Span programs provide a general method for designing quantum query algorithms, and for Boolean coordinate queries their optimum cost agrees with the general adversary bound. We develop a matroidal organization of this optimization that separates dependence data determined by the query problem from the dependence structure chosen by a span program. The resulting source matroid records query dependence, target determination, and separation data, while a program matroid records dependencies among the target and response-labeled input elements of a candidate program.
When a query problem admits a source matroid, we use its structure to organize adversary upper and lower bounds. For separating binary query sets in this setting, the global matroid-span-program optimum equals $\mathrm{Adv}^{\pm}_{\mathcal Q}(f)$. For a fixed regular program matroid, projective uniqueness reduces optimization over real representations to positive element weights. We express positive and negative costs as weighted basis ratios and derive exact $1$-, $2$-, and $3$-sum reductions, giving a compositional evaluation of the fixed-weight objective along a Seymour decomposition.
For pointed $R_{10}$ closure, exact certificates give $3.9087553<\mathrm{Adv}^{\pm}_{\mathcal Q_R}(f_R)<3.9301$. The natural $R_{10}$ program has optimized cost $5$, while another regular program has cost at most $\sqrt{87/5}$. Recursive self-composition yields a family on $N$ input bits with randomized query complexity $Ω(N^{0.7324867\ldots})$, an explicit quantum algorithm using $O(N^{0.6500178\ldots})$ queries, and $Q(F)=Θ(N^α)$ for $0.6204277\ldots<α<0.6229063\ldots$.
Span programs provide a general method for designing quantum query algorithms, and for Boolean coordinate queries their optimum cost agrees with the general adversary bound. We develop a matroidal organization of this optimization that separates dependence data determined by the query problem from the dependence structure chosen by a span program. The resulting source matroid records query dependence, target determination, and separation data, while a program matroid records dependencies among the target and response-labeled input elements of a candidate program.
When a query problem admits a source matroid, we use its structure to organize adversary upper and lower bounds. For separating binary query sets in this setting, the global matroid-span-program optimum equals AdvQ±(f). For a fixed regular program matroid, projective uniqueness reduces optimization over real representations to positive element weights. We express positive and negative costs as weighted basis ratios and derive exact 1-, 2-, and 3-sum reductions, giving a compositional evaluation of the fixed-weight objective along a Seymour decomposition.
For pointed R10 closure, exact certificates give 3.9087553<AdvQR±(fR)<3.9301. The natural R10 program has optimized cost 5, while another regular program has cost at most 87/5. Recursive self-composition yields a family on N input bits with randomized query complexity Ω(N0.7324867…), an explicit quantum algorithm using O(N0.6500178…) queries, and Q(F)=Θ(Nα) for 0.6204277…<α<0.6229063….
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(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.
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(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.
In the search with wildcards problem [Ambainis, Montanaro, Quantum Inf.~Comput.'14], one's goal is to learn an unknown bit-string x∈{−1,1}n. An algorithm may, at unit cost, test equality of any subset of the hidden string with a string of its choice. Ambainis and Montanaro showed a quantum algorithm of cost O(nlogn) and a near-matching lower bound of Ω(n). Belovs [Comput.~Comp.'15] subsequently showed a tight O(n) upper bound.
We consider a natural generalization of this problem, parametrized by a subset Q⊆2[n], where an algorithm may test whether xS=b for an arbitrary S∈Q and b∈{−1,1}S of its choice, at unit cost. We show near-tight bounds when Q is any of the following collections: bounded-size sets, contiguous blocks, prefixes, and only the full set.
All of these results are derived using a framework that we develop. Using symmetries of the task at hand we show that the quantum query complexity of learning x is characterized, up to a constant factor, by an optimization program, which is succinctly described as follows: `maximize over all odd functions f:{−1,1}n→R the ratio of the maximum value of f to the maximum (over T∈Q) standard deviation of f on a subcube whose free variables are exactly T.'
To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to use the primal version of the negative-weight adversary bound (which is a maximization program typically used to show lower bounds) to show new quantum query upper bounds without explicitly resorting to SDP duality.
Span programs are a model of computation that have been used to design quantum algorithms, mainly in the query model. It is known that for any decision problem, there exists a span program that leads to an algorithm with optimal quantum query complexity, however finding such an algorithm is generally challenging. We consider new ways of designing quantum algorithms using span programs. We show how any span program that decides a function f can also be used to decide “threshold” versions of the function f, or more generally, approximate a quantity called the span program witness size, which is some property of the input related to f. We achieve these results by relaxing the requirement that 1-inputs hit some target exactly in the span program, which could potentially make design of span programs significantly easier. In addition, we give an exposition of span program structure, which increases the general understanding of this important model. One implication of this is alternative algorithms for estimating the witness size when the phase gap of a certain unitary can be lower bounded. We show how to lower bound this phase gap in certain cases. As an application, we give the first upper bounds in the adjacency query model on the quantum time complexity of estimating the effective resistance between s and t, Rs,t(G) . For this problem we obtain O(ε3/21nRs,t(G)) , using O(logn) space. In addition, when μ is a lower bound on λ2(G) , by our phase gap lower bound, we can obtain an upper bound of O(ε1nRs,t(G)/μ) for estimating effective resistance, also using O(logn) space.
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 consider the following question in query complexity: Given a classical query algorithm in the form of a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up (i.e., that makes fewer queries) 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 the number of queries. In particular, our results give a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost O(√s) to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size s. This recovers an O(√n) algorithm for the Search problem, for example. Lin and Lin [Theory of Computing'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor. Their upper bounds are 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 [Information and Computation'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 measure studied in classical complexity theory. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and its natural randomized analog 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 edges of the tree. 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 strictly 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 in their construction could yield better upper bounds.