Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2408.12595 · Leibniz international proceedings in informatics

Quantum Sabotage Complexity

Arjan Cornelissen, Nikhil S. Mande, Subhasree Patro

Published Jan 1, 2024• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

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 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 $f$.

DOI
10.4230/lipics.fsttcs.2024.19

Related papers

Quantum Distinguishing Complexity, Zero-Error Algorithms, and Statistical Zero Knowledge

Shalev Ben-David, Robin Kothari

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.

arXiv:1902.03660•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Jan 1, 2019•1 citation

Randomized query complexity can beat certificate complexity

Shalev Ben-David, Robin Kothari

A long-standing open question in query complexity asks whether there is a total Boolean function f with R(f) << C(f), where R(f) and C(f) denote its bounded-error randomized query complexity and certificate complexity, respectively. We construct a function with R(f) = O~(sqrt{C(f)}), which is optimal up to log factors. The same function also has $Q(f) = O~(C(f)^{1/4}), where Q(f) is the bounded-error quantum query complexity of f, which is also nearly optimal.

cs.CCCross-listedarXiv:2609.15063•Sep 15, 2026•0 citations

A Unified Lower Bound on the Noisy Query Complexity of Boolean Functions

Yuzhou Gu, Xin Li, Yinzhan Xu

We study the query complexity of Boolean functions $f: \{0, 1\}^n \rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ in the noisy query model introduced by Feige, Raghavan, Peleg and Upfal [SICOMP 1994]. In this model, an algorithm can adaptively query the bits of an input vector, but each query result is independently flipped with constant probability $p \in (0, 1/2)$; repeated queries are allowed. The noisy query complexity $\mathsf{N}_p(f)$ of a function $f$ is defined as the minimum expected number of queries needed to compute $f(x)$ with error probability at most $1/3$, for the worst case input $x$. We prove a general lower bound on $\mathsf{N}_p(f)$ based on degree statistics of certain subgraphs of the Boolean hypercube. This is the first general lower bound beyond those implied by the simple observation that $\mathsf{N}_p(f)$ is lower bounded by the randomized query complexity. We show that this recovers (up to a constant factor) most previously known lower bounds on the noisy query complexity of Boolean functions, providing a unified framework for understanding these results and simplifying the proofs in several cases. Furthermore, this resolves in the affirmative an open problem of Gu, Li and Xu [COLT 2025] that $\mathsf{N}_p(f) = Ω(\mathsf{I}(f) \log \mathsf{I}(f))$, where $\mathsf{I}(f)$ denotes the total influence of $f$. We also apply our general lower bound to obtain tight bounds on the noisy query complexity for several new functions.

arXiv:2606.11448•Jun 9, 2026•0 citations

Distributional Quantum Query Complexity

Shalev Ben-David, M. H. Ebtehaj

Quantum query complexity enjoys a variety of pleasing joint computation properties: for example, a composition theorem asserting $Q(f\circ g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g))$ 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 $μ^k$ 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 $γ_2$ 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.

quant-pharXiv:2610.06835•Oct 6, 2026•0 citations

A Nearly Quartic Separation Between Randomized and Quantum Query Complexity

OpenAI

We construct total Boolean functions with a nearly quartic separation between bounded-error randomized and quantum query complexity. Writing these complexities as \mathrm R(f) and \mathrm Q(f), the examples rule out every universal bound \mathrm R(f)=O((1+\mathrm Q(f))^\alpha) with α < 4. Thus the known quartic upper bound has the optimal exponent, disproving the conjectured cubic bound. Both complexities count worst-case bit queries with error at most 1/3 on every input.

