Quantum Certificate Complexity Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Algebrization: A New Barrier in Complexity Theory
Advertisements

Computation, Quantum Theory, and You Scott Aaronson, UC Berkeley Qualifying Exam May 13, 2002.
Quantum Lower Bounds You probably Havent Seen Before (which doesnt imply that you dont know OF them) Scott Aaronson, UC Berkeley 9/24/2002.
Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem Scott Aaronson 1/10/2002 quant-ph/ I was born at the Big Bang. Cool! We have the same birthday.
Quantum Lower Bounds The Polynomial and Adversary Methods Scott Aaronson September 14, 2001 Prelim Exam Talk.
The Power of Unentanglement
Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice Scott Aaronson Waterloo MIT Greg Kuperberg UC Davis | x {0,1} n ?
Quantum Software Copy-Protection Scott Aaronson (MIT) |
The Future (and Past) of Quantum Lower Bounds by Polynomials Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley.
SPEED LIMIT n Quantum Lower Bounds Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) August 29, 2002.
Lower Bounds for Local Search by Quantum Arguments Scott Aaronson.
Limitations of Quantum Advice and One-Way Communication Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley IAS Useful?
Quantum Search of Spatial Regions Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) Joint work with Andris Ambainis (U. Latvia)
Algebrization: A New Barrier in Complexity Theory
Lower Bounds for Local Search by Quantum Arguments Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) August 14, 2003.
An Invitation to Quantum Complexity Theory The Study of What We Cant Do With Computers We Dont Have Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi BQP NP- complete.
BQP/qpoly EXP/poly Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley. BQP/qpoly Class of languages recognized by a bounded-error polytime quantum algorithm, with a polysize.
How to Solve Longstanding Open Problems In Quantum Computing Using Only Fourier Analysis Scott Aaronson (MIT) For those who hate quantum: The open problems.
Cosmology and Complexity Classes Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) ZPP L GapP W[P] SZK QAM EEXP.
A MAX Feature Presentation P BQP PSPACE =. Scott Aaronson (IAS) Scotts Grab Bag o Cheap Yuks.
Scott Aaronson BQP und PH A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at lastbut.
Scott Aaronson Institut pour l'Étude Avançée Le Principe de la Postselection.
QMA/qpoly PSPACE/poly: De-Merlinizing Quantum Protocols Scott Aaronson University of Waterloo.
Oracles Are Subtle But Not Malicious Scott Aaronson University of Waterloo.
The Equivalence of Sampling and Searching Scott Aaronson MIT.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) BQP and PH A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at.
Complexity Theory Lecture 6
Resource-Bounded Computation
Are lower bounds hard to prove? Michal Koucký Institute of Mathematics, Prague.
Approximate List- Decoding and Hardness Amplification Valentine Kabanets (SFU) joint work with Russell Impagliazzo and Ragesh Jaiswal (UCSD)
Quantum Information and the PCP Theorem Ran Raz Weizmann Institute.
Isolation Technique April 16, 2001 Jason Ku Tao Li.
Uniform Hardness vs. Randomness Tradeoffs for Arthur-Merlin Games. Danny Gutfreund, Hebrew U. Ronen Shaltiel, Weizmann Inst. Amnon Ta-Shma, Tel-Aviv U.
1 Nondeterministic Space is Closed Under Complement Presented by Jing Zhang and Yingbo Wang Theory of Computation II Professor: Geoffrey Smith.
Lecture 24 Time and Space of NTM. Time For a NDM M and an input x, Time M (x) = the minimum # of moves leading to accepting x if x ε L(M) = infinity if.
02/01/11CMPUT 671 Lecture 11 CMPUT 671 Hard Problems Winter 2002 Joseph Culberson Home Page.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 7 April 20, 2004.
Randomized Computation Roni Parshani Orly Margalit Eran Mantzur Avi Mintz
Quantum Search of Spatial Regions Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) Joint work with Andris Ambainis (IAS / U. Latvia)
ON THE PROVABLE SECURITY OF HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION Andrej Bogdanov Chinese University of Hong Kong Bertinoro Summer School | July 2014 based on joint work.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) Andris Ambainis (U. of Latvia) Forrelation: A Problem that Optimally Separates Quantum from Classical Computing H H H H H H f |0 
Generalized Quantum Arthur-Merlin Games Hirotada Kobayashi (NII) Francois Le Gall (U. Tokyo) Harumichi Nishimura (Nagoya U.) June 19,
Quantum Complexity Classes By: Larisse D. Voufo On: November 28 th, 2006
Correlation testing for affine invariant properties on Shachar Lovett Institute for Advanced Study Joint with Hamed Hatami (McGill)
One Complexity Theorist’s View of Quantum Computing Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute.
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A.
Computation Model and Complexity Class. 2 An algorithmic process that uses the result of a random draw to make an approximated decision has the ability.
Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati. INDEX  Probabilistic Turing Machine  Probabilistic Complexity Classes  Probabilistic Algorithms.
CS848: Topics in Databases: Foundations of Query Optimization Topics covered  Review of complexity.
Fall 2013 CMU CS Computational Complexity Lectures 8-9 Randomness, communication, complexity of unique solutions These slides are mostly a resequencing.
My Favorite Ten Complexity Theorems of the Past Decade II Lance Fortnow University of Chicago.
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 467 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Richard Cleve DC 3524 Course.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 16 May 20, The outer verifier Theorem: NP  PCP[log n, polylog n] Proof (first steps): –define: Polynomial Constraint.
Smooth Boolean Functions are Easy: Efficient Algorithms for Low-Sensitivity Functions Rocco Servedio Joint work with Parikshit Gopalan (MSR) Noam Nisan.
NP ⊆ PCP(n 3, 1) Theory of Computation. NP ⊆ PCP(n 3,1) What is that? NP ⊆ PCP(n 3,1) What is that?
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing QIC 710 / CS 667 / PH 767 / CO 681 / AM 871 Richard Cleve DC 2117 Lectures
Chapter 7 Introduction to Computational Complexity.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi
Quantum Complexity Classes
LANDSCAPE OF COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY
Perspective on Lower Bounds: Diagonalization
Tight Fourier Tails for AC0 Circuits
An average-case lower bound against ACC0
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Classical Algorithms from Quantum and Arthur-Merlin Communication Protocols Lijie Chen MIT Ruosong Wang CMU.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Oracle Separation of BQP and PH
Oracle Separation of BQP and PH
Presentation transcript:

