Approximate Span Programs

Authors Tsuyoshi Ito, Stacey Jeffery

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.51 MB
  • 14 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Tsuyoshi Ito
Stacey Jeffery

Cite AsGet BibTex

Tsuyoshi Ito and Stacey Jeffery. Approximate Span Programs. In 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 55, pp. 12:1-12:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)


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. In this work, we consider new ways of designing quantum algorithms using span programs. We show how any span program that decides a problem f can also be used to decide "property testing" 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. For example, using our techniques, the span program for OR, which can be used to design an optimal algorithm for the OR function, can also be used to design optimal algorithms for: threshold functions, in which we want to decide if the Hamming weight of a string is above a threshold, or far below, given the promise that one of these is true; and approximate counting, in which we want to estimate the Hamming weight of the input up to some desired accuracy. 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, R_{s,t}(G). For this problem we obtain ~O(1/epsilon^{3/2}*n*sqrt(R_{s,t}(G)), using O(log(n)) space. In addition, when mu is a lower bound on lambda_2(G), by our phase gap lower bound, we can obtain an upper bound of ~O(1/epsilon*n*sqrt(R){s,t}(G)/mu)) for estimating effective resistance, also using O(log(n)) space.
  • Quantum algorithms
  • span programs
  • quantum query complexity
  • effective resistance


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM, 48, 2001. Google Scholar
  2. A. Belovs. Learning-graph-based quantum algorithm for k-distinctness. In Prooceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2012), pages 207-216, 2012. Google Scholar
  3. A. Belovs. Span programs for functions with constant-sized 1-certificates. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pages 77-84, 2012. Google Scholar
  4. A. Belovs, A. M. Childs, S. Jeffery, R. Kothari, and F. Magniez. Time efficient quantum walks for 3-distinctness. In Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2013), pages 105-122, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. A. Belovs and B. Reichardt. Span programs and quantum algorithms for st-connectivity and claw detection. In Proceedings of the 20th European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2012), pages 193-204, 2012. Google Scholar
  6. C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM Journal on Computing (special issue on quantum computing), 26:1510-1523, 1997. Google Scholar
  7. G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In S. J. Lomonaca and H. E. Brandt, editors, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A Millennium Volume, volume 305 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series Millennium Volume, pages 53-74. AMS, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0005055v1. Google Scholar
  8. A. K. Chandra, P. Raghavan, W. L. Ruzzo, R. Smolensky, and P. Tiwari. The electrical resistance of a graph captures its commute and cover times. Computational Complexity, 6(4):312-340, 1996. Google Scholar
  9. R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca. Quantum algorithms revisited. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1969):339-354, 1998. Google Scholar
  10. L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1996), pages 212-219, 1996. Google Scholar
  11. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters, 103:150502, Oct 2009. Google Scholar
  12. S. Jeffery. Frameworks for Quantum Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2014. Available at URL:
  13. M. Karchmer and A. Wigderson. On span programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE 8th Annual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, pages 102-111, 1993. Google Scholar
  14. A. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem, 1995. arXiv:quant-ph/9511026. Google Scholar
  15. T. Lee, R. Mittal, B. Reichardt, R. Špalek, and M. Szegedy. Quantum query complexity of state conversion. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2011), pages 344-353, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. D. A. Levin, Y. Peres, and E. L. Wilmer. Markov Chains and Mixing Times. American Mathematical Society, 2009. Google Scholar
  17. A. Montanaro and R. de Wolf. A survey of quantum property testing, 2013. arXiv:1310.2035. Google Scholar
  18. B. Reichardt. Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every Boolean function. In Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2009), pages 544-551, 2009. Google Scholar
  19. B. Reichardt. Reflections for quantum query algorithms. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2011), pages 560-569, 2011. Google Scholar
  20. B. Reichardt and R. Špalek. Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas. Theory of Computing, 8(13):291-319, 2012. Google Scholar
  21. M. Szegedy. Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2004), pages 32-41, 2004. Google Scholar
  22. G. Wang. Quantum algorithms for approximating the effective resistances in electrical networks, 2013. arXiv:1311.1851. Google Scholar