•Oct 6, 2026•0 citations

Randomized query composition and sabotage complexity

Swagato Sanyal

Let \(\mathsf {R}_\epsilon\) denote the randomized query complexity for error probability ε, and \(\mathsf {R}:=\mathsf {R}_{1/3}\) . In this work, we investigate whether a perfect composition theorem \(\mathsf {R}(f \circ g^n)=\Omega (\mathsf {R}(f)\cdot \mathsf {R}(g))\) holds for a relation \(f \subseteq \lbrace 0,1\rbrace ^n \times \mathcal {S}\) and a total inner function \(g:\lbrace 0,1\rbrace ^m \rightarrow \lbrace 0,1\rbrace\) . Ben-David and Kothari (ICALP 2016, TOC 2018) showed that \(\mathsf {R}(f \circ g^n)=\Omega (\mathsf {R}(f)\cdot \mathsf {RS}(g))\) , where \(\mathsf {RS}\) is the sabotage complexity, a measure that they defined. Their result holds even when f is any relation and g is any partial function. Ben-David and Kothari asked in their article whether Sabotage complexity \(\mathsf {RS}\) is asymptotically equivalent to \(\mathsf {R}\) for total Boolean functions. In this article, we show that \(\mathsf {RS}\) is asymptotically at least the maximum distributional query complexity for any product distribution (i.e., probability distribution where the individual bits are independently distributed). In light of the minimax theorem, which states that \(\mathsf {R}\) is the maximum distributional query complexity for any distribution, our result makes progress toward answering the composition question. We prove our result by introducing a novel complexity measure called \(\mathsf {R}_{}^{\mathsf {prod}}\) , and proving it to be equivalent to \(\mathsf {RS}\) up to a logarithmic factor. How tight is our bound? We show that our bound is polynomially loose for the complete binary NAND tree function, for which \(\mathsf {RS}\) is polynomially larger than the distributional query complexity for any product distribution. Our result also confirms that \(\mathsf {RS}\) and \(\mathsf {R}\) are asymptotically equivalent for this function. We thus also show a polynomial separation between \(\mathsf {R}\) and the maximum distributional query complexity for any product distribution which, to our knowledge, was not known prior to our work.

