We reformulate the notion of quantum query complexity in terms of inequalities and equations for a set of positive matrices, which we view as a quantum analogue of a decision tree. Using the new formulation we show that: 1. every quantum query algorithm needs to use at most n quantum bits in addition to the query register. 2. For any function f there is an algorithm that runs in polynomial time in terms the truth table of f and (for {var_epsilon} > 0) computes the {var_epsilon}-error quantum decision tree complexity of f. 3. Using the dual of our system we can treat lower bound methods on a uniform platform, which paves the way to their future comparison. In particular we describe Ambainis's bound in our framework. 4. The output condition on quantum algorithms used by Ambainis and others is not sufficient for an algorithm to compute a function with {var_epsilon}-bounded error: we show the existence of algorithms whose final entanglement matrix satisfies the condition, but for which the value of f cannot be determined from a quantum measurement on the accessible part of the computer.
We reformulate the notion of quantum query complexity in terms of inequalities and equations for a set of positive matrices, which we view as a quantum analogue of a decision tree. Using the new formulation we show that: 1. every quantum query algorithm needs to use at most n quantum bits in addition to the query register. 2. For any function f there is an algorithm that runs in polynomial time in terms the truth table of f and (for {var_epsilon} > 0) computes the {var_epsilon}-error quantum decision tree complexity of f. 3. Using the dual of our system we can treat lower bound methods on a uniform platform, which paves the way to their future comparison. In particular we describe Ambainis's bound in our framework. 4. The output condition on quantum algorithms used by Ambainis and others is not sufficient for an algorithm to compute a function with {var_epsilon}-bounded error: we show the existence of algorithms whose final entanglement matrix satisfies the condition, but for which the value of f cannot be determined from a quantum measurement on the accessible part of the computer.
We reformulate quantum query complexity in terms of inequalities and equations for a set of positive semidefinite matrices. Using the new formulation we: 1) show that the workspace of a quantum computer can be limited to at most n+k qubits (where n and k are the number of input and output bits respectively) without reducing the computational power of the model; 2) give an algorithm that on input the truth table of a partial Boolean function and an integer t runs in time polynomial in the size of the truth table and estimates, to any desired accuracy, the minimum probability of error that can be attained by a quantum query algorithm attempts to evaluate f in t queries; 3) use semidefinite programming duality to formulate a dual SDP P/spl circ/(f, t, /spl epsi/) that is feasible if and only if f cannot be evaluated within error /spl epsi/ by a t-step quantum query algorithm. Using this SDP, we derive a general lower bound for quantum query complexity that encompasses a lower bound method of Ambainis and its generalizations; 4) give an interpretation of a generalized form of branching in quantum computation.
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.
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.
Lin and Lin \cite{LL16} have recently shown how starting with a classical query algorithm (decision tree) for a function, we may find upper bounds on its quantum query complexity. More precisely, they have shown that given a decision tree for a function f:{0,1}n→[m] whose input can be accessed via queries to its bits, and a guessing algorithm that predicts answers to the queries, there is a quantum query algorithm for f which makes at most O(GT) quantum queries where T is the depth of the decision tree and G is the maximum number of mistakes of the guessing algorithm. In this paper we give a simple proof of and generalize this result for functions f:[ℓ]n→[m] with non-binary input as well as output alphabets. Our main tool for this generalization is non-binary span program which has recently been developed for non-binary functions, and the dual adversary bound. As applications of our main result we present several quantum query upper bounds, some of which are new. In particular, we show that topological sorting of vertices of a directed graph G can be done with O(n3/2) quantum queries in the adjacency matrix model. Also, we show that the quantum query complexity of the maximum bipartite matching is upper bounded by O(n3/4m+n) in the adjacency list model.
Many quantum algorithms can be analyzed in a query model to compute Boolean functions where input is given by a black box. As in the classical version of decision trees, different kinds of quantum query algorithms are possible: exact, with bounded error and even nondeterministic. In this paper, we study the latter class of algorithms. We introduce a new notion in addition to already studied nondeterministic algorithms and introduce dual nondeterministic quantum query algorithms. We examine properties of such algorithms and prove relations with exact and nondeterministic quantum query algorithm complexity. As a result and as an example of the application of discovered properties, we demonstrate a gap of n vs. 2 between classical deterministic and dual nondeterministic quantum query complexity for a specific Boolean function. Finally, we show an approach how to construct examples where quantum nondeterministic complexity of an algorithm is O(1), however classical deterministic algorithm for the same function would require O(n) queries.