Improved Lower Bounds for QAC0
Abstract
In this work, we prove the strongest known lower bounds for QAC0, allowing polynomially many gates and ancillae. Our main results show that: (1) Depth-3 QAC0 circuits cannot compute PARITY, and require Ω((n)) gates to compute MAJORITY. (2) Depth-2 circuits cannot approximate high-influence Boolean functions (e.g., PARITY) with non-negligible advantage, regardless of size. We develop new classical simulation techniques for QAC0 to obtain our depth-3 bounds. In these results, we relax the output requirement of the quantum circuit to a single bit, making our depth 2 approximation bound stronger than the previous best bound of Rosenthal (2021). This also enables us to draw natural comparisons with classical AC0 circuits, which can compute PARITY exactly in depth 2 (exp size). Our techniques further suggest that, for boolean total functions, constant-depth quantum circuits do not necessarily provide more power than their classical counterparts. Our third result shows that depth 2 QAC0 circuits, regardless of size, cannot exactly synthesize an n-target nekomata state (a state whose synthesis is directly related to the computation of PARITY). This complements the depth 2 exponential size upper bound of Rosenthal (2021) for approximating nekomatas (which is used as a sub-circuit in the only known constant depth PARITY upper bound). Finally, we argue that approximating PARITY in QAC0, with significantly better than 1/poly(n) advantage on average, is just as hard as computing it exactly. Thus, extending our techniques to higher depths would also rule out approximate circuits for PARITY and related problems
Turn this paper into a full lesson
ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.