Quantum Certificate Complexity Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley

0-1-NP C - #L - #L/poly - #P - #W[t] - +EXP - +L - +L/poly - +P - +SAC 1 - A 0 PP - AC - AC 0 - AC 0 [m] - ACC 0 - AH - AL – AlgP/poly - AM - AM intersect coAM - AmpMP - AP - AP - APP - APP - APX - AVBPP - AvE - AvP - AW[P] - AWPP - AW[SAT] - AW[*] - AW[t] - βP - BH - BPE - BPEE - BP H SPACE(f(n)) - BPL - BPP KT - BPP-OBDD - BPP path - BPQP - BPSPACE(f(n)) - BPTIME(f(n)) - BQNC - BQNP - BQP-OBDD - BQP/log - BQP/qlog - BQTIME(f(n)) - k-BWBP - C=L - C=P - CFL - CLOG - CH - Check - C k P - CNP - coAM - coC=P - cofrIP - Coh - coMA - coMod k P - compIP - compNP -coNE - coNEXP - coNL - coNP - coNP/poly - coRE - coRNC - coRP - coUCC - CP - CSIZE(f(n)) - CSL - CZK - D#P - Δ 2 P - δ-BPP - δ-RP - DET - DisNP - DistNP - DP - DSPACE(f(n)) - DTIME(f(n)) - Dyn-FO - Dyn-ThC 0 - E - EE - EEE - EESPACE - EEXP - EH - ELEMENTARY - EL k P - EPTAS - k- EQBP - EQP - EQTIME(f(n)) - ESPACE - EXP - EXP/poly - EXPSPACE - Few - FewP - FNL - FNL/poly - FNP - FO(t(n)) - FOLL – FP NP[log] - FPR - FPRAS - FPT - FPT nu - FPT su - FPTAS - FQMA - frIP - F-TAPE(f(n)) - F- TIME(f(n)) - GapL - GapP - GC(s(n),C) - GPCD(r(n),q(n)) - G[t] - H k P - HVSZK - IC[log,poly] - IP - L - LIN - L k P - LOGCFL - LogFew - LogFewNL - LOGNP - LOGSNP - L/poly - LWPP - MA - MA - MAC 0 - MA-E - MA-EXP - mAL - MaxNP - MaxPB - MaxSNP - MaxSNP 0 - mcoNL - MinPB - MIP - MIP EXP - (M k )P - mL - mNC 1 - mNL - mNP - Mod k L - Mod k P - ModP - ModZ k L - mP - MP - MPC - mP/poly - mTC 0 - NC - NC 0 - NC 1 - NC 2 - NE - NEE - NEEE - NEEXP - NEXP - NIQSZK - NISZK - NISZK h - NL - NLIN - NLOG - NL/poly - NPC - NP C - NPI - NP intersect coNP - (NP intersect coNP)/poly - NPMV - NPMV-sel - NPMV t - NPMV t -sel - NPO - NPOPB - NP/poly - (NP,P-samplable) - NP R - NPSPACE - NPSV - NPSV-sel - NPSV t - NPSV t -sel - NQP - NSPACE(f(n)) - NT - NTIME(f(n)) - OCQ - OptP - P #P - P #P[1] - PBP - k-PBP - P C - PCD(r(n),q(n)) - P-close - PCP(r(n),q(n)) - PEXP - PF - PFCHK(t(n)) - Φ 2 P - PhP - Π 2 P - P K - PKC - PL - PL 1 - PL infinity - PLF - PLL - P/log - P NP - P NP[k] - P NP[log] - P-OBDD - PODN - polyL - PP - PPA - PPAD - PPADS - P/poly - P PP - PQUERY - PR - P R - Pr H SPACE(f(n)) - PromiseBPP - PromiseBQP - PromiseP - PromiseRP - PrSPACE(f(n)) - P-Sel - PSK - PT 1 - PTAPE - PTAS - PT/WK(f(n),g(n)) - PZK - QAC 0 - QAC 0 [m] - QACC 0 - QAM - QCFL - QH - QIP - QIP(2) - QMA+ - QMA(2) - QMA log - QMAM - QMIP - QMIP le - QMIP ne - QNC 0 - QNC f 0 - QNC 1 - QP - QPSPACE - QSZK - R - RE - REG - RevSPACE(f(n)) - R H L - RL - RNC - RPP - RSPACE(f(n)) - S 2 P - SAC - SAC 0 - SAC 1 - SBP - SC - SEH - SF k - Σ 2 P - SKC - SL - SLICEWISE PSPACE - SNP - SO-E - SP - span-P - SPARSE - SPL - SPP - SUBEXP - symP - SZK - SZK h - TALLY - TC 0 - Θ 2 P - TREE-REGULAR - UCC - UL - UL/poly - UP - US - VNC k - VNP k - VP k - VQP k - W[1] - WAPP - W[P] - WPP - W[SAT] - W[*] - W[t] - W * [t] - XP - XP uniform - YACC - ZPE - ZPP SHAMELESS PLUG

