arXiv subjects

Shalev Ben-David

Publications and source records attributed to Shalev Ben-David.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2020

Quantum Implications of Huang's Sensitivity Theorem

Based on the recent breakthrough of Huang (2019), we show that for any total Boolean function $f$, the deterministic query complexity, $D(f)$, is at most quartic in the quantum query complexity, $Q(f)$: $D(f) = O(Q(f)^4)$. This matches the known separation (up to log factors) due to Ambainis, Balodis, Belovs, Lee, Santha, and Smotrovs (2017). We also use the result to resolve the quantum analogue of the Aanderaa-Karp-Rosenberg conjecture. We show that if $f$ is a nontrivial monotone graph property of an $n$-vertex graph specified by its adjacency matrix, then $Q(f) = Ω(n)$, which is also optimal.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2020

How symmetric is too symmetric for large quantum speedups?

Suppose a Boolean function $f$ is symmetric under a group action $G$ acting on the $n$ bits of the input. For which $G$ does this mean $f$ does not have an exponential quantum speedup? Is there a characterization of how rich $G$ must be before the function $f$ cannot have enough structure for quantum algorithms to exploit? In this work, we make several steps towards understanding the group actions $G$ which are "quantum intolerant" in this way. We show that sufficiently transitive group actions do not allow a quantum speedup, and that a "well-shuffling" property of group actions -- which happens to be preserved by several natural transformations -- implies a lack of super-polynomial speedups for functions symmetric under the group action. Our techniques are motivated by a recent paper by Chailloux (2018), which deals with the case where $G=S_n$. Our main application is for graph symmetries: we show that any Boolean function $f$ defined on the adjacency matrix of a graph (and symmetric under relabeling the vertices of the graph) has a power $6$ relationship between its randomized and quantum query complexities, even if $f$ is a partial function. In particular, this means no graph property testing problems can have super-polynomial quantum speedups, settling an open problem of Ambainis, Childs, and Liu (2011).

quant-ph↗

arXiv2019

Separations in query complexity using cheat sheets

We show a power 2.5 separation between bounded-error randomized and quantum query complexity for a total Boolean function, refuting the widely believed conjecture that the best such separation could only be quadratic (from Grover's algorithm). We also present a total function with a power 4 separation between quantum query complexity and approximate polynomial degree, showing severe limitations on the power of the polynomial method. Finally, we exhibit a total function with a quadratic gap between quantum query complexity and certificate complexity, which is optimal (up to log factors). These separations are shown using a new, general technique that we call the cheat sheet technique. The technique is based on a generic transformation that converts any (possibly partial) function into a new total function with desirable properties for showing separations. The framework also allows many known separations, including some recent breakthrough results of Ambainis et al., to be shown in a unified manner.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2019

Quantum distinguishing complexity, zero-error algorithms, and statistical zero knowledge

We define a new query measure we call quantum distinguishing complexity, denoted QD(f) for a Boolean function f. Unlike a quantum query algorithm, which must output a state close to |0> on a 0-input and a state close to |1> on a 1-input, a "quantum distinguishing algorithm" can output any state, as long as the output states for any 0-input and 1-input are distinguishable. Using this measure, we establish a new relationship in query complexity: For all total functions f, Q_0(f)=O~(Q(f)^5), where Q_0(f) and Q(f) denote the zero-error and bounded-error quantum query complexity of f respectively, improving on the previously known sixth power relationship. We also define a query measure based on quantum statistical zero-knowledge proofs, QSZK(f), which is at most Q(f). We show that QD(f) in fact lower bounds QSZK(f) and not just Q(f). QD(f) also upper bounds the (positive-weights) adversary bound, which yields the following relationships for all f: Q(f) >= QSZK(f) >= QS(f) = Omega(Adv(f)). This sheds some light on why the adversary bound proves suboptimal bounds for problems like Collision and Set Equality, which have low QSZK complexity. Lastly, we show implications for lifting theorems in communication complexity. We show that a general lifting theorem for either zero-error quantum query complexity or for QSZK would imply a general lifting theorem for bounded-error quantum query complexity.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2018

