A Quantum Query Complexity Trichotomy for Regular Languages

We present a trichotomy theorem for the quantum query complexity of regular languages. Every regular language has quantum query complexity Θ(1), ~Θ(√ n), or Θ(n). The extreme uniformity of regular languages prevents them from taking any other asymptotic complexity. This is in contrast to even the context-free languages, which we show can have query complexity Θ(n^c) for all computable c [1/2,1]. Our result implies an equivalent trichotomy for the approximate degree of regular languages, and a dichotomy--either Θ(1) or Θ(n)--for sensitivity, block sensitivity, certificate complexity, deterministic query complexity, and randomized query complexity. The heart of the classification theorem is an explicit quantum algorithm which decides membership in any star-free language in ~O(√ n) time. This well-studied family of the regular languages admits many interesting characterizations, for instance, as those languages expressible as sentences in first-order logic over the natural numbers with the less-than relation. Therefore, not only do the star-free languages capture functions such as OR, they can also express functions such as "there exist a pair of 2's such that everything between them is a 0." Thus, we view the algorithm for star-free languages as a nontrivial generalization of Grover's algorithm which extends the quantum quadratic speedup to a much wider range of string-processing algorithms than was previously known. We show a variety of applications--new quantum algorithms for dynamic constant-depth Boolean formulas, balanced parentheses nested constantly many levels deep, binary addition, a restricted word break problem, and path-discovery in narrow grids--all obtained as immediate consequences of our classification theorem.

[1]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Understanding Quantum Algorithms via Query Complexity , 2017, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2018).

[2]  Justin Thaler,et al.  Quantum algorithms and approximating polynomials for composed functions with shared inputs , 2018, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[3]  Noam Nisan,et al.  CREW PRAMS and decision trees , 1989, STOC '89.

[4]  Adam Bouland,et al.  The Space "Just Above" BQP , 2014, ITCS.

[5]  Michael Sipser,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Computation , 1996, SIGA.

[6]  R. McNaughton,et al.  Counter-Free Automata , 1971 .

[7]  Andrew M. Childs,et al.  Quantum Query Complexity of Minor-Closed Graph Properties , 2010, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Samuel Eilenberg,et al.  Automata, languages, and machines. A , 1974, Pure and applied mathematics.

[9]  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.

[10]  Noga Alon,et al.  Regular languages are testable with a constant number of queries , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

[11]  Hans Ulrich Simon A Tight Omega(loglog n)-Bound on the Time for Parallel Ram's to Compute Nondegenerated Boolean Functions , 1983, FCT.

[12]  Kristoffer Arnsfelt Hansen,et al.  Circuit Complexity of Properties of Graphs with Constant Planar Cutwidth , 2014, MFCS.

[13]  Giovanni Guida,et al.  Noncounting Context-Free Languages , 1978, JACM.

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

[15]  H. Buhrman,et al.  Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Sculpting Quantum Speedups , 2015, CCC.

[17]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Unbounded Fan-In Circuits and Associative Functions , 1985, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[18]  Samuel Kutin,et al.  Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem with Small Range , 2005, Theory Comput..

[19]  C. Papadimitriou,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Computation , 2018 .

[20]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Quantum lower bounds by polynomials , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[21]  Marcel Paul Schützenberger,et al.  On Finite Monoids Having Only Trivial Subgroups , 1965, Inf. Control..

[22]  Ramesh Hariharan,et al.  String matching in Õ(sqrt(n)+sqrt(m)) quantum time , 2003, J. Discrete Algorithms.

[23]  Piotr Indyk,et al.  Which Regular Expression Patterns Are Hard to Match? , 2015, 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[24]  Richard Edwin Stearns,et al.  Hierarchies of memory limited computations , 1965, SWCT.

[25]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Quantum Speedups for Exponential-Time Dynamic Programming Algorithms , 2018, SODA.

[26]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness , 2003, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[27]  Johan Anthory Willem Kamp,et al.  Tense logic and the theory of linear order , 1968 .

[28]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Polynomial Degree and Lower Bounds in Quantum Complexity: Collision and Element Distinctness with Small Range , 2003, Theory Comput..

[29]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Universality considerations in VLSI circuits , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[30]  S C Kleene,et al.  Representation of Events in Nerve Nets and Finite Automata , 1951 .

[31]  J. Rhodes,et al.  Algebraic theory of machines. I. Prime decomposition theorem for finite semigroups and machines , 1965 .

[32]  Denis Thérien,et al.  Complete Classifications for the Communication Complexity of Regular Languages , 2005, Theory of Computing Systems.

[33]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Quantum Search on Bounded-Error Inputs , 2003, ICALP.

[34]  Hans Ulrich Simon A Tight Omega(log log n)-Bound on the Time for Parallel RAM's to Compute Nondegenerated Boolean Functions , 1982, Inf. Control..

[35]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Some simplified NP-complete problems , 1974, STOC '74.