SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Omkar Baraskar

Publications and source records attributed to Omkar Baraskar.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Constraints on recovering quantum information after erasure

Suppose that we encode quantum information into $ n $ physical carriers. With what probabilities can we perfectly recover the quantum information after sets of carriers have been erased? This question arises in the study of quantum erasure channels, for which M.B. Hastings conjectured that if each carrier is independently erased with probability $ t \geq 1/2 $, then it is impossible to recover the quantum information with asymptotically vanishing error and probability $ > 1-t $. We prove this conjecture by establishing new no-cloning constraints on realizable recovery probabilities.

quant-ph

Bounds for sets of remainders

Let $s(n)$ be the number of different remainders $n \bmod k$, where $1 \leq k \leq \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$. This rather natural sequence is sequence A283190 in the OEIS and while some basic facts are known, it seems that surprisingly it has barely been studied. First, we prove that $s(n) = c \cdot n + O(n/(\log n \log \log n))$, where $c$ is an explicit constant. Then we focus on differences between consecutive terms $s(n)$ and $s(n+1)$. It turns out that the value can always increase by at most one, but there exist arbitrarily large decreases. We show that the differences are bounded by $O(\log \log n)$. Finally, we consider ''iterated remainder sets''. These are related to a problem arising from Pierce expansions, and we prove bounds for the size of these sets as well.

math.NT

NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials

An $s$-sparse polynomial has at most $s$ monomials with nonzero coefficients. The Equivalence Testing problem for sparse polynomials (ETsparse) asks to decide if a given polynomial $f$ is equivalent to (i.e., in the orbit of) some $s$-sparse polynomial. In other words, given $f \in \mathbb{F}[\mathbf{x}]$ and $s \in \mathbb{N}$, ETsparse asks to check if there exist $A \in \mathrm{GL}(|\mathbf{x}|, \mathbb{F})$ and $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{F}^{|\mathbf{x}|}$ such that $f(A\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b})$ is $s$-sparse. We show that ETsparse is NP-hard over any field $\mathbb{F}$, if $f$ is given in the sparse representation, i.e., as a list of nonzero coefficients and exponent vectors. This answers a question posed in [Gupta-Saha-Thankey, SODA'23] and [Baraskar-Dewan-Saha, STACS'24]. The result implies that the Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) is NP-hard for a dense subclass of depth-$3$ arithmetic circuits if the input is given in sparse representation. We also show that approximating the smallest $s_0$ such that a given $s$-sparse polynomial $f$ is in the orbit of some $s_0$-sparse polynomial to within a factor of $s^{\frac{1}{3} - \epsilon}$ is NP-hard for any $\epsilon > 0$; observe that $s$-factor approximation is trivial as the input is $s$-sparse. Finally, we show that for any constant $\sigma \geq 5$, checking if a polynomial (given in sparse representation) is in the orbit of some support-$\sigma$ polynomial is NP-hard. Support of a polynomial $f$ is the maximum number of variables present in any monomial of $f$. These results are obtained via direct reductions from the $3$-SAT problem.

cs.CC