Symmetry and Quantum Query-To-Communication Simulation

Authors Sourav Chakraborty, Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Peter Høyer, Nikhil S. Mande, Manaswi Paraashar, Ronald de Wolf



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.STACS.2022.20.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.8 MB
  • 23 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Sourav Chakraborty
  • Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Arkadev Chattopadhyay
  • TIFR, Mumbai, India
Peter Høyer
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Canada
Nikhil S. Mande
  • CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Manaswi Paraashar
  • Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Ronald de Wolf
  • QuSoft, CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Cite AsGet BibTex

Sourav Chakraborty, Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Peter Høyer, Nikhil S. Mande, Manaswi Paraashar, and Ronald de Wolf. Symmetry and Quantum Query-To-Communication Simulation. In 39th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 219, pp. 20:1-20:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2022.20

Abstract

Buhrman, Cleve and Wigderson (STOC'98) showed that for every Boolean function f : {-1,1}ⁿ → {-1,1} and G ∈ {AND₂, XOR₂}, the bounded-error quantum communication complexity of the composed function f∘G equals O(𝖰(f) log n), where 𝖰(f) denotes the bounded-error quantum query complexity of f. This is achieved by Alice running the optimal quantum query algorithm for f, using a round of O(log n) qubits of communication to implement each query. This is in contrast with the classical setting, where it is easy to show that 𝖱^{cc}(f∘G) ≤ 2𝖱(f), where 𝖱^{cc} and 𝖱 denote bounded-error communication and query complexity, respectively. Chakraborty et al. (CCC'20) exhibited a total function for which the log n overhead in the BCW simulation is required. This established the somewhat surprising fact that quantum reductions are in some cases inherently more expensive than classical reductions. We improve upon their result in several ways. - We show that the log n overhead is not required when f is symmetric (i.e., depends only on the Hamming weight of its input), generalizing a result of Aaronson and Ambainis for the Set-Disjointness function (Theory of Computing'05). Our upper bound assumes a shared entangled state, though for most symmetric functions the assumed number of entangled qubits is less than the communication and hence could be part of the communication. - In order to prove the above, we design an efficient distributed version of noisy amplitude amplification that allows us to prove the result when f is the OR function. This also provides a different, and arguably simpler, proof of Aaronson and Ambainis’s O(√n) communication upper bound for Set-Disjointness. - In view of our first result above, one may ask whether the log n overhead in the BCW simulation can be avoided even when f is transitive, which is a weaker notion of symmetry. We give a strong negative answer by showing that the log n overhead is still necessary for some transitive functions even when we allow the quantum communication protocol an error probability that can be arbitrarily close to 1/2 (this corresponds to the unbounded-error model of communication). - We also give, among other things, a general recipe to construct functions for which the log n overhead is required in the BCW simulation in the bounded-error communication model, even if the parties are allowed to share an arbitrary prior entangled state for free.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Quantum complexity theory
  • Theory of computation → Communication complexity
  • Theory of computation → Oracles and decision trees
Keywords
  • Classical and quantum communication complexity
  • query-to-communication-simulation
  • quantum computing

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Scott Aaronson and Andris Ambainis. Quantum search of spatial regions. Theory of Computing, 1(1):47-79, 2005. Earlier version in FOCS'03. quant-ph/0303041. Google Scholar
  2. Dorit Aharonov, Aram W. Harrow, Zeph Landau, Daniel Nagaj, Mario Szegedy, and Umesh V. Vazirani. Local tests of global entanglement and a counterexample to the generalized area law. In Proceedings of the 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 246-255, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2014.34.
  3. Andris Ambainis and Ronald de Wolf. How low can approximate degree and quantum query complexity be for total Boolean functions? Computational Complexity, 23(2):305-322, 2014. Earlier version in CCC'13. Google Scholar
  4. Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM, 48(4):778-797, 2001. Earlier version in FOCS'98. quant-ph/9802049. Google Scholar
  5. Ethan Bernstein and Umesh V. Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1411-1473, 1997. Earlier version in STOC'93. Google Scholar
  6. Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A Millennium Volume, volume 305 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series, pages 53-74. American Mathematical Society, 2002. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005055.
  7. Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, and Avi Wigderson. Quantum vs. classical communication and computation. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 63-68, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/276698.276713.
  8. Sourav Chakraborty, Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Peter Høyer, Nikhil S. Mande, Manaswi Paraashar, and Ronald de Wolf. Symmetry and quantum query-to-communication simulation. CoRR, abs/2012.05233, 2020. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05233.
  9. Sourav Chakraborty, Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Nikhil S. Mande, and Manaswi Paraashar. Quantum query-to-communication simulation needs a logarithmic overhead. In Proceedings of the 35th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pages 32:1-32:15, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2020.32.
  10. Jürgen Forster. A linear lower bound on the unbounded error probabilistic communication complexity. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences, 65(4):612-625, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(02)00019-3.
  11. Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 212-219, 1996. Google Scholar
  12. Hamed Hatami, Kaave Hosseini, and Shachar Lovett. Sign rank vs discrepancy. In Proceedings of the 35th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pages 18:1-18:14, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2020.18.
  13. Peter Høyer and Ronald de Wolf. Improved quantum communication complexity bounds for disjointness and equality. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), pages 299-310, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum search on bounded-error inputs. In Proceedings of the 30th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), volume 2719 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 291-299. Springer, 2003. quant-ph/0304052. Google Scholar
  15. Kazuo Iwama, Harumichi Nishimura, Rudy Raymond, and Shigeru Yamashita. Unbounded-error one-way classical and quantum communication complexity. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 110-121. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  16. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google Scholar
  17. Troy Lee and Shengyu Zhang. Composition theorems in communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 37th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, (ICALP), pages 475-489, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14165-2_41.
  18. Ilan Newman. Private vs. common random bits in communication complexity. Information Processing Letters, 39(2):67-71, 1991. Google Scholar
  19. Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Google Scholar
  20. Ramamohan Paturi. On the degree of polynomials that approximate symmetric boolean functions (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 468-474, 1992. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/129712.129758.
  21. Ramamohan Paturi and Janos Simon. Probabilistic communication complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 33(1):106-123, 1986. Google Scholar
  22. Alexander Razborov. Quantum communication complexity of symmetric predicates. Izvestiya of the Russian Academy of Sciences, mathematics, 67(1):159-176, 2003. quant-ph/0204025. Google Scholar
  23. Ronald de Wolf. Quantum communication and complexity. Theoretical Computer Science, 287(1):337-353, 2002. Google Scholar
  24. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. Some complexity questions related to distributive computing (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the 11h Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 209-213, 1979. Google Scholar
  25. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. Quantum circuit complexity. In Proceedings of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 352-361. IEEE, 1993. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail