We define a new query measure we call quantum distinguishing complexity, denoted QD(f) for a Boolean function f. Unlike a quantum query algorithm, which must output a state close to |0> on a 0-input and a state close to |1> on a 1-input, a "quantum distinguishing algorithm" can output any state, as long as the output states for any 0-input and 1-input are distinguishable. Using this measure, we establish a new relationship in query complexity: For all total functions f, Q_0(f)=O~(Q(f)^5), where Q_0(f) and Q(f) denote the zero-error and bounded-error quantum query complexity of f respectively, improving on the previously known sixth power relationship. We also define a query measure based on quantum statistical zero-knowledge proofs, QSZK(f), which is at most Q(f). We show that QD(f) in fact lower bounds QSZK(f) and not just Q(f). QD(f) also upper bounds the (positive-weights) adversary bound, which yields the following relationships for all f: Q(f) >= QSZK(f) >= QD(f) = Omega(Adv(f)). This sheds some light on why the adversary bound proves suboptimal bounds for problems like Collision and Set Equality, which have low QSZK complexity. Lastly, we show implications for lifting theorems in communication complexity. We show that a general lifting theorem for either zero-error quantum query complexity or for QSZK would imply a general lifting theorem for bounded-error quantum query complexity.
We define a new query measure we call quantum distinguishing complexity, denoted QD(f) for a Boolean function f. Unlike a quantum query algorithm, which must output a state close to |0> on a 0-input and a state close to |1> on a 1-input, a "quantum distinguishing algorithm" can output any state, as long as the output states for any 0-input and 1-input are distinguishable. Using this measure, we establish a new relationship in query complexity: For all total functions f, Q_0(f)=O~(Q(f)^5), where Q_0(f) and Q(f) denote the zero-error and bounded-error quantum query complexity of f respectively, improving on the previously known sixth power relationship. We also define a query measure based on quantum statistical zero-knowledge proofs, QSZK(f), which is at most Q(f). We show that QD(f) in fact lower bounds QSZK(f) and not just Q(f). QD(f) also upper bounds the (positive-weights) adversary bound, which yields the following relationships for all f: Q(f) >= QSZK(f) >= QD(f) = Omega(Adv(f)). This sheds some light on why the adversary bound proves suboptimal bounds for problems like Collision and Set Equality, which have low QSZK complexity. Lastly, we show implications for lifting theorems in communication complexity. We show that a general lifting theorem for either zero-error quantum query complexity or for QSZK would imply a general lifting theorem for bounded-error quantum query complexity.
Given a Boolean function f:{0,1}n→{0,1}, the goal in the usual query model is to compute f on an unknown input x∈{0,1}n while minimizing the number of queries to x. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by fsab: given an input x∈f−1(0) and an input y∈f−1(1), either all differing locations are replaced by a ∗, or all differing locations are replaced by †, 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 fsab. A natural follow-up question is to understand Q(fsab), the quantum query complexity of fsab. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of this. The following are our main results: ∙ If we have additional query access to x and y, then Q(fsab)=O(min{Q(f),n}). ∙ If an algorithm is also required to output a differing index of a 0-input and a 1-input, then Q(fsab)=O(min{Q(f)1.5,n}). ∙Q(fsab)=Ω(fbs(f)), where fbs(f) denotes the fractional block sensitivity of f. By known results, along with the results in the previous bullets, this implies that Q(fsab) is polynomially related to Q(f). ∙ 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, Q(fsab)=Θ(fbs(f)), ruling out the possibility that Q(fsab)=Θ(fbs(f)) for all f.
We investigate query-to-communication lifting theorems for models related to the quantum adversary bounds. Our results are as follows: 1) We show that the classical adversary bound lifts to a lower bound on randomized communication complexity with a constant-sized gadget. We also show that the classical adversary bound is a strictly stronger lower bound technique than the previously-lifted measure known as critical block sensitivity, making our lifting theorem one of the strongest lifting theorems for randomized communication complexity using a constant-sized gadget. 2) Turning to quantum models, we show a connection between lifting theorems for quantum adversary bounds and secure 2-party quantum computation in a certain "honest-but-curious" model. Under the assumption that such secure 2-party computation is impossible, we show that a simplified version of the positive-weight adversary bound lifts to a quantum communication lower bound using a constant-sized gadget. We also give an unconditional lifting theorem which lower bounds bounded-round quantum communication protocols. 3) Finally, we give some new results in query complexity. We show that the classical adversary and the positive-weight quantum adversary are quadratically related. We also show that the positive-weight quantum adversary is never larger than the square of the approximate degree. Both relations hold even for partial functions.
