1 / 22

Scott Aaronson

BQP und PH. A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at last—but only for relational problems… The beast guarding the inner sanctum unmasked: the Generalized Linial -Nisan Conjecture…

greg
Download Presentation

Scott Aaronson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BQPundPH A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at last—but only for relational problems… The beast guarding the inner sanctum unmasked: the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture… Where others flee in terror, a Braver Man attacks… A $200 bounty for slaughtering the wounded beast… Scott Aaronson

  2. Quantum Computing: Where Does It Fit? P#P Factoring, discrete log, etc.: In BQP Not known to be in BPP But in NPcoNP PH AM NP Could there be a problem in BQP\PH? PP BQP BPP P

  3. First question: can we at least find an oracle A such that BQPAPHA? Essentially the same as finding a problem in quantum logarithmic time, but not AC0 Why? Standard correspondence between relativized PH and AC0: replace ’s by OR gates, ’s by AND gates, and the oracle string by an input of size 2n Relativization is just the “obvious” way to address the BQP vs. PH question, not some woo-woo thing People who claim they don’t like oracle results really just don’t understand them

  4. BQP vs. PH: A Timeline 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Bernstein and Vazirani define BQP They construct an oracle problem, Recursive Fourier Sampling, that has quantum query complexity n but classical query complexity n(log n)First example where quantum is superpolynomially better! A simple extension yields RFSMA Natural conjecture: RFSPH Alas, we can’t even prove RFSAM!

  5. Why do we care whether BQPPH? Does simulating quantum mechanics reduce to search or approximate counting? What other candidates for exponential quantum speedups are there—besides NP-intermediate problems like factoring? Could quantum computers provide exponential speedups even if P=NP? Would a fast quantum algorithm for NP-complete problems collapse the polynomial hierarchy?

  6. This Talk • We achieve an oracle separation between the relational versions of BQP and PH (FBQP and FBPPPH) • We study a new oracle problem—Fourier Checking—that’s in BQP, but not in BPP, MA, BPPpath, SZK... • We conjecture that Fourier Checking is not in PH, and prove that this would follow from the Generalized Linial-Nisan ConjectureOriginal Linial-Nisan Conjecture was proved by Braverman 2009, after being open for 20 years

  7. Relational Problems FBPP: Class of relations, R{0,1}*{0,1}*, for which there exists a BPP machine that, given any x, outputs a y such that FBQP: Same but with quantum We’ll produce separations where the FBQP machine succeeds with probability 1-1/exp(n), while the FBPPPH machine succeeds with probability at most (say) 99%Note: Amplification not obvious; constant could actually matter! If we compared FBQP to FPPH, a separation would be trivial! “Output an n-bit string with Kolmogorov complexity  n/2”

  8. Fourier Sampling Problem Given oracle access to a random Boolean function The Task: Output strings z1,…,zn, at least 75% of which satisfy and at least 25% of which satisfy where

  9. Fourier Sampling Is In BQP |0 H H Repeat n times; output whatever you see Algorithm: |0 H f H |0 H H Distribution over Fourier coefficients Distribution over Fourier coefficients output by quantum algorithm

  10. Fourier Sampling Is Not In PH Key Idea: Show that, if we had a constant-depth 2poly(n)-size circuit C for Fourier Sampling, then we could violate a known AC0 lower bound, by “sneaking a Majority problem” into the estimation of some random Fourier coefficient Obvious problem: How do we know C will output the particular s we’re interested in, thereby revealing anything about ? We don’t! (Indeed, there’s only a ~1/2n chance it will) But we have a long time to wait, since our reduction can be nondeterministic!That just adds more layers to the AC0 circuit

  11. Starting Point for Reduction Suppose each bit of an N-bit string is 1 with independent probability p. Then any depth-d circuit to decide whether p=½ or p=½+ (with constant bias) must have size If you’re here, you can prove this We’ll take a circuit that outputs slightly-larger-than-average Fourier coefficients of f, and get a circuit for detecting  bias

  12. The Fourier Guessing Game Sends truth table of f to Bob Keeps s,b secret Key Theorem: Regardless of Bob’s strategy, Alice: Chooses s{0,1}n and b{0,1} uniformly at random Bob: Must output a z such that For each x{0,1}n, sets In other words, if >1.1, Bob outputs the “true” s with probability noticeably more than 1/2n … even if he tries to avoid it!

