quantum algorithm designers

Abstract: The Fourier hierarchy $\mathrm{FH}_0\subseteq\mathrm{FH}_1\subseteq\mathrm{FH}_2\subseteq\cdots$, introduced by Shi (TCS 2005), measures a quantum computation by the number of Hadamard layers it uses. Between two layers the circuit may permute basis states and attach phases, but it may not create superposition; the layers are its only source of interference. The first level is exactly $\mathrm{BPP}$, while the second already solves Simon's problem and, through phase estimation, factors integers. Shi conjectured that every additional layer strictly increases computational power, and asked, as a first step, for oracle separations between consecutive levels. To our knowledge, the question was open at every level $k\ge2$. We prove that for every constant $k\ge2$ there is an oracle relative to which $\mathrm{FH}_k\subsetneq\mathrm{FH}_{k+1}$. The separating problem is built from Forrelation (Aaronson and Ambainis, STOC 2015): the level above solves it with a constant number of queries, whereas at level $k$ it stays hard even for circuits making exponentially many queries. This holds for both of the usual ways of giving a circuit access to an oracle, the phase oracle and the standard oracle, which writes its answer into a register. The two are not interchangeable: relative to an oracle, the standard oracle is strictly more powerful at the same number of layers. We also separate the union of all the levels from $\mathrm{BQP}$ relative to an oracle. The lower bounds rest on a structural property of the hierarchy: the number of Hadamard layers limits how adaptively a circuit can query its oracle. With a phase oracle, a circuit with $k$ layers is reproduced exactly by an algorithm making only $k-1$ rounds of parallel queries, which brings known lower bounds for such algorithms to bear. The standard oracle lets a circuit branch on earlier answers, and that case needs a separate argument.

Abstract: We study the two-weight decision version of quantum approximate counting: given oracle access to $x\in\{0,1\}^N$, distinguish $|x|=M$ from $|x|=M+Δ$ with success probability $1/2+ζ$. Using the multiplicative adversary method, we prove $Ω\left(\max\left\{ζ\sqrt{(N-M)(M+Δ)}/Δ,\sqrt{ζN/Δ}\right\}\right)$. The same parameter dependence follows from the polynomial-method characterization of the two-layer symmetric function by Podder, Yao, and Ye. Our contribution is a multiplicative-adversary derivation that tracks the progress produced by individual oracle queries. For the first term, after complementing the input if necessary, we assume $M+Δ\le N-M$. We use the Hamming-layer subspaces from the eigenspace method of Ambainis, Spalek, and de Wolf and compose their adjacent-layer unitary maps to relate the two nonadjacent promise layers. After fixing the queried coordinate, the analysis block-diagonalizes into four-dimensional subspaces. An exact calculation of the one-query progress ratio gives the first lower bound. The same estimate also implies $\left\|(I-\widehatΠ_{\mathrm{bad}})\lvertΨ^T\rangle\right\|^2=O\left(T^2Δ^2/((N-M)(M+Δ))\right)$ for the coherent input superposition used in the adversary argument. For the second term, we prove directly using a three-eigenvalue multiplicative adversary that unique OR on $n$ bits with success probability $1/2+ζ$ requires $Ω(\sqrt{ζn})$ queries, and then reduce unique OR to the two-weight counting problem.

Abstract: We establish a near-linear quantum query lower bound for high-accuracy convex optimization over an explicit family of $n$-dimensional ellipsoids. We focus on linear optimization with an explicitly given objective, where the feasible set is accessed through a membership oracle. We show that any algorithm that, for every unit linear objective, returns an exactly feasible point with additive objective error $Θ(n^{-2})$ requires $Ω\!\left(\frac{n}{\log n\,\log\log n}\right)$ membership queries. The same lower bound can be shown to hold if the returned point is only required to be approximately feasible, within $Θ(n^{-2})$ distance from the feasible set. This resolves, up to logarithmic factors, an open question posed by Chakrabarti, Childs, Li, and Wu~(\textit{Quantum}, 2020) and by van Apeldoorn, Gilyén, Gribling, and de Wolf~(\textit{Quantum}, 2020). Coupled with the upper bounds in these papers, the query complexity of high-accuracy convex optimization is characterized tightly up to logarithmic factors. The proof is built around a lower bound for determinant computation that is derived via a novel polynomial method based on Fourier-rank. In the continuous matrix phase-query model, computing the determinant of a real $n\times n$ matrix requires at least $n/2$ matrix-vector product queries. The construction also yields an $Ω(n)$ phase-query lower bound for estimating the minimum eigenvalue of a real symmetric $n\times n$ matrix to additive accuracy $Θ(n^{-2})$. These results extend the determinant and minimum-eigenvalue lower bounds of Childs, Hung, and Li~(ICALP 2021) from finite fields to the real-valued setting. Based on the same constructions, we also prove a near-optimal gradient-query lower bound for constant-accuracy optimization of smooth and strongly convex functions.

Abstract: Relativization is concerned with comparing computational models with black-box access to an oracle. For promise problems, black-box access is not canonical due to inputs outside of the promise being unconstrained. We study two semantics for such access. Under robust queries, a machine must correctly answer regardless of the completion of the problem,, while loose access requires that the internal choices of a machine do not change based on off-promise queries. Our first result separates the language and promise settings. Namely, we construct an oracle $O$ such that $\mathsf{P}^O = \mathsf{BQP}^O = \mathsf{AWPP}^O$, but $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}^O\not\subseteq\mathsf{PromiseP}^O_{\mathsf{/poly}}$. In particular, $\mathsf{BPP}^O = \mathsf{BQP}^O$, but $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}^O \neq \mathsf{PromiseBPP}^O$, showing that results for languages need not transfer to promises. Next, we use loose queries to strengthen the upper bound on the Quantum-Classical Polynomial Hierarchy from $\mathsf{P}^{\mathsf{PP}^{\mathsf{PP}}}$ to $\mathsf{QCPH} \subseteq \mathsf{BP\cdot PP} \subseteq \mathsf{PromiseBPP}^{\mathsf{PP}}$. The same proof also shows $\mathsf{PP}^\mathsf{PromiseBQP} = \mathsf{PP}$. Additionally, we show that $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}$, even when given quantum advice, is self-low under robust queries. Finally, we exhibit an obstruction to transferring language-level counting results to promise classes. Although $\mathsf{AWPP}$ and $\mathsf{APP}$ are low for $\mathsf{PP}$, a corresponding promise analogue would collapse the counting hierarchy as $\mathsf{GapP} \subseteq \mathsf{FP}^{\mathsf{PromiseAWPP}}$. This motivates the introduction of $\mathsf{PromisePostBQP^*}$, which restricts $\mathsf{PostBQP}$ to input-indepencent postselection. By showing that it is low for \PP, we obtain $\mathsf{PP}^{\mathsf{PromiseYQP^*}} = \mathsf{PP}$.