More
Given a Boolean function $f:\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}$, the goal in the usual query model is to compute $f$ on an unknown input $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ while minimizing the number of queries to $x$. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$: given an input $x \in f^{-1}(0)$ and an input $y \in f^{-1}(1)$, either all differing locations are replaced by a $*$, or all differing locations are replaced by $\dagger$, and an algorithm's goal is to identify which of these is the case while minimizing the number of queries.
Ben-David and Kothari [ToC'18] introduced the notion of randomized sabotage complexity of a Boolean function to be the zero-error randomized query complexity of $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$. A natural follow-up question is to understand $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})$, the quantum query complexity of $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of this. The following are our main results:
$\bullet\;\;$ If we have additional query access to $x$ and $y$, then $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f),\sqrt{n}\})$.
$\bullet\;\;$ If an algorithm is also required to output a differing index of a 0-input and a 1-input, then $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f)^{1.5},\sqrt{n}\})$.
$\bullet\;\;$ $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}}) = Ω(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})$, where $\mathsf{fbs}(f)$ denotes the fractional block sensitivity of $f$. By known results, along with the results in the previous bullets, this implies that $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})$ is polynomially related to $\mathsf{Q}(f)$.
$\bullet\;\;$ The bound above is easily seen to be tight for standard functions such as And, Or, Majority and Parity. We show that when $f$ is the Indexing function, $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\mathsf{fbs}(f))$, ruling out the possibility that $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})$ for all $f$.
△ Less
Submitted 22 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
Lower bounds for quantum-inspired classical algorithms via communication complexity
Authors:
Nikhil S. Mande,
Changpeng Shao
Abstract:
Quantum-inspired classical algorithms provide us with a new way to understand the computational power of quantum computers for practically-relevant problems, especially in machine learning. In the past several years, numerous efficient algorithms for various tasks have been found, while an analysis of lower bounds is still missing. Using communication complexity, in this work we propose the first…
▽ More
Quantum-inspired classical algorithms provide us with a new way to understand the computational power of quantum computers for practically-relevant problems, especially in machine learning. In the past several years, numerous efficient algorithms for various tasks have been found, while an analysis of lower bounds is still missing. Using communication complexity, in this work we propose the first method to study lower bounds for these tasks. We mainly focus on lower bounds for solving linear regressions, supervised clustering, principal component analysis, recommendation systems, and Hamiltonian simulations. For those problems, we prove a quadratic lower bound in terms of the Frobenius norm of the underlying matrix. As quantum algorithms are linear in the Frobenius norm for those problems, our results mean that the quantum-classical separation is at least quadratic. As a generalisation, we extend our method to study lower bounds analysis of quantum query algorithms for matrix-related problems using quantum communication complexity. Some applications are given.
△ Less
Submitted 24 December, 2024; v1 submitted 23 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
On the communication complexity of finding a king in a tournament
Authors:
Nikhil S. Mande,
Manaswi Paraashar,
Swagato Sanyal,
Nitin Saurabh
Abstract:
A tournament is a complete directed graph. A king in a tournament is a vertex v such that every other vertex is reachable from v via a path of length at most 2. It is well known that every tournament has at least one king, one of which is a maximum out-degree vertex. The tasks of finding a king, a maximum out-degree vertex and a source in a tournament has been relatively well studied in the contex…
▽ More
A tournament is a complete directed graph. A king in a tournament is a vertex v such that every other vertex is reachable from v via a path of length at most 2. It is well known that every tournament has at least one king, one of which is a maximum out-degree vertex. The tasks of finding a king, a maximum out-degree vertex and a source in a tournament has been relatively well studied in the context of query complexity. We study the communication complexity of these tasks, where the edges are partitioned between two players. The following are our main results for n-vertex tournaments:
1) The deterministic communication complexity of finding whether a source exists is tilde{Theta}(log^2 n).
2) The deterministic and randomized communication complexities of finding a king are Theta(n). The quantum communication complexity is tilde{Theta}(sqrt{n}).
3) The deterministic, randomized and quantum communication complexities of finding a maximum out-degree vertex are Theta(n log n), tilde{Theta}(n) and tilde{Theta}(sqrt{n}), respectively.
Our upper bounds hold for all partitions of edges, and the lower bounds for a specific partition of the edges. To show the first bullet above, we show, perhaps surprisingly, that finding a source in a tournament is equivalent to the well-studied Clique vs. Independent Set (CIS) problem on undirected graphs. Our bounds for finding a source then follow from known bounds on the complexity of the CIS problem. In view of this equivalence, we can view the task of finding a king in a tournament to be a natural generalization of CIS.
One of our lower bounds uses a fooling-set based argument, and all our other lower bounds follow from carefully-constructed reductions from Set-Disjointness.
△ Less
Submitted 22 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Randomized and quantum query complexities of finding a king in a tournament
Authors:
Nikhil S. Mande,
Manaswi Paraashar,
Nitin Saurabh
Abstract:
A tournament is a complete directed graph. It is well known that every tournament contains at least one vertex v such that every other vertex is reachable from v by a path of length at most 2. All such vertices v are called *kings* of the underlying tournament. Despite active recent research in the area, the best-known upper and lower bounds on the deterministic query complexity (with query access…
▽ More
A tournament is a complete directed graph. It is well known that every tournament contains at least one vertex v such that every other vertex is reachable from v by a path of length at most 2. All such vertices v are called *kings* of the underlying tournament. Despite active recent research in the area, the best-known upper and lower bounds on the deterministic query complexity (with query access to directions of edges) of finding a king in a tournament on n vertices are from over 20 years ago, and the bounds do not match: the best-known lower bound is Omega(n^{4/3}) and the best-known upper bound is O(n^{3/2}) [Shen, Sheng, Wu, SICOMP'03]. Our contribution is to show essentially *tight* bounds (up to logarithmic factors) of Theta(n) and Theta(sqrt{n}) in the *randomized* and *quantum* query models, respectively. We also study the randomized and quantum query complexities of finding a maximum out-degree vertex in a tournament.
△ Less
Submitted 4 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Tight Bounds for Quantum Phase Estimation and Related Problems
Authors:
Nikhil S. Mande,
Ronald de Wolf
Abstract:
Phase estimation, due to Kitaev [arXiv'95], is one of the most fundamental subroutines in quantum computing. In the basic scenario, one is given black-box access to a unitary $U$, and an eigenstate $\lvert ψ\rangle$ of $U$ with unknown eigenvalue $e^{iθ}$, and the task is to estimate the eigenphase $θ$ within $\pmδ$, with high probability. The cost of an algorithm for us will be the number of appl…
▽ More
Phase estimation, due to Kitaev [arXiv'95], is one of the most fundamental subroutines in quantum computing. In the basic scenario, one is given black-box access to a unitary $U$, and an eigenstate $\lvert ψ\rangle$ of $U$ with unknown eigenvalue $e^{iθ}$, and the task is to estimate the eigenphase $θ$ within $\pmδ$, with high probability. The cost of an algorithm for us will be the number of applications of $U$ and $U^{-1}$.
We tightly characterize the cost of several variants of phase estimation where we are no longer given an arbitrary eigenstate, but are required to estimate the maximum eigenphase of $U$, aided by advice in the form of states (or a unitary preparing those states) which are promised to have at least a certain overlap $γ$ with the top eigenspace.
We give algorithms and matching lower bounds (up to logarithmic factors) for all ranges of parameters.
We show that a small number of copies of the advice state (or of an advice-preparing unitary) are not significantly better than having no advice at all. We also show that having lots of advice (applications of the advice-preparing unitary) does not significantly reduce cost, and neither does knowledge of the eigenbasis of $U$. As an immediate consequence we obtain a lower bound on the complexity of the Unitary recurrence time problem, matching an upper bound of She and Yuen~[ITCS'23] and resolving one of their open questions.
Lastly, we show that a phase-estimation algorithm with precision $δ$ and error probability $ε$ has cost $Ω\left(\frac{1}δ\log\frac{1}ε\right)$, matching an easy upper bound. This contrasts with some other scenarios in quantum computing (e.g., search) where error-reduction costs only a factor $O(\sqrt{\log(1/ε)})$. Our lower bound technique uses a variant of the polynomial method with trigonometric polynomials.
△ Less
Submitted 8 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Improved Quantum Query Upper Bounds Based on Classical Decision Trees
Authors:
Arjan Cornelissen,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Subhasree Patro
Abstract:
Given a classical query algorithm as a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up. In particular, we obtain a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost $O(\sqrt{s})$ to compute a…
▽ More
Given a classical query algorithm as a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up. In particular, we obtain a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost $O(\sqrt{s})$ to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size $s$.
Lin and Lin [ToC'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor, and gave upper bounds in terms of a quantity which we call the "guessing complexity" of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Inf. Comp.'89] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any complexity-theoretic measure. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and randomized rank for the complete binary AND-OR tree.
Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to its edges. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are asymptotically stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes could yield better upper bounds.