  13. Finishing the Proof Let A be a random oracle View A as encoding a random Boolean function fn:{0,1}n{-1,1} for each n Let R be the relational problem where, on input 0n, you’re asked to output z1,…,zn, at least 75% of which satisfyand at least 25% of which satisfy Clearly On the other hand, standard diagonalization tricks imply

  14. Decision Version: Fourier Checking Given oracle access to two Boolean functions • Decide whether • f,g are drawn from the uniform distribution U, or • f,g are drawn from the following “forrelated” distribution F: pick a random unit vector then let

  15. Fourier Checking Is In BQP |0 H H H |0 H f H g H |0 H H H Probability of observing |0n:

  16. Intuition: Fourier Checking Shouldn’t Be In PH • Why? • For any individual s, computing the Fourier coefficient is a #P-complete problem • f and g being forrelated is an extremely “global” property: conditioning on a polynomial number of f(x) and g(y) values should reveal almost nothing about it • But how to formalize and prove that?

  17. A k-term is a product of k literals of the form xi or 1-xi A distribution D over {0,1}N is k-wise independent if for all k-terms C, Crucial Definition: A distribution D is -almost k-wise independent if for all k-terms C, Approximation is multiplicative, not additive … that’s important! Theorem: For all k, the forrelated distribution F is O(k2/2n/2)-almost k-wise independent Proof: A few pages of Gaussian integrals, then a discretization step

  18. Linial-Nisan Conjecture (1990) with weaker parameters that suffice for us: Let f:{0,1}n{0,1} be computed by a circuit of size and depth O(1). Then for all n(1)-wise independent distributions D, Razborov’08 dramatically simplified Bazzi’s proof Finally, Braverman’09 proved the whole thing Bazzi’07 proved the depth-2 case Alas, we need the… “Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture”: Let f be computed by a circuit of size and depth O(1). Then for all 1/n(1)-almost n(1)-wise independent distributions D,

  19. “Low-Fat Sandwich Conjecture”: Let f:{0,1}n{0,1} be computed by a circuit of size and depth O(1). Then there exist polynomials pl,pu:RnR, of degree no(1), such that (i) Sandwiching. (ii) Approximation. (iii) Low-Fat. pl,pu can be written as where Theorem (Bazzi): Low-Fat Sandwich Conjecture Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture (Without the low-fat condition, Sandwich Conjecture Linial-Nisan Conjecture)

  20. We know how to prove constant-depth lower bounds! So why is BQPAPHA so much harder than (say) PPAPHA? Because known techniques for showing a function f has no small constant-depth circuits, also involve (directly or indirectly) showing that f isn’t approximated by a low-degree polynomial And this is a problem because…Lemma (Beals et al. 1998): Every Boolean function f that has a T-query quantum algorithm, also has a degree-2T real polynomial p such that |p(x)-f(x)| for all x{0,1}n Example: The following degree-4 polynomial distinguishes the uniform distribution over f,g from the forrelated one:

  21. But this polynomial solves Fourier Checking only by exploiting “massive cancellations” between positive and negative terms(Not coincidentally, the central feature of quantum algorithms!) You might conjecture that if fAC0, then f is approximated not merely by a low-degree polynomial, but by a “reasonable,” “classical-looking” one—with some bound on the coefficients that prevents massive cancellationsAnd that’s exactly what the Low-Fat Sandwich Conjecture says! Such a “low-fat” approximation of AC0 circuits would be useful for independent reasons in learning theory

  22. Open Problems Prove the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture!Yields an oracle A such that BQPAPHA Prove Generalized L-N even for the special case of DNFs.Yields an oracle A such that BQPAAMA Is there a Boolean function f:{0,1}n{-1,1} that’s well-approximated in L2-norm by a low-degree real polynomial, but not by a low-degree low-fat polynomial? Can we “instantiate” Fourier Checking by an explicit (unrelativized) problem? More generally, evidence for/against BQPPH in the real world? $100 $200

More Related