We give an O(√n log n)-query quantum algorithm for evaluating size-n AND-OR formulas. Its running time is poly-logarithmically greater after efficient preprocessing. Unlike previous approaches, the algorithm is based on a quantum walk on a graph that is not a tree. Instead, the algorithm is based on a hybrid of direct-sum span program composition, which generates tree-like graphs, and a novel tensor-product span program composition method, which generates graphs with vertices corresponding to minimal zero-certificates.
We give an O(√n log n)-query quantum algorithm for evaluating size-n AND-OR formulas. Its running time is poly-logarithmically greater after efficient preprocessing. Unlike previous approaches, the algorithm is based on a quantum walk on a graph that is not a tree. Instead, the algorithm is based on a hybrid of direct-sum span program composition, which generates tree-like graphs, and a novel tensor-product span program composition method, which generates graphs with vertices corresponding to minimal zero-certificates.
We give an O(√n log n)-query quantum algorithm for evaluating size-n AND-OR formulas. Its running time is poly-logarithmically greater after efficient preprocessing. Unlike previous approaches, the algorithm is based on a quantum walk on a graph that is not a tree. Instead, the algorithm is based on a hybrid of direct-sum span program composition, which generates tree-like graphs, and a novel tensor-product span program composition method, which generates graphs with vertices corresponding to minimal zero-certificates.
We give an O(sqrt n log n)-query quantum algorithm for evaluating size-n AND-OR formulas. Its running time is poly-logarithmically greater after efficient preprocessing. Unlike previous approaches, the algorithm is based on a quantum walk on a graph that is not a tree. Instead, the algorithm is based on a hybrid of direct-sum span program composition, which generates tree-like graphs, and a novel tensor-product span program composition method, which generates graphs with vertices corresponding to minimal zero-certificates. For comparison, by the general adversary bound, the quantum query complexity for evaluating a size-n read-once AND-OR formula is at least Omega(sqrt n), and at most O(sqrt{n} log n / log log n). However, this algorithm is not necessarily time efficient; the number of elementary quantum gates applied between input queries could be much larger. Ambainis et al. have given a quantum algorithm that uses sqrt{n} 2^{O(sqrt{log n})} queries, with a poly-logarithmically greater running time.
Quantum query complexity measures the number of input bits that must be read by a quantum algorithm in order to evaluate a function. Hoyer et al. (2007) have generalized the adversary semidefinite program that lower-bounds quantum query complexity. By giving a matching quantum algorithm, we show that the general adversary lower bound is tight for every boolean function. The proof is based on span programs, a linear-algebraic computational model without inherent dynamics. Span programs correspond to solutions to the dual semi-definite program, and to bipartite graphs. The analysis shows that properties of eigenvalue-zero eigenvectors of the graphs in fact imply an “effective” spectral gap around zero We thus develop a quantum algorithm for evaluating span programs. It follows that span programs, measured by witness size, and quantum algorithms, measured by query complexity, are equivalent computational models, up to a constant factor. The result efficiently characterizes the quantum query complexity of a read-once formula over any finite gate set. It also implies that the quantum query complexity of the composition f ◦ (g, . . . , g) of two boolean functions matches the product of the query complexities of f and g, without a logarithmic factor for error reduction. The algorithm alternates a fixed reflection with input queries. Originally introduced for solving the unstructured search problem, this structure is therefore a universal feature of quantum query algorithms. We give a second algorithm for evaluating span programs that has the further potential to be time-efficient. Subsequent applications have derived nearly time-optimal quantum algorithms for evaluating many read-once formulas. Span programs may have promise for developing more quantum algorithms.
The general adversary bound is a semi-definite program (SDP) that lower-bounds the quantum query complexity of a function. We turn this lower bound into an upper bound, by giving a quantum walk algorithm based on the dual SDP that has query complexity at most the general adversary bound, up to a logarithmic factor. In more detail, the proof has two steps, each based on "span programs," a certain linear-algebraic model of computation. First, we give an SDP that outputs for any boolean function a span program computing it that has optimal "witness size." The optimal witness size is shown to coincide with the general adversary lower bound. Second, we give a quantum algorithm for evaluating span programs with only a logarithmic query overhead on the witness size. The first result is motivated by a quantum algorithm for evaluating composed span programs. The algorithm is known to be optimal for evaluating a large class of formulas. The allowed gates include all constant-size functions for which there is an optimal span program. So far, good span programs have been found in an ad hoc manner, and the SDP automates this procedure. Surprisingly, the SDP's value equals the general adversary bound. A corollary is an optimal quantum algorithm for evaluating "balanced" formulas over any finite boolean gate set. The second result extends span programs' applicability beyond the formula-evaluation problem. We extend the analysis of the quantum algorithm for evaluating span programs. The previous analysis shows that a corresponding bipartite graph has a large spectral gap, but only works when applied to the composition of constant-size span programs. We show generally that properties of eigenvalue-zero eigenvectors in fact imply an "effective" spectral gap around zero. A strong universality result for span programs follows. A good quantum query algorithm for a problem implies a good span program, and vice versa. Although nearly tight, this equivalence is nontrivial. Span programs are a promising model for developing more quantum algorithms.
Span program is a linear-algebraic model of computation originally proposed for studying the complexity theory. Recently, it has become a useful tool for designing quantum algorithms. In this paper, we present a time-efficient span-program-based quantum algorithm for the following problem. Let T be an arbitrary tree. Given query access to the adjacency matrix of a graph G with n vertices, we need to determine whether G contains T as a subgraph, or G does not contain T as a minor, under the promise that one of these cases holds. We call this problem the subgraph/not-a-minor problem for T. We show that this problem can be solved by a bounded-error quantum algorithm with O(n) query complexity and O~(n) time complexity. The query complexity is optimal, and the time complexity is tight up to polylog factors.
It has recently been shown that starting with a classical query algorithm (decision tree) and a guessing algorithm that tries to predict the query answers, we can design a quantum algorithm with query complexity O( √ GT where T is the query complexity of the classical algorithm (depth of the decision tree) and G is the maximum number of wrong answers by the guessing algorithm [ 3 , 14 ]. In this article, we show that, given some constraints on the classical algorithms, this quantum algorithm can be implemented in time Õ (√ GT ). Our algorithm is based on non-binary span programs and their efficient implementation. We conclude that various graph-theoretic problems including bipartiteness, cycle detection, and topological sort can be solved in time O(n 3/2 log 2 n ) and with O(n 3/2 ) quantum queries. Moreover, finding a maximal matching can be solved with O(n 3/2 ) quantum queries in time O(n 3/2 log 2 n ), and maximum bipartite matching can be solved in time O(n 2 log 2 n ).