Tight Quantum Lower Bound for Approximate Counting with Quantum States

We prove tight lower bounds for the following variant of the counting problem considered by Aaronson et al. The task is to distinguish whether an input set $x\subseteq [n]$ has size either $k$ or $k'=(1+\epsilon)k$. We assume the algorithm has access to * the membership oracle, which, for each $i\in [n]$, can answer whether $i\in x$, or not; and * the uniform superposition $|\psi_x\rangle = \sum_{i\in x} |i\rangle/\sqrt{|x|}$ over the elements of $x$. Moreover, we consider three different ways how the algorithm can access this state: ** the algorithm can have copies of the state $|\psi_x\rangle$; ** the algorithm can execute the reflecting oracle which reflects about the state $|\psi_x\rangle$; ** the algorithm can execute the state-generating oracle (or its inverse) which performs the transformation $|0\rangle\mapsto |\psi_x\rangle$. Without the second type of resources (related to $|\psi_x\rangle$), the problem is well-understood, see Brassard et al. The study of the problem with the second type of resources was recently initiated by Aaronson et al. We completely resolve the problem for all values of $1/k \le \epsilon\le 1$, giving tight trade-offs between all types of resources available to the algorithm. Thus, we close the main open problems from Aaronson et al. The lower bounds are proven using variants of the adversary bound by Belovs and employing analysis closely related to the Johnson association scheme.

[1]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments , 2000, STOC '00.

[2]  Ben Reichardt,et al.  Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas , 2007, Theory Comput..

[3]  Aleksandrs Belovs,et al.  Quantum Algorithms for Classical Probability Distributions , 2019, ESA.

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

[5]  Aleksandrs Belovs Variations on Quantum Adversary , 2015 .

[6]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Quantum lower bounds by polynomials , 2001, JACM.

[7]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Ben Reichardt,et al.  Reflections for quantum query algorithms , 2010, SODA '11.

[9]  C. Curtis,et al.  Representation theory of finite groups and associated algebras , 1962 .

[10]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Quantum Counting , 1998, ICALP.

[11]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Symmetry-Assisted Adversaries for Quantum State Generation , 2011, 2011 IEEE 26th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity.

[12]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Polynomial degree vs. quantum query complexity , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[13]  A. Rosmanis Lower Bounds on Quantum Query and Learning Graph Complexities , 2014 .

[14]  G. James,et al.  The Representation Theory of the Symmetric Group , 2009 .

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

[16]  Aleksandrs Belovs,et al.  Quantum Algorithms for Learning Symmetric Juntas via the Adversary Bound , 2013, 2014 IEEE 29th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC).

[17]  Randall R. Holmes Linear Representations of Finite Groups , 2008 .

[18]  Troy Lee,et al.  Negative weights make adversaries stronger , 2007, STOC '07.

[19]  Troy Lee,et al.  Quantum Query Complexity of State Conversion , 2010, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[20]  R. Bhatia Positive Definite Matrices , 2007 .

[21]  Ben Reichardt,et al.  Span Programs and Quantum Query Complexity: The General Adversary Bound Is Nearly Tight for Every Boolean Function , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.