Classical lower bounds from quantum upper bounds

We prove lower bounds on complexity measures, such as the approximate degree of a Boolean function and the approximate rank of a Boolean matrix, using quantum arguments. We prove these lower bounds using a quantum query algorithm for the combinatorial group testing problem. We show that for any function f, the approximate degree of computing the OR of n copies of f is Omega(sqrt{n}) times the approximate degree of f, which is optimal. No such general result was known prior to our work, and even the lower bound for the OR of ANDs function was only resolved in 2013. We then prove an analogous result in communication complexity, showing that the logarithm of the approximate rank (or more precisely, the approximate gamma_2 norm) of F: X x Y -> {0,1} grows by a factor of Omega~(sqrt{n}) when we take the OR of n copies of F, which is also essentially optimal. As a corollary, we give a new proof of Razborov's celebrated Omega(sqrt{n}) lower bound on the quantum communication complexity of the disjointness problem. Finally, we generalize both these results from composition with the OR function to composition with arbitrary symmetric functions, yielding nearly optimal lower bounds in this setting as well.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2017

Low-Sensitivity Functions from Unambiguous Certificates

We provide new query complexity separations against sensitivity for total Boolean functions: a power $3$ separation between deterministic (and even randomized or quantum) query complexity and sensitivity, and a power $2.22$ separation between certificate complexity and sensitivity. We get these separations by using a new connection between sensitivity and a seemingly unrelated measure called one-sided unambiguous certificate complexity ($UC_{min}$). We also show that $UC_{min}$ is lower-bounded by fractional block sensitivity, which means we cannot use these techniques to get a super-quadratic separation between $bs(f)$ and $s(f)$. We also provide a quadratic separation between the tree-sensitivity and decision tree complexity of Boolean functions, disproving a conjecture of Gopalan, Servedio, Tal, and Wigderson (CCC 2016). Along the way, we give a power $1.22$ separation between certificate complexity and one-sided unambiguous certificate complexity, improving the power $1.128$ separation due to Göös (FOCS 2015). As a consequence, we obtain an improved $Ω(\log^{1.22} n)$ lower-bound on the co-nondeterministic communication complexity of the Clique vs. Independent Set problem.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2016

Randomized query complexity of sabotaged and composed functions

We study the composition question for bounded-error randomized query complexity: Is R(f o g) = Omega(R(f) R(g)) for all Boolean functions f and g? We show that inserting a simple Boolean function h, whose query complexity is only Theta(log R(g)), in between f and g allows us to prove R(f o h o g) = Omega(R(f) R(h) R(g)). We prove this using a new lower bound measure for randomized query complexity we call randomized sabotage complexity, RS(f). Randomized sabotage complexity has several desirable properties, such as a perfect composition theorem, RS(f o g) >= RS(f) RS(g), and a composition theorem with randomized query complexity, R(f o g) = Omega(R(f) RS(g)). It is also a quadratically tight lower bound for total functions and can be quadratically superior to the partition bound, the best known general lower bound for randomized query complexity. Using this technique we also show implications for lifting theorems in communication complexity. We show that a general lifting theorem for zero-error randomized protocols implies a general lifting theorem for bounded-error protocols.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2016

Separating quantum communication and approximate rank

One of the best lower bound methods for the quantum communication complexity of a function H (with or without shared entanglement) is the logarithm of the approximate rank of the communication matrix of H. This measure is essentially equivalent to the approximate gamma_2 norm and generalized discrepancy, and subsumes several other lower bounds. All known lower bounds on quantum communication complexity in the general unbounded-round model can be shown via the logarithm of approximate rank, and it was an open problem to give any separation at all between quantum communication complexity and the logarithm of the approximate rank. In this work we provide the first such separation: We exhibit a total function H with quantum communication complexity almost quadratically larger than the logarithm of its approximate rank. We construct H using the communication lookup function framework of Anshu et al. (FOCS 2016) based on the cheat sheet framework of Aaronson et al. (STOC 2016). From a starting function F, this framework defines a new function H=F_G. Our main technical result is a lower bound on the quantum communication complexity of F_G in terms of the discrepancy of F, which we do via quantum information theoretic arguments. We show the upper bound on the approximate rank of F_G by relating it to the Boolean circuit size of the starting function F.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2016

Separations in communication complexity using cheat sheets and information complexity

While exponential separations are known between quantum and randomized communication complexity for partial functions (Raz, STOC 1999), the best known separation between these measures for a total function is quadratic, witnessed by the disjointness function. We give the first super-quadratic separation between quantum and randomized communication complexity for a total function, giving an example exhibiting a power 2.5 gap. We further present a 1.5 power separation between exact quantum and randomized communication complexity, improving on the previous ~1.15 separation by Ambainis (STOC 2013). Finally, we present a nearly optimal quadratic separation between randomized communication complexity and the logarithm of the partition number, improving upon the previous best power 1.5 separation due to Göös, Jayram, Pitassi, and Watson. Our results are the communication analogues of separations in query complexity proved using the recent cheat sheet framework of Aaronson, Ben-David, and Kothari (STOC 2016). Our main technical results are randomized communication and information complexity lower bounds for a family of functions, called lookup functions, that generalize and port the cheat sheet framework to communication complexity.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2015

Sculpting Quantum Speedups

Given a problem which is intractable for both quantum and classical algorithms, can we find a sub-problem for which quantum algorithms provide an exponential advantage? We refer to this problem as the "sculpting problem." In this work, we give a full characterization of sculptable functions in the query complexity setting. We show that a total function f can be restricted to a promise P such that Q(f|_P)=O(polylog(N)) and R(f|_P)=N^{Omega(1)}, if and only if f has a large number of inputs with large certificate complexity. The proof uses some interesting techniques: for one direction, we introduce new relationships between randomized and quantum query complexity in various settings, and for the other direction, we use a recent result from communication complexity due to Klartag and Regev. We also characterize sculpting for other query complexity measures, such as R(f) vs. R_0(f) and R_0(f) vs. D(f). Along the way, we prove some new relationships for quantum query complexity: for example, a nearly quadratic relationship between Q(f) and D(f) whenever the promise of f is small. This contrasts with the recent super-quadratic query complexity separations, showing that the maximum gap between classical and quantum query complexities is indeed quadratic in various settings - just not for total functions! Lastly, we investigate sculpting in the Turing machine model. We show that if there is any BPP-bi-immune language in BQP, then every language outside BPP can be restricted to a promise which places it in PromiseBQP but not in PromiseBPP. Under a weaker assumption, that some problem in BQP is hard on average for P/poly, we show that every paddable language outside BPP is sculptable in this way.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2015

On Rota's Conjecture and nested separations in matroids

We prove that for each finite field $\mathbb F$ and integer $k\in \mathbb Z$ there exists $n\in \mathbb Z$ such that no excluded minor for the class of $\mathbb F$-representable matroids has $n$ nested $k$-separations.

math.CO↗

arXiv2015

A Super-Grover Separation Between Randomized and Quantum Query Complexities

We construct a total Boolean function $f$ satisfying $R(f)=\tildeΩ(Q(f)^{5/2})$, refuting the long-standing conjecture that $R(f)=O(Q(f)^2)$ for all total Boolean functions. Assuming a conjecture of Aaronson and Ambainis about optimal quantum speedups for partial functions, we improve this to $R(f)=\tildeΩ(Q(f)^3)$. Our construction is motivated by the Göös-Pitassi-Watson function but does not use it.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2014

The Structure of Promises in Quantum Speedups

It has long been known that in the usual black-box model, one cannot get super-polynomial quantum speedups without some promise on the inputs. In this paper, we examine certain types of symmetric promises, and show that they also cannot give rise to super-polynomial quantum speedups. We conclude that exponential quantum speedups only occur given "structured" promises on the input. Specifically, we show that there is a polynomial relationship of degree $12$ between $D(f)$ and $Q(f)$ for any function $f$ defined on permutations (elements of $\{0,1,\dots, M-1\}^n$ in which each alphabet element occurs exactly once). We generalize this result to all functions $f$ defined on orbits of the symmetric group action $S_n$ (which acts on an element of $\{0,1,\dots, M-1\}^n$ by permuting its entries). We also show that when $M$ is constant, any function $f$ defined on a "symmetric set" - one invariant under $S_n$ - satisfies $R(f)=O(Q(f)^{12(M-1)})$.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2014

Data Stability in Clustering: A Closer Look

We consider the model introduced by Bilu and Linial (2010), who study problems for which the optimal clustering does not change when distances are perturbed. They show that even when a problem is NP-hard, it is sometimes possible to obtain efficient algorithms for instances resilient to certain multiplicative perturbations, e.g. on the order of $O(\sqrt{n})$ for max-cut clustering. Awasthi et al. (2010) consider center-based objectives, and Balcan and Liang (2011) analyze the $k$-median and min-sum objectives, giving efficient algorithms for instances resilient to certain constant multiplicative perturbations. Here, we are motivated by the question of to what extent these assumptions can be relaxed while allowing for efficient algorithms. We show there is little room to improve these results by giving NP-hardness lower bounds for both the $k$-median and min-sum objectives. On the other hand, we show that constant multiplicative resilience parameters can be so strong as to make the clustering problem trivial, leaving only a narrow range of resilience parameters for which clustering is interesting. We also consider a model of additive perturbations and give a correspondence between additive and multiplicative notions of stability. Our results provide a close examination of the consequences of assuming stability in data.

cs.LG↗