Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2007.03631

Lower Bounds for XOR of Forrelations

Abstract

The Forrelation problem, introduced by Aaronson [A10] and Aaronson and Ambainis [AA15], is a well studied problem in the context of separating quantum and classical models. Variants of this problem were used to give exponential separations between quantum and classical query complexity [A10, AA15]; quantum query complexity and bounded-depth circuits [RT19]; and quantum and classical communication complexity [GRT19]. In all these separations, the lower bound for the classical model only holds when the advantage of the protocol (over a random guess) is more than $\approx 1/\sqrt{N}$, that is, the success probability is larger than $\approx 1/2 + 1/\sqrt{N}$. To achieve separations when the classical protocol has smaller advantage, we study in this work the XOR of $k$ independent copies of the Forrelation function (where $k\ll N$). We prove a very general result that shows that any family of Boolean functions that is closed under restrictions, whose Fourier mass at level $2k$ is bounded by $α^k$, cannot compute the XOR of $k$ independent copies of the Forrelation function with advantage better than $O\left(\frac{α^k}{N^{k/2}}\right)$. This is a strengthening of a result of [CHLT19], that gave a similar result for $k=1$, using the technique of [RT19]. As an application of our result, we give the first example of a partial Boolean function that can be computed by a simultaneous-message quantum protocol of cost $\mbox{polylog}(N)$ (when players share $\mbox{polylog}(N)$ EPR pairs), however, any classical interactive randomized protocol of cost at most $\tilde{o}(N^{1/4})$, has quasipolynomially small advantage over a random guess. We also give the first example of a partial Boolean function that has a quantum query algorithm of cost $\mbox{polylog}(N)$, and such that, any constant-depth circuit of quasipolynomial size has quasipolynomially small advantage over a random guess.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Uma Girish, Ran Raz, Wei Zhan. 2020-07-07. Lower Bounds for XOR of Forrelations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03631

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC