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:quant-ph/0007036 · IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)

Quantum versus classical learnability

Rocco A. Servedio, Steven J. Gortler

Published Nov 13, 2002• 30 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Motivated by work on quantum black-box query complexity, we consider quantum versions of two well-studied models of learning Boolean functions: Angluin's (1988) model of exact learning from membership queries and Valiant's (1984) Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) model of learning from random examples. For each of these two learning models we establish a polynomial relationship between the number of quantum versus classical queries required for learning. Our results provide an interesting contrast to known results which show that testing black-box functions for various properties can require exponentially more classical queries than quantum queries. We also show that under a widely held computational hardness assumption there is a class of Boolean functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum version but not the classical version of each learning model; thus while quantum and classical learning are equally powerful from an information theory perspective, they are different when viewed from a computational complexity perspective.

DOI
10.1109/ccc.2001.933881

Related papers

Equivalences and Separations Between Quantum and Classical Learnability

Rocco A. Servedio, Steven J. Gortler

We consider quantum versions of two well-studied models of learning Boolean functions: Angluin's model of exact learning from membership queries and Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) model of learning from random examples. For each of these two learning models we establish a polynomial relationship between the number of quantum or classical queries required for learning. These results contrast known results that show that testing black-box functions for various properties, as opposed to learning, can require exponentially more classical queries than quantum queries. We also show that, under a widely held computational hardness assumption (the intractability of factoring Blum integers), there is a class of Boolean functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum version but not the classical version of each learning model. For the model of exact learning from membership queries, we establish a stronger separation by showing that if any one-way function exists, then there is a class of functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum setting but not in the classical setting. Thus, while quantum and classical learning are equally powerful from an information theory perspective, the models are different when viewed from a computational complexity perspective.

SIAM Journal on Computing•Jan 1, 2004•121 citations

Quantum algorithms and learning theory

Srinivasan Arunachalam

This thesis studies strengths and weaknesses of quantum computers. In the first part we present three contributions to quantum algorithms. 1) consider a search space of N elements. One of these elements is "marked" and our goal is to find this. We describe a quantum algorithm to solve this problem using essentially sqrt{N} queries and other operations, improving over the gate count of Grover's algorithm. 2) We give a succinct characterization of quantum algorithms in terms of polynomials, and develop a new technique for showing upper and lower bounds on quantum query complexity based on this. 3) One generic technique used to compute the minimum of a given function is "gradient descent". We present a quantum gradient-calculation algorithm and a gradient-optimization algorithm that is quadratically faster than classical algorithms. In the second part of this thesis we look at quantum learning theory. 1) We survey quantum learning theory, describing the main results known for three models of learning, using classical as well as quantum data: exact learning from membership queries, the probably approximately correct (PAC) learning model, and the agnostic learning model. 2) We then consider if a quantum learner can PAC-learn a given concept class from fewer quantum examples. We give a negative answer by showing that quantum examples are not more powerful than classical random examples, both for PAC learning and for agnostic learning.

•Apr 25, 2018•1 citation

On the Quantum versus Classical Learnability of Discrete Distributions

Ryan Sweke, Jean‐Pierre Seifert, Dominik Hangleiter +1 more

Here we study the comparative power of classical and quantum learners for generative modelling within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework. More specifically we consider the following task: Given samples from some unknown discrete probability distribution, output with high probability an efficient algorithm for generating new samples from a good approximation of the original distribution. Our primary result is the explicit construction of a class of discrete probability distributions which, under the decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption, is provably not efficiently PAC learnable by a classical generative modelling algorithm, but for which we construct an efficient quantum learner. This class of distributions therefore provides a concrete example of a generative modelling problem for which quantum learners exhibit a provable advantage over classical learning algorithms. In addition, we discuss techniques for proving classical generative modelling hardness results, as well as the relationship between the PAC learnability of Boolean functions and the PAC learnability of discrete probability distributions.

