STABILISER-PARITY QUANTUM GAMES

Şahin Kaya Özdemir, Junichi Shimamura, Nobuyuki Imoto

Akira SaiToh, Robabeh Rahimi, Mikio Nakahara

Malvika Raj Joshi, Avishay Tal, Francisca Vasconcelos +1 more

In this work, we prove the strongest known lower bounds for QAC$^0$, allowing polynomially many gates and ancillae. Our main results show that: (1) Depth-3 QAC$^0$ circuits cannot compute PARITY, and require $Ω(\exp(\sqrt{n}))$ gates to compute MAJORITY. (2) Depth-2 circuits cannot approximate high-influence Boolean functions (e.g., PARITY) with non-negligible advantage, regardless of size. We develop new classical simulation techniques for QAC$^0$ to obtain our depth-3 bounds. In these results, we relax the output requirement of the quantum circuit to a single bit, making our depth $2$ approximation bound stronger than the previous best bound of Rosenthal (2021). This also enables us to draw natural comparisons with classical AC$^0$ circuits, which can compute PARITY exactly in depth $2$ (exp size). Our techniques further suggest that, for boolean total functions, constant-depth quantum circuits do not necessarily provide more power than their classical counterparts. Our third result shows that depth $2$ QAC$^0$ circuits, regardless of size, cannot exactly synthesize an $n$-target nekomata state (a state whose synthesis is directly related to the computation of PARITY). This complements the depth $2$ exponential size upper bound of Rosenthal (2021) for approximating nekomatas (which is used as a sub-circuit in the only known constant depth PARITY upper bound). Finally, we argue that approximating PARITY in QAC0, with significantly better than 1/poly(n) advantage on average, is just as hard as computing it exactly. Thus, extending our techniques to higher depths would also rule out approximate circuits for PARITY and related problems

Zhiming Huang, Daowen Qiu

Hong Mei Guo, Juheng Zhang, Gary J. Kœhler

Lucas Gretta, Meghal Gupta, Malvika Raj Joshi

A major open problem in understanding shallow quantum circuits (QAC$^0$) is whether they can compute Parity. We show that this question is solely about the Fourier spectrum of QAC$^0$: any QAC$^0$ circuit with non-negligible high-level Fourier mass suffices to exactly compute PARITY in QAC$^0$. Thus, proving a quantum analog of the seminal LMN theorem for AC$^0$ is necessary to bound the quantum circuit complexity of PARITY. In the other direction, LMN does not fully capture the limitations of AC$^0$. For example, despite MAJORITY having $99\%$ of its weight on low-degree Fourier coefficients, no AC$^0$ circuit can non-trivially correlate with it. In contrast, we provide a QAC$^0$ circuit that achieves $(1-o(1))$ correlation with MAJORITY, establishing the first average-case decision separation between AC$^0$ and QAC$^0$. This suggests a uniquely quantum phenomenon: unlike in the classical setting, Fourier concentration may largely characterize the power of QAC$^0$. PARITY is also known to be equivalent in QAC$^0$ to inherently quantum tasks such as preparing GHZ states to high fidelity. We extend this equivalence to a broad class of state-synthesis tasks. We demonstrate that existing metrics such as trace distance, fidelity, and mutual information are insufficient to capture these states and introduce a new measure, felinity. We prove that preparing any state with non-negligible felinity, or derived states such as poly(n)-weight Dicke states, implies PARITY $\in$ QAC$^0$.