Improved Quantum Query Upper Bounds Based on Classical Decision Trees

IF 5.1 2区 物理与天体物理 Q1 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Quantum Pub Date : 2025-06-23 DOI:10.22331/q-2025-06-23-1777
Arjan Cornelissen, Nikhil S. Mande, Subhasree Patro
{"title":"Improved Quantum Query Upper Bounds Based on Classical Decision Trees","authors":"Arjan Cornelissen, Nikhil S. Mande, Subhasree Patro","doi":"10.22331/q-2025-06-23-1777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given a classical query algorithm as a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up. In particular, we obtain a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost $O(\\sqrt{s})$ to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size $s$.<br/> Lin and Lin [ToC'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor, and gave upper bounds in terms of a quantity which we call the \"guessing complexity\" of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Inf. Comp.'89] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any complexity-theoretic measure. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and randomized rank for the complete binary AND-OR tree.<br/> Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to its edges. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are asymptotically stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes could yield better upper bounds.","PeriodicalId":20807,"journal":{"name":"Quantum","volume":"640 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantum","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-06-23-1777","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given a classical query algorithm as a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up. In particular, we obtain a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost $O(\sqrt{s})$ to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size $s$.
Lin and Lin [ToC'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor, and gave upper bounds in terms of a quantity which we call the "guessing complexity" of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Inf. Comp.'89] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any complexity-theoretic measure. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and randomized rank for the complete binary AND-OR tree.
Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to its edges. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are asymptotically stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes could yield better upper bounds.
基于经典决策树的改进量子查询上界
给定经典查询算法作为决策树,何时存在比经典查询算法速度更快的量子查询算法?我们基于底层决策树的结构给出了一种通用的构造,并证明了这种构造可以给我们一个达到二次次的量子加速。特别是,我们获得了一个代价为$O(\sqrt{s})$的有界误差量子查询算法,用于计算一个布尔函数(更一般地说,一个关系),该函数可以通过一个大小为$s$的经典(甚至是随机的)决策树来计算。Lin和Lin [ToC'16]以及Beigi和Taghavi [Quantum'20]展示了类似风格的结果,并给出了我们称之为决策树的“猜测复杂性”的数量的上限。我们确定决策树的猜测复杂度等于它的秩,这是由Ehrenfeucht和Haussler [Inf. Comp.'89]在学习理论背景下引入的概念。这回答了Lin和Lin提出的一个问题,即决策树的猜测复杂性是否与任何复杂性理论度量有关。我们还展示了完全二叉与或树的秩和随机秩之间的多项式分离。Beigi和Taghavi构造了布尔函数的跨度规划和对偶对手解,给出了经典决策树,计算了布尔函数,并为其边分配了非负权。我们探讨了改变这些权重对最终的跨度规划复杂性和对偶对手界目标值的影响,并通过优化规划捕获了可能的最佳权重方案。我们给出了该方案的一个解,并从第一性原理论证了其最优性。我们还展示了我们的边界渐近强于Lin和Lin,以及Beigi和Taghavi的决策树。这回答了Beigi和Taghavi的一个问题,即不同的权重方案是否能产生更好的上界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quantum
Quantum Physics and Astronomy-Physics and Astronomy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
10.90%
发文量
241
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Quantum is an open-access peer-reviewed journal for quantum science and related fields. Quantum is non-profit and community-run: an effort by researchers and for researchers to make science more open and publishing more transparent and efficient.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信