△ Less
Submitted 14 June, 2025; v1 submitted 6 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
-
Exact quantum query complexity of computing Hamming weight modulo powers of two and three
Authors:
Arjan Cornelissen,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Maris Ozols,
Ronald de Wolf
Abstract:
We study the problem of computing the Hamming weight of an $n$-bit string modulo $m$, for any positive integer $m \leq n$ whose only prime factors are 2 and 3. We show that the exact quantum query complexity of this problem is $\left\lceil n(1 - 1/m) \right\rceil$. The upper bound is via an iterative query algorithm whose core components are the well-known 1-query quantum algorithm (essentially du…
▽ More
We study the problem of computing the Hamming weight of an $n$-bit string modulo $m$, for any positive integer $m \leq n$ whose only prime factors are 2 and 3. We show that the exact quantum query complexity of this problem is $\left\lceil n(1 - 1/m) \right\rceil$. The upper bound is via an iterative query algorithm whose core components are the well-known 1-query quantum algorithm (essentially due to Deutsch) to compute the Hamming weight a 2-bit string mod 2 (i.e., the parity of the input bits), and a new 2-query quantum algorithm to compute the Hamming weight of a 3-bit string mod 3.
We show a matching lower bound (in fact for arbitrary moduli $m$) via a variant of the polynomial method [de Wolf, SIAM J. Comput., 32(3), 2003]. This bound is for the weaker task of deciding whether or not a given $n$-bit input has Hamming weight 0 modulo $m$, and it holds even in the stronger non-deterministic quantum query model where an algorithm must have positive acceptance probability iff its input evaluates to 1. For $m>2$ our lower bound exceeds $n/2$, beating the best lower bound provable using the general polynomial method [Theorem 4.3, Beals et al., J. ACM 48(4), 2001].
△ Less
Submitted 29 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Tight Bounds for the Randomized and Quantum Communication Complexities of Equality with Small Error
Authors:
Olivier Lalonde,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Ronald de Wolf
Abstract:
We investigate the randomized and quantum communication complexities of the well-studied Equality function with small error probability $ε$, getting optimal constant factors in the leading terms in a number of different models.
In the randomized model,
1) we give a general technique to convert public-coin protocols to private-coin protocols by incurring a small multiplicative error, at a small…
▽ More
We investigate the randomized and quantum communication complexities of the well-studied Equality function with small error probability $ε$, getting optimal constant factors in the leading terms in a number of different models.
In the randomized model,
1) we give a general technique to convert public-coin protocols to private-coin protocols by incurring a small multiplicative error, at a small additive cost. This is an improvement over Newman's theorem [Inf. Proc. Let.'91] in the dependence on the error parameter.
2) Using this we obtain a $(\log(n/ε^2)+4)$-cost private-coin communication protocol that computes the $n$-bit Equality function, to error $ε$. This improves upon the $\log(n/ε^3)+O(1)$ upper bound implied by Newman's theorem, and matches the best known lower bound, which follows from Alon [Comb. Prob. Comput.'09], up to an additive $\log\log(1/ε)+O(1)$.
In the quantum model,
1) we exhibit a one-way protocol of cost $\log(n/ε)+4$, that uses only pure states and computes the $n$-bit Equality function to error $ε$. This bound was implicitly already shown by Nayak [PhD thesis'99].
2) We show that any $ε$-error one-way protocol for $n$-bit Equality that uses only pure states communicates at least $\log(n/ε)-\log\log(1/ε)-O(1)$ qubits.
3) We exhibit a one-way protocol of cost $\log(\sqrt{n}/ε)+3$, that uses mixed states and computes the $n$-bit Equality function to error $ε$. This is also tight up to an additive $\log\log(1/ε)+O(1)$, which follows from Alon's result.
4) We study the number of EPR pairs required to be shared in an entanglement-assisted one-way protocol.
Our upper bounds also yield upper bounds on the approximate rank and related measures of the Identity matrix.
△ Less
Submitted 18 October, 2023; v1 submitted 25 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
The Role of Symmetry in Quantum Query-to-Communication Simulation
Authors:
Sourav Chakraborty,
Arkadev Chattopadhyay,
Peter Høyer,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Manaswi Paraashar,
Ronald de Wolf
Abstract:
Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) showed that for every Boolean function f : {-1,1}^n to {-1,1} and G in {AND_2, XOR_2}, the bounded-error quantum communication complexity of the composed function f o G equals O(Q(f) log n), where Q(f) denotes the bounded-error quantum query complexity of f. This is achieved by Alice running the optimal quantum query algorithm for f, using a round of O(log n)…
▽ More
Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) showed that for every Boolean function f : {-1,1}^n to {-1,1} and G in {AND_2, XOR_2}, the bounded-error quantum communication complexity of the composed function f o G equals O(Q(f) log n), where Q(f) denotes the bounded-error quantum query complexity of f. This is achieved by Alice running the optimal quantum query algorithm for f, using a round of O(log n) qubits of communication to implement each query.
This is in contrast with the classical setting, where it is easy to show that R^{cc}(f o G) is at most 2R(f), where R^{cc} and R denote bounded-error communication and query complexity, respectively. We show that the O(log n) overhead is required for some functions in the quantum setting, and thus the BCW simulation is tight. We note here that prior to our work, the possibility of Q^{cc}(f o G) = O(Q(f)), for all f and all G in {AND_2, XOR_2}, had not been ruled out. More specifically, we show the following.
