We give new quantum algorithms for evaluating composed functions whose inputs may be shared between bottomlevel gates. Let f be an m bit Boolean function and consider an n bit function F obtained by applying f to conjunctions of possibly overlapping subsets of n variables. If f has quantum query complexity Q ( f ) , we give an algorithm for evaluating F using O ~ ( Q ( f ) ⋅ n ) quantum queries. This improves on the bound of O ( Q ( f ) ⋅ n ) that follows by treating each conjunction independently, and our bound is tight for worstcase choices of f . Using completely different techniques, we prove a similar tight composition theorem for the approximate degree of f .By recursively applying our composition theorems, we obtain a nearly optimal O ~ ( n 1 − 2 − d ) upper bound on the quantum query complexity and approximate degree of linearsize depth d AC 0 circuits. As a consequence, such circuits can be PAC learned in subexponential time, even in the challenging agnostic setting. Prior to our work, a subexponentialtime algorithm was not known even for linearsize depth3 AC 0 circuits.As anmore »
The Polynomial Method Strikes Back: Tight Quantum Query Bounds via Dual Polynomials
The approximate degree of a Boolean function f is the least degree of a real polynomial that approximates f pointwise to error at most 1/3. The approximate degree of f is known to be a lower bound on the quantum query complexity of f (Beals et al., FOCS 1998 and J. ACM 2001).
We find tight or nearly tight bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexities of several basic functions. Specifically, we show the following.
kDistinctness: For any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the kdistinctness function is Ω(n3/4−1/(2k)). This is nearly tight for large k, as Belovs (FOCS 2012) has shown that for any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of kdistinctness is O(n3/4−1/(2k+2−4)).
Image size testing: The approximate degree and quantum query complexity of testing the size of the image of a function [n]→[n] is Ω~(n1/2). This proves a conjecture of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016), and it implies tight lower bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the following natural problems.
kJunta testing: A tight Ω~(k1/2) lower bound for kjunta testing, answering the main open question of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016).
Statistical distance from uniform: A tight Ω~(n1/2) lower more »
 Award ID(s):
 1947889
 Publication Date:
 NSFPAR ID:
 10205756
 Journal Name:
 Theory of computing
 Volume:
 16
 Issue:
 2020
 Page Range or eLocationID:
 172
 ISSN:
 15572862
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this


We present a new technique for efficiently removing almost all short cycles in a graph without unintentionally removing its triangles. Consequently, triangle finding problems do not become easy even in almost kcycle free graphs, for any constant k≥ 4. Triangle finding is at the base of many conditional lower bounds in P, mainly for distance computation problems, and the existence of many 4 or 5cycles in a worstcase instance had been the obstacle towards resolving major open questions. Hardness of approximation: Are there distance oracles with m1+o(1) preprocessing time and mo(1) query time that achieve a constant approximation? Existing algorithms with such desirable time bounds only achieve superconstant approximation factors, while only 3− factors were conditionally ruled out (Pătraşcu, Roditty, and Thorup; FOCS 2012). We prove that no O(1) approximations are possible, assuming the 3SUM or APSP conjectures. In particular, we prove that kapproximations require Ω(m1+1/ck) time, which is tight up to the constant c. The lower bound holds even for the offline version where we are given the queries in advance, and extends to other problems such as dynamic shortest paths. The 4Cycle problem: An infamous open question in finegrained complexity is to establish any surprising consequences from amore »

Braverman, Mark (Ed.)Grothendieck’s inequality [Grothendieck, 1953] states that there is an absolute constant K > 1 such that for any n× n matrix A, ‖A‖_{∞→1} := max_{s,t ∈ {± 1}ⁿ}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅s(i)⋅t(j) ≥ 1/K ⋅ max_{u_i,v_j ∈ S^{n1}}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅⟨u_i,v_j⟩. In addition to having a tremendous impact on Banach space theory, this inequality has found applications in several unrelated fields like quantum information, regularity partitioning, communication complexity, etc. Let K_G (known as Grothendieck’s constant) denote the smallest constant K above. Grothendieck’s inequality implies that a natural semidefinite programming relaxation obtains a constant factor approximation to ‖A‖_{∞ → 1}. The exact value of K_G is yet unknown with the best lower bound (1.67…) being due to Reeds and the best upper bound (1.78…) being due to Braverman, Makarychev, Makarychev and Naor [Braverman et al., 2013]. In contrast, the little Grothendieck inequality states that under the assumption that A is PSD the constant K above can be improved to π/2 and moreover this is tight. The inapproximability of ‖A‖_{∞ → 1} has been studied in several papers culminating in a tight UGCbased hardness result due to Raghavendra and Steurer (remarkably they achieve this without knowing the value of K_G). Briet, Regev and Saket [Briët et al.,more »

We prove two new results about the inability of lowdegree polynomials to uniformly approximate constantdepth circuits, even to slightlybetterthantrivial error. First, we prove a tight Omega~(n^{1/2}) lower bound on the threshold degree of the SURJECTIVITY function on n variables. This matches the best known threshold degree bound for any AC^0 function, previously exhibited by a much more complicated circuit of larger depth (Sherstov, FOCS 2015). Our result also extends to a 2^{Omega~(n^{1/2})} lower bound on the signrank of an AC^0 function, improving on the previous best bound of 2^{Omega(n^{2/5})} (Bun and Thaler, ICALP 2016). Second, for any delta>0, we exhibit a function f : {1,1}^n > {1,1} that is computed by a circuit of depth O(1/delta) and is hard to approximate by polynomials in the following sense: f cannot be uniformly approximated to error epsilon=12^{Omega(n^{1delta})}, even by polynomials of degree n^{1delta}. Our recent prior work (Bun and Thaler, FOCS 2017) proved a similar lower bound, but which held only for error epsilon=1/3. Our result implies 2^{Omega(n^{1delta})} lower bounds on the complexity of AC^0 under a variety of basic measures such as discrepancy, margin complexity, and threshold weight. This nearly matches the trivial upper bound of 2^{O(n)} that holds for everymore »

We study the problem of estimating the value of sums of the form Sp≜∑(xip) when one has the ability to sample xi≥0 with probability proportional to its magnitude. When p=2, this problem is equivalent to estimating the selectivity of a selfjoin query in database systems when one can sample rows randomly. We also study the special case when {xi} is the degree sequence of a graph, which corresponds to counting the number of pstars in a graph when one has the ability to sample edges randomly. Our algorithm for a (1±ε)multiplicative approximation of Sp has query and time complexities O(mloglognϵ2S1/pp). Here, m=∑xi/2 is the number of edges in the graph, or equivalently, half the number of records in the database table. Similarly, n is the number of vertices in the graph and the number of unique values in the database table. We also provide tight lower bounds (up to polylogarithmic factors) in almost all cases, even when {xi} is a degree sequence and one is allowed to use the structure of the graph to try to get a better estimate. We are not aware of any prior lower bounds on the problem of join selectivity estimation. For the graph problem,more »