arXiv:2007.14451•Quantum•Mar 23, 2021•86 citations

Quantum Hardness of Learning Shallow Classical Circuits

Srinivasan Arunachalam, Alex B. Grilo, Aarthi Sundaram

In this paper, we study the quantum learnability of constant-depth classical circuits under the uniform distribution and in the distribution-independent framework of probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. In order to attain our results, we establish connections between quantum learning and quantum-secure cryptosystems. We then achieve the following results. 1. Hardness of PAC learning ${AC}^0$ and ${TC}^0$ under the uniform distribution. Our first result concerns the concept class ${TC}^0$ (resp., ${AC}^0$), the class of constant-depth, polynomial-sized circuits with unbounded fan-in majority gates (resp., ${AND}, {OR}, {NOT}$ gates). We show the following: if there exists no quantum (quasi-)polynomial-time algorithm to solve the ring-learning with errors (${RLWE}$) problem, then there exists no (quasi-)polynomial-time quantum learning algorithm for ${TC}^0$; and if there exists no $2^{O(d^{1/\eta})}$-time quantum algorithm to solve ${RLWE}$ with dimension $d = O(polylog n)$ (for every constant $\eta > 2$), then there exists no $O(n^{ \log^{\nu} n} )$-time quantum learning algorithm for $poly(n)$-sized ${AC}^0$ circuits (for a constant $\nu>0$), matching the classical upper bound of Linial, Mansour and Nisan [J. ACM, 40 (1993), pp. 607--620], where the learning algorithms are under the uniform distribution (even with access to quantum membership queries). The main technique in these results uses an explicit family of pseudorandom functions that are believed to be quantum-secure to construct concept classes that are hard to learn quantumly under the uniform distribution. 2. Hardness of learning ${TC}^0_2$ in the PAC setting. Our second result shows that if there exists no quantum polynomial-time algorithm for the ${LWE}$ problem, then there exists no polynomial-time quantum-PAC learning algorithm for the class ${TC}^0_2$, i.e., depth-2 ${TC}^0$ circuits. The main technique in this result is to establish a connection between the quantum security of public-key encryption schemes and the learnability of a concept class that consists of decryption functions of the cryptosystem. Our results show that quantum resources do not give an exponential improvement to learning constant-depth polynomial-sized neural networks. This also gives a strong (conditional) negative answer to one of the “Ten Semi-Grand Challenges for Quantum Computing Theory" raised by Aaronson https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/qchallenge.html, 2005.

arXiv:1903.02840•SIAM Journal on Computing•Jan 1, 2021•11 citations

Quantum lower bounds by polynomials

Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve +2 more

We examine the number of queries to input variables that a quantum algorithm requires to compute Boolean functions on {0,1} N in the black-box model. We show that the exponential quantum speed-up obtained for partial functions (i.e., problems involving a promise on the input) by Deutsch and Jozsa, Simon, and Shor cannot be obtained for any total function: if a quantum algorithm computes some total Boolean function f with small error probability using T black-box queries, then there is a classical deterministic algorithm that computes f exactly with O ( Ts 6 ) queries. We also give asymptotically tight characterizations of T for all symmetric f in the exact, zero-error, and bounded-error settings. Finally, we give new precise bounds for AND, OR, and PARITY. Our results are a quantum extension of the so-called polynomial method, which has been successfully applied in classical complexity theory, and also a quantum extension of results by Nisan about a polynomial relationship between randomized and deterministic decision tree complexity.

Journal of the ACM•Jul 1, 2001•623 citations

Quantum Lower Bounds by Polynomials

Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve +2 more

We examine the number T of queries that a quantum network requires to compute several Boolean functions on {0,1}^N in the black-box model. We show that, in the black-box model, the exponential quantum speed-up obtained for partial functions (i.e. problems involving a promise on the input) by Deutsch and Jozsa and by Simon cannot be obtained for any total function: if a quantum algorithm computes some total Boolean function f with bounded-error using T black-box queries then there is a classical deterministic algorithm that computes f exactly with O(T^6) queries. We also give asymptotically tight characterizations of T for all symmetric f in the exact, zero-error, and bounded-error settings. Finally, we give new precise bounds for AND, OR, and PARITY. Our results are a quantum extension of the so-called polynomial method, which has been successfully applied in classical complexity theory, and also a quantum extension of results by Nisan about a polynomial relationship between randomized and deterministic decision tree complexity.

arXiv:quant-ph/9802049•Feb 18, 1998•164 citations
Motivated by work on quantum black-box query complexity, we consider quantum versions of two well-studied models of learning Boolean functions: Angluin's (1988) model of exact learning from membership queries and Valiant's (1984) Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) model of learning from random examples. For each of these two learning models we establish a polynomial relationship between the number of quantum versus classical queries required for learning. Our results provide an interesting contrast to known results which show that testing black-box functions for various properties can require exponentially more classical queries than quantum queries. We also show that under a widely held computational hardness assumption there is a class of Boolean functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum version but not the classical version of each learning model; thus while quantum and classical learning are equally powerful from an information theory perspective, they are different when viewed from a computational complexity perspective.
We consider quantum versions of two well-studied models of learning Boolean functions: Angluin's model of exact learning from membership queries and Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) model of learning from random examples. For each of these two learning models we establish a polynomial relationship between the number of quantum or classical queries required for learning. These results contrast known results that show that testing black-box functions for various properties, as opposed to learning, can require exponentially more classical queries than quantum queries. We also show that, under a widely held computational hardness assumption (the intractability of factoring Blum integers), there is a class of Boolean functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum version but not the classical version of each learning model. For the model of exact learning from membership queries, we establish a stronger separation by showing that if any one-way function exists, then there is a class of functions which is polynomial-time learnable in the quantum setting but not in the classical setting. Thus, while quantum and classical learning are equally powerful from an information theory perspective, the models are different when viewed from a computational complexity perspective.
This thesis studies strengths and weaknesses of quantum computers. In the first part we present three contributions to quantum algorithms. 1) consider a search space of N elements. One of these elements is "marked" and our goal is to find this. We describe a quantum algorithm to solve this problem using essentially sqrt{N} queries and other operations, improving over the gate count of Grover's algorithm. 2) We give a succinct characterization of quantum algorithms in terms of polynomials, and develop a new technique for showing upper and lower bounds on quantum query complexity based on this. 3) One generic technique used to compute the minimum of a given function is "gradient descent". We present a quantum gradient-calculation algorithm and a gradient-optimization algorithm that is quadratically faster than classical algorithms. In the second part of this thesis we look at quantum learning theory. 1) We survey quantum learning theory, describing the main results known for three models of learning, using classical as well as quantum data: exact learning from membership queries, the probably approximately correct (PAC) learning model, and the agnostic learning model. 2) We then consider if a quantum learner can PAC-learn a given concept class from fewer quantum examples. We give a negative answer by showing that quantum examples are not more powerful than classical random examples, both for PAC learning and for agnostic learning.
Here we study the comparative power of classical and quantum learners for generative modelling within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework. More specifically we consider the following task: Given samples from some unknown discrete probability distribution, output with high probability an efficient algorithm for generating new samples from a good approximation of the original distribution. Our primary result is the explicit construction of a class of discrete probability distributions which, under the decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption, is provably not efficiently PAC learnable by a classical generative modelling algorithm, but for which we construct an efficient quantum learner. This class of distributions therefore provides a concrete example of a generative modelling problem for which quantum learners exhibit a provable advantage over classical learning algorithms. In addition, we discuss techniques for proving classical generative modelling hardness results, as well as the relationship between the PAC learnability of Boolean functions and the PAC learnability of discrete probability distributions.
In this paper, we study the quantum learnability of constant-depth classical circuits under the uniform distribution and in the distribution-independent framework of probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. In order to attain our results, we establish connections between quantum learning and quantum-secure cryptosystems. We then achieve the following results. 1. Hardness of PAC learning AC0{AC}^0AC0 and TC0{TC}^0TC0 under the uniform distribution. Our first result concerns the concept class TC0{TC}^0TC0 (resp., AC0{AC}^0AC0), the class of constant-depth, polynomial-sized circuits with unbounded fan-in majority gates (resp., AND,OR,NOT{AND}, {OR}, {NOT}AND,OR,NOT gates). We show the following: if there exists no quantum (quasi-)polynomial-time algorithm to solve the ring-learning with errors (RLWE{RLWE}RLWE) problem, then there exists no (quasi-)polynomial-time quantum learning algorithm for TC0{TC}^0TC0; and if there exists no 2O(d1/η)2^{O(d^{1/\eta})}2O(d1/η)-time quantum algorithm to solve RLWE{RLWE}RLWE with dimension d=O(polylogn)d = O(polylog n)d=O(polylogn) (for every constant η>2\eta > 2η>2), then there exists no O(nlog⁡νn)O(n^{ \log^{\nu} n} )O(nlogνn)-time quantum learning algorithm for poly(n)poly(n)poly(n)-sized AC0{AC}^0AC0 circuits (for a constant ν>0\nu>0ν>0), matching the classical upper bound of Linial, Mansour and Nisan [J. ACM, 40 (1993), pp. 607--620], where the learning algorithms are under the uniform distribution (even with access to quantum membership queries). The main technique in these results uses an explicit family of pseudorandom functions that are believed to be quantum-secure to construct concept classes that are hard to learn quantumly under the uniform distribution. 2. Hardness of learning TC20{TC}^0_2TC20​ in the PAC setting. Our second result shows that if there exists no quantum polynomial-time algorithm for the LWE{LWE}LWE problem, then there exists no polynomial-time quantum-PAC learning algorithm for the class TC20{TC}^0_2TC20​, i.e., depth-2 TC0{TC}^0TC0 circuits. The main technique in this result is to establish a connection between the quantum security of public-key encryption schemes and the learnability of a concept class that consists of decryption functions of the cryptosystem. Our results show that quantum resources do not give an exponential improvement to learning constant-depth polynomial-sized neural networks. This also gives a strong (conditional) negative answer to one of the “Ten Semi-Grand Challenges for Quantum Computing Theory" raised by Aaronson https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/qchallenge.html, 2005.
We examine the number of queries to input variables that a quantum algorithm requires to compute Boolean functions on {0,1} N in the black-box model. We show that the exponential quantum speed-up obtained for partial functions (i.e., problems involving a promise on the input) by Deutsch and Jozsa, Simon, and Shor cannot be obtained for any total function: if a quantum algorithm computes some total Boolean function f with small error probability using T black-box queries, then there is a classical deterministic algorithm that computes f exactly with O ( Ts 6 ) queries. We also give asymptotically tight characterizations of T for all symmetric f in the exact, zero-error, and bounded-error settings. Finally, we give new precise bounds for AND, OR, and PARITY. Our results are a quantum extension of the so-called polynomial method, which has been successfully applied in classical complexity theory, and also a quantum extension of results by Nisan about a polynomial relationship between randomized and deterministic decision tree complexity.
We examine the number T of queries that a quantum network requires to compute several Boolean functions on {0,1}^N in the black-box model. We show that, in the black-box model, the exponential quantum speed-up obtained for partial functions (i.e. problems involving a promise on the input) by Deutsch and Jozsa and by Simon cannot be obtained for any total function: if a quantum algorithm computes some total Boolean function f with bounded-error using T black-box queries then there is a classical deterministic algorithm that computes f exactly with O(T^6) queries. We also give asymptotically tight characterizations of T for all symmetric f in the exact, zero-error, and bounded-error settings. Finally, we give new precise bounds for AND, OR, and PARITY. Our results are a quantum extension of the so-called polynomial method, which has been successfully applied in classical complexity theory, and also a quantum extension of results by Nisan about a polynomial relationship between randomized and deterministic decision tree complexity.