- We show that the log n overhead is *not* required when f is symmetric, generalizing a result of Aaronson and Ambainis for the Set-Disjointness function (Theory of Computing'05).
- In order to prove the above, we design an efficient distributed version of noisy amplitude amplification that allows us to prove the result when f is the OR function.
- In view of our first result above, one may ask whether the log n overhead in the BCW simulation can be avoided even when f is transitive, which is a weaker notion of symmetry. We give a strong negative answer by showing that the log n overhead is still necessary for some transitive functions even when we allow the quantum communication protocol an error probability that can be arbitrarily close to 1/2.
- We also give, among other things, a general recipe to construct functions for which the log n overhead is required in the BCW simulation in the bounded-error communication model.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2023; v1 submitted 9 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Improved Approximate Degree Bounds For k-distinctness
Authors:
Nikhil S. Mande,
Justin Thaler,
Shuchen Zhu
Abstract:
An open problem that is widely regarded as one of the most important in quantum query complexity is to resolve the quantum query complexity of the k-distinctness function on inputs of size N. While the case of k=2 (also called Element Distinctness) is well-understood, there is a polynomial gap between the known upper and lower bounds for all constants k>2. Specifically, the best known upper bound…
▽ More
An open problem that is widely regarded as one of the most important in quantum query complexity is to resolve the quantum query complexity of the k-distinctness function on inputs of size N. While the case of k=2 (also called Element Distinctness) is well-understood, there is a polynomial gap between the known upper and lower bounds for all constants k>2. Specifically, the best known upper bound is O(N^{(3/4)-1/(2^{k+2}-4)}) (Belovs, FOCS 2012), while the best known lower bound for k >= 2 is Omega(N^{2/3} + N^{(3/4)-1/(2k)}) (Aaronson and Shi, J.~ACM 2004; Bun, Kothari, and Thaler, STOC 2018).
For any constant k >= 4, we improve the lower bound to Omega(N^{(3/4)-1/(4k)}). This yields, for example, the first proof that 4-distinctness is strictly harder than Element Distinctness. Our lower bound applies more generally to approximate degree.
As a secondary result, we give a simple construction of an approximating polynomial of degree O(N^{3/4}) that applies whenever k <= polylog(N).
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2020;
originally announced February 2020.
-
Quantum Query-to-Communication Simulation Needs a Logarithmic Overhead
Authors:
Sourav Chakraborty,
Arkadev Chattopadhyay,
Nikhil S. Mande,
Manaswi Paraashar
Abstract:
Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) observed that for every Boolean function $f : \{-1, 1\}^n \to \{-1, 1\}$ and $\bullet : \{-1, 1\}^2 \to \{-1, 1\}$ the two-party bounded-error quantum communication complexity of $(f \circ \bullet)$ is $O(Q(f) \log n)$, where $Q(f)$ is the bounded-error quantum query complexity of $f$. Note that the bounded-error randomized communication complexity of…
▽ More
Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) observed that for every Boolean function $f : \{-1, 1\}^n \to \{-1, 1\}$ and $\bullet : \{-1, 1\}^2 \to \{-1, 1\}$ the two-party bounded-error quantum communication complexity of $(f \circ \bullet)$ is $O(Q(f) \log n)$, where $Q(f)$ is the bounded-error quantum query complexity of $f$. Note that the bounded-error randomized communication complexity of $(f \circ \bullet)$ is bounded by $O(R(f))$, where $R(f)$ denotes the bounded-error randomized query complexity of $f$. Thus, the BCW simulation has an extra $O(\log n)$ factor appearing that is absent in classical simulation. A natural question is if this factor can be avoided. Høyer and de Wolf (STACS'02) showed that for the Set-Disjointness function, this can be reduced to $c^{\log^* n}$ for some constant $c$, and subsequently Aaronson and Ambainis (FOCS'03) showed that this factor can be made a constant. That is, the quantum communication complexity of the Set-Disjointness function (which is $\mathsf{NOR}_n \circ \wedge$) is $O(Q(\mathsf{NOR}_n))$.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, we show that when $ \bullet = \oplus$, then the extra $\log n$ factor in the BCW simulation is unavoidable. In other words, we exhibit a total function $F : \{-1, 1\}^n \to \{-1, 1\}$ such that $Q^{cc}(F \circ \oplus) = Θ(Q(F) \log n)$.
To the best of our knowledge, it was not even known prior to this work whether there existed a total function $F$ and 2-bit function $\bullet$, such that $Q^{cc}(F \circ \bullet) = ω(Q(F))$.
△ Less
Submitted 23 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
