Quantum and Randomised Algorithms for Non-linearity Estimation

Non-linearity of a Boolean function indicates how far it is from any linear function. Despite there being several strong results about identifying a linear function and distinguishing one from a sufficiently non-linear function, we found a surprising lack of work on computing the non-linearity of a function. The non-linearity is related to the Walsh coefficient with the largest absolute value; however, the naive attempt of picking the maximum after constructing a Walsh spectrum requires Θ (2n) queries to an n-bit function. We improve the scenario by designing highly efficient quantum and randomised algorithms to approximate the non-linearity allowing additive error, denoted λ, with query complexities that depend polynomially on λ. We prove lower bounds to show that these are not very far from the optimal ones. The number of queries made by our randomised algorithm is linear in n, already an exponential improvement, and the number of queries made by our quantum algorithm is surprisingly independent of n. Our randomised algorithm uses a Goldreich-Levin style of navigating all Walsh coefficients and our quantum algorithm uses a clever combination of Deutsch-Jozsa, amplitude amplification and amplitude estimation to improve upon the existing quantum versions of the Goldreich-Levin technique.

[1]  T. Sanders,et al.  Analysis of Boolean Functions , 2012, ArXiv.

[2]  Andris Ambainis Quantum Lower Bounds by Quantum Arguments , 2002, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[3]  Subhamoy Maitra,et al.  Improved quantum test for linearity of a Boolean function , 2013, 1306.6195.

[4]  G. Brassard,et al.  Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation , 2000, quant-ph/0005055.

[5]  Frédéric Magniez,et al.  Lower bounds for randomized and quantum query complexity using Kolmogorov arguments , 2004, Proceedings. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004..

[6]  Guang Yang,et al.  Exact quantum query complexity of weight decision problems via Chebyshev polynomials , 2018, Science China Information Sciences.

[7]  Palash Sarkar,et al.  Nonlinearity Bounds and Constructions of Resilient Boolean Functions , 2000, CRYPTO.

[8]  Joan Boyar,et al.  On various nonlinearity measures for boolean functions , 2015, Cryptography and Communications.

[9]  Anne Canteaut,et al.  Propagation Characteristics and Correlation-Immunity of Highly Nonlinear Boolean Functions , 2000, EUROCRYPT.

[10]  Çagdas Çalik Nonlinearity Computation for Sparse Boolean Functions , 2013, ArXiv.

[11]  Santanu Dutta,et al.  Mode estimation for discrete distributions , 2010 .

[12]  Leonid A. Levin,et al.  A hard-core predicate for all one-way functions , 1989, STOC '89.

[13]  Hongwei Li,et al.  Quantum algorithms for the Goldreich–Levin learning problem , 2019, Quantum Information Processing.

[14]  A. Montanaro Quantum speedup of Monte Carlo methods , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[15]  Subhamoy Maitra,et al.  Efficient Quantum Algorithms Related to Autocorrelation Spectrum , 2018, INDOCRYPT.

[16]  Erika Andersson,et al.  Quantum tests for the linearity and permutation invariance of Boolean functions , 2011, 1106.4831.

[17]  Sugata Gangopadhyay,et al.  A quantum algorithm to estimate the Gowers U2 norm and linearity testing of Boolean functions , 2020, Quantum Inf. Process..

[18]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Quantum boolean functions , 2008, Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems , 1990, STOC '90.

[20]  Ryan O'Donnell,et al.  Analysis of Boolean Functions , 2014, ArXiv.

[21]  Theodore J. Yoder,et al.  Fixed-point quantum search with an optimal number of queries. , 2014, Physical review letters.