Quantum Sabotage Complexity

Abstract

Given a Boolean function f:\0,1\n\0,1\, the goal in the usual query model is to compute f on an unknown input x ∈ \0,1\n while minimizing the number of queries to x. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by fsab: given an input x ∈ f-1(0) and an input y ∈ f-1(1), either all differing locations are replaced by a *, or all differing locations are replaced by , and an algorithm's goal is to identify which of these is the case while minimizing the number of queries. Ben-David and Kothari [ToC'18] introduced the notion of randomized sabotage complexity of a Boolean function to be the zero-error randomized query complexity of fsab. A natural follow-up question is to understand Q(fsab), the quantum query complexity of fsab. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of this. The following are our main results: \;\; If we have additional query access to x and y, then Q(fsab)=O(\Q(f),n\). \;\; If an algorithm is also required to output a differing index of a 0-input and a 1-input, then Q(fsab)=O(\Q(f)1.5,n\). \;\; Q(fsab) = (fbs(f)), where fbs(f) denotes the fractional block sensitivity of f. By known results, along with the results in the previous bullets, this implies that Q(fsab) is polynomially related to Q(f). \;\; The bound above is easily seen to be tight for standard functions such as And, Or, Majority and Parity. We show that when f is the Indexing function, Q(fsab)=(fbs(f)), ruling out the possibility that Q(fsab)=(fbs(f)) for all f.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…