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

0

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…