We investigate query-to-communication lifting theorems for models related to the quantum adversary bounds. Our results are as follows: 1) We show that the classical adversary bound lifts to a lower bound on randomized communication complexity with a constant-sized gadget. We also show that the classical adversary bound is a strictly stronger lower bound technique than the previously-lifted measure known as critical block sensitivity, making our lifting theorem one of the strongest lifting theorems for randomized communication complexity using a constant-sized gadget. 2) Turning to quantum models, we show a connection between lifting theorems for quantum adversary bounds and secure 2-party quantum computation in a certain "honest-but-curious" model. Under the assumption that such secure 2-party computation is impossible, we show that a simplified version of the positive-weight adversary bound lifts to a quantum communication lower bound using a constant-sized gadget. We also give an unconditional lifting theorem which lower bounds bounded-round quantum communication protocols. 3) Finally, we give some new results in query complexity. We show that the classical adversary and the positive-weight quantum adversary are quadratically related. We also show that the positive-weight quantum adversary is never larger than the square of the approximate degree. Both relations hold even for partial functions.
Quantum query complexity enjoys a variety of pleasing joint computation properties: for example, a composition theorem asserting Q(f∘g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g)) for all Boolean functions f and g; a direct sum theorem asserting that computing k copies of a function (or search problem) costs Ω(k) times as much as the cost of computing one copy; and a direct product theorem asserting that for Boolean functions, even succeeding at the direct sum problem with exponentially small probability still requires Ω(k) times the cost of computing one copy to bounded error.
However, all of these results are strictly for worst-case quantum query complexity. For example, if we have a fixed distribution μ over inputs, the direct sum theorem says nothing about the quantum query complexity of computing k copies of f when the input comes from the product distribution μk instead of being worst-case. (Note that while a standard Yao-type minimax theorem guarantees a hard distribution for the direct sum problem, there's no guarantee that this hard distribution is a product distribution.) A similar problem occurs for the direct product theorem and the composition theorem: none of these results respect distributions.
In this work, we give distributional joint computation lower bounds for the composition, direct sum, and direct product problems. Along the way, we introduce some new tools for handling quantum query lower bounds, including (a) a new ``multiplicative'' variant of the γ2 norm (which we use in place of the multiplicative adversary method for proving the direct product theorem), and (b) a new ``Shaltiel-free'' measure of quantum query complexity, which we show characterizes the composition behavior of distributional quantum query complexity and satisfies pleasing properties.
We study how large the certificate complexity C(f) of a total Boolean function can be relative to its randomized and quantum query complexities. We construct a total Boolean function f whose randomized query complexity with one-sided error satisfies R1(f)=Θ(C(f)). This separation is optimal even when two-sided error is allowed.
From this construction, we obtain another total Boolean function F with bounded-error quantum query complexity Q(F)=O(C(F)1/4), attaining the general quartic bound up to polylogarithmic factors. For the same function, both exact and zero-error quantum query complexities are O(C(F)). We also prove matching lower bounds for these two measures on F.
Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) observed that for every Boolean function f:{-1,1}ⁿ → {-1,1} and •:{-1,1}² → {-1,1} the two-party bounded-error quantum communication complexity of (f ∘ •) 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 ∘ •) 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. Razborov (IZV MATH'03) showed that the bounded-error quantum communication complexity of Set-Disjointness is Ω(√n). The BCW simulation yields an upper bound of O(√n log n). Høyer and de Wolf (STACS'02) showed that 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 NOR_n ∘ ∧) is O(Q(NOR_n)). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, we show that when • = ⊕, then the extra log n factor in the BCW simulation is unavoidable. In other words, we exhibit a total function F:{-1,1}ⁿ → {-1,1} such that Q^{cc}(F ∘ ⊕) = 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 •, such that Q^{cc}(F ∘ •) = ω(Q(F)).