Overview Most of whats known about quantum computing can be cast in the query complexity model Despite its simplicity, open problems abound We make progress on some of these by studying randomized certificate complexity RC(f) and quantum certificate complexity QC(f) Main results Ill discuss today: Well need both big quantum lower bound methods (adversary method and polynomial method)

f:{0,1} n {0,1} is a total Boolean function D(f)(deterministic query complexity) R 0 (f)(zero-error randomized) R 2 (f)(bounded-error randomized) Q 2 (f)(bounded-error quantum) Q 0 (f)(zero-error quantum) Q E (f)(exact quantum) Background

Example

Certificate Complexity C X (f) = min # of queries needed to distinguish X from every Y s.t. f(Y) f(X) Block Sensitivity bs X (f) = max # of disjoint blocks B {x 1,…,x n } s.t. flipping B changes f(X) Example: For f=MAJ(x 1,x 2,x 3,x 4,x 5 ), letting X=11110, C X (MAJ)=3bs X (MAJ)=2 C(f) and bs(f)

Randomized Certificate Complexity RC X (f) = min # of randomized queries needed to distinguish X from any Y s.t. f(Y) f(X) with ½ prob. Quantum Certificate Complexity QC(f) Example: For f=MAJ(x 1,…,x n ), letting X=00…0, RC X (MAJ) = 1 Observations: Anything a prover might provide a verifier besides X, the verifier can compute for itself One-sided and two-sided error are equivalent Different notions of nondeterministic quantum query complexity: Watrous 2000, de Wolf 2002 RC(f) and QC(f)

Let D 0,D 1 be distributions over f -1 (0), f -1 (1) s.t. D 0 looks locally similar to every 1-input, and D 1 looks locally similar to every 0-input: Then Ambainis Adversary Method (special case)

Claim: Any randomized certificate for input X can be made nonadaptive with constant blowup By minimax theorem, exists distribution over {Y:f(Y) f(X)} s.t. for all i, x i y i w.p. O(1/RC(f)) Adversary method then yields For upper bound, use weighted Grover

g g Example where C(f) = (QC(f) )

New Quantum/Classical Relation For total f, where ndeg(f) = min degree of poly p s.t. p(X) 0 f(X)=1 Previous:D(f) = O(Q 2 (f) 2 Q 0 (f) 2 ) (de Wolf), D(f) = O(Q 2 (f) 6 ) (Beals et al.)

Idea (follows Buhrman-de Wolf): Let p be s.t. p(X) 0 f(X)=1 Maxonomials of p are monomials not dominated by other monomialsi.e. maxonomials of x 1 x 2 – x 2 + 2x 3 are x 1 x 2, 2x 3 Nisan-Smolensky: For every 0-input X and maxonomial M of p, X has a sensitive block whose variables are all in M Consequence: Randomized 0-certificate must intersect each maxonomial w.p. ½ Randomized algorithm: Keep querying a randomized 0-certificate, until either one no longer exists or p=0

Lemma: O(ndeg(f) log n) iterations suffice w.h.p. Proof: Let S be current set of monomials, and Initially (S) n ndeg(f) ndeg(f)! Were done when (S)=0 Claim: Each iteration decreases (S) by expected amount (S)/4e Reason: 1/e of (S) is concentrated on maxonomials, each of which decreases in degree w.p. ½

Local Proofs When faced with a hard problem, analyze limitations of known techniques (Baker-Gill- Solovay, Razborov-Rudich) Is I claim that a yes answer would require global analysis of Boolean functions Given n n lattice of bits X, let f(X)=1 if theres a square frame of size n 1/3 n 1/3, f(X)=0 otherwise

Open Problems Is If so we get ~