Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every boolean function

Proceedings - Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 544-551

  Reichardt, Ben W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adversary bound; Formula evaluation; Quantum query algorithm; Quantum walk; Semi definite program; Span program

Indexed keywords

FORMULA EVALUATION; QUANTUM QUERY ALGORITHM; QUANTUM WALK; SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMS; SPAN PROGRAMS;

ALGORITHMS; BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS; COMPUTER SCIENCE; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; FIBER OPTIC CHEMICAL SENSORS; OPTIMIZATION; QUANTUM THEORY;

FUNCTION EVALUATION;

EID: 77952347297     PISSN: 02725428     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/FOCS.2009.55     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. 1/2+o(1) on a quantum computer. In Proc. 48th IEEE FOCS, pages 363-372, 2007.
2. A. Ambainis. Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 64:750-767, 2002.
3. -. Polynomial degree and lower bounds in quantum complexity: Collision and element distinctness with small range. Theory of Computing, 1:37-46, 2005.
4. -. Polynomial degree vs. quantum query complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 72(2):220-238, 2006.
5. S. Aaronson and Y. Shi. Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problem. J. ACM, 51(4):595-605, 2004.
6. R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. J. ACM, 48(4):778-797, 2001.
7. H. Barnum and M. Saks. A lower bound on the quantum query complexity of read-once functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 69(2):244-258, 2004.
8. H. Barnum, M. Saks, and M. Szegedy. Quantum decision trees and semidefinite programming. In Proc. 18th IEEE Complexity, pages 179-193, 2003.
9. A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, S. P. Jordan, and D. Yeung. Discrete-query quantum algorithm for NAND trees. 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0702160.
10. R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, M. Mosca, R. Somma, and D. L. Yonge-Mallo. Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms. In Proc. 41st ACM STOC, pages 409-416, 2009.
11. A. M. Childs and T. Lee. Optimal quantum adversary lower bounds for ordered search. In Proc. 35th ICALP, LNCS vol. 5125, pages 869-880, 2008.
12. C.-F. Chiang, D. Nagaj, and P. Wocjan. An efficient circuit for the quantum walk update rule. 2009, arXiv:0903.3465 [quant-ph].
13. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree. 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0702144.
14. P. Høyer, T. Lee, and R. Špalek. Negative weights make adversaries stronger. In Proc. 39th ACM STOC, pages 526-535, 2007.
15. P. Høyer, J. Neerbek, and Y. Shi. Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness. Algorithmica, 34(4):429-448, 2002.
16. M. Karchmer and A. Wigderson. On span programs. In Proc. 8th IEEE Symp. Structure in Complexity Theory, pages 102-111, 1993.
17. T. Lee. private communication, 2009.
18. S. Laplante and F. Magniez. Lower bounds for randomized and quantum query complexity using Kolmogorov arguments. In Proc. 19th IEEE Complexity, pages 294-304, 2004.
19. B. W. Reichardt. Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every boolean function. 2009, arXiv:0904.2759.
20. -. Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating unbalanced formulas. 2009, arXiv:0907.1622.
21. -. Faster quantum algorithm for evaluating game trees. 2009, arXiv:0907.1623.
22. B. W. Reichardt and R. Špalek. Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas. In Proc. 40th ACM STOC, pages 103-112, 2008.
23. R. Špalek. private communication, 2009.
24. R. Špalek and M. Szegedy. All quantum adversary methods are equivalent. Theor. Comput., 2(1):1-18, 2006.
25. M. Szegedy. Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms. In Proc. 45th IEEE FOCS, pages 32-41, 2004.
26. S. Zhang. On the power of Ambainis's lower bounds. Theor. Comput. Sci., 339(2-3):241-256, 2005.