ACM Transactions on Computation Theory•Jul 15, 2025•0 citations
Given a Boolean function f:{0,1}n→{0,1}f:\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}f:{0,1}n→{0,1}, the goal in the usual query model is to compute fff on an unknown input x∈{0,1}nx \in \{0,1\}^nx∈{0,1}n while minimizing the number of queries to xxx. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by fsabf_{\mathsf{sab}}fsab​: given an input x∈f−1(0)x \in f^{-1}(0)x∈f−1(0) and an input y∈f−1(1)y \in f^{-1}(1)y∈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 fsabf_{\mathsf{sab}}fsab​. A natural follow-up question is to understand Q(fsab)\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})Q(fsab​), the quantum query complexity of fsabf_{\mathsf{sab}}fsab​. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of this. The following are our main results: ∙    \bullet\;\;∙ If we have additional query access to xxx and yyy, then Q(fsab)=O(min⁡{Q(f),n})\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f),\sqrt{n}\})Q(fsab​)=O(min{Q(f),n​}). ∙    \bullet\;\;∙ 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})\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f)^{1.5},\sqrt{n}\})Q(fsab​)=O(min{Q(f)1.5,n​}). ∙    \bullet\;\;∙ Q(fsab)=Ω(fbs(f))\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}}) = Ω(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})Q(fsab​)=Ω(fbs(f)​), where fbs(f)\mathsf{fbs}(f)fbs(f) denotes the fractional block sensitivity of fff. By known results, along with the results in the previous bullets, this implies that Q(fsab)\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})Q(fsab​) is polynomially related to Q(f)\mathsf{Q}(f)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 fff is the Indexing function, Q(fsab)=Θ(fbs(f))\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\mathsf{fbs}(f))Q(fsab​)=Θ(fbs(f)), ruling out the possibility that Q(fsab)=Θ(fbs(f))\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})Q(fsab​)=Θ(fbs(f)​) for all fff.
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 study the query complexity of Boolean functions f:{0,1}n→{0,1}f: \{0, 1\}^n \rightarrow \{0, 1\}f:{0,1}n→{0,1} in the noisy query model introduced by Feige, Raghavan, Peleg and Upfal [SICOMP 1994]. In this model, an algorithm can adaptively query the bits of an input vector, but each query result is independently flipped with constant probability p∈(0,1/2)p \in (0, 1/2)p∈(0,1/2); repeated queries are allowed. The noisy query complexity Np(f)\mathsf{N}_p(f)Np​(f) of a function fff is defined as the minimum expected number of queries needed to compute f(x)f(x)f(x) with error probability at most 1/31/31/3, for the worst case input xxx. We prove a general lower bound on Np(f)\mathsf{N}_p(f)Np​(f) based on degree statistics of certain subgraphs of the Boolean hypercube. This is the first general lower bound beyond those implied by the simple observation that Np(f)\mathsf{N}_p(f)Np​(f) is lower bounded by the randomized query complexity. We show that this recovers (up to a constant factor) most previously known lower bounds on the noisy query complexity of Boolean functions, providing a unified framework for understanding these results and simplifying the proofs in several cases. Furthermore, this resolves in the affirmative an open problem of Gu, Li and Xu [COLT 2025] that Np(f)=Ω(I(f)log⁡I(f))\mathsf{N}_p(f) = Ω(\mathsf{I}(f) \log \mathsf{I}(f))Np​(f)=Ω(I(f)logI(f)), where I(f)\mathsf{I}(f)I(f) denotes the total influence of fff. We also apply our general lower bound to obtain tight bounds on the noisy query complexity for several new 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))Q(f\circ g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g))Q(f∘g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g)) for all Boolean functions fff and ggg; a direct sum theorem asserting that computing kkk copies of a function (or search problem) costs Ω(k)Ω(k)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)Ω(k)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 μμμ over inputs, the direct sum theorem says nothing about the quantum query complexity of computing kkk copies of fff when the input comes from the product distribution μkμ^kμk 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 γ2γ_2γ2​ 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.
Let Rϵ\mathsf {R}_\epsilonRϵ​ denote the randomized query complexity for error probability ε, and R:=R1/3\mathsf {R}:=\mathsf {R}_{1/3}R:=R1/3​ . In this work, we investigate whether a perfect composition theorem R(f∘gn)=Ω(R(f)⋅R(g))\mathsf {R}(f \circ g^n)=\Omega (\mathsf {R}(f)\cdot \mathsf {R}(g))R(f∘gn)=Ω(R(f)⋅R(g)) holds for a relation f⊆{0,1}n×Sf \subseteq \lbrace 0,1\rbrace ^n \times \mathcal {S}f⊆{0,1}n×S and a total inner function g:{0,1}m→{0,1}g:\lbrace 0,1\rbrace ^m \rightarrow \lbrace 0,1\rbraceg:{0,1}m→{0,1} . Ben-David and Kothari (ICALP 2016, TOC 2018) showed that R(f∘gn)=Ω(R(f)⋅RS(g))\mathsf {R}(f \circ g^n)=\Omega (\mathsf {R}(f)\cdot \mathsf {RS}(g))R(f∘gn)=Ω(R(f)⋅RS(g)) , where RS\mathsf {RS}RS is the sabotage complexity, a measure that they defined. Their result holds even when f is any relation and g is any partial function. Ben-David and Kothari asked in their article whether Sabotage complexity RS\mathsf {RS}RS is asymptotically equivalent to R\mathsf {R}R for total Boolean functions. In this article, we show that RS\mathsf {RS}RS is asymptotically at least the maximum distributional query complexity for any product distribution (i.e., probability distribution where the individual bits are independently distributed). In light of the minimax theorem, which states that R\mathsf {R}R is the maximum distributional query complexity for any distribution, our result makes progress toward answering the composition question. We prove our result by introducing a novel complexity measure called Rprod\mathsf {R}_{}^{\mathsf {prod}}Rprod​ , and proving it to be equivalent to RS\mathsf {RS}RS up to a logarithmic factor. How tight is our bound? We show that our bound is polynomially loose for the complete binary NAND tree function, for which RS\mathsf {RS}RS is polynomially larger than the distributional query complexity for any product distribution. Our result also confirms that RS\mathsf {RS}RS and R\mathsf {R}R are asymptotically equivalent for this function. We thus also show a polynomial separation between R\mathsf {R}R and the maximum distributional query complexity for any product distribution which, to our knowledge, was not known prior to our work.