Hardness of approximation for quantum problems

The polynomial hierarchy plays a central role in classical complexity theory. Here, we define a quantum generalization of the polynomial hierarchy, and initiate its study. We show that not only are there natural complete problems for the second level of this quantum hierarchy, but that these problems are in fact hard to approximate. Using these techniques, we also obtain hardness of approximation for the class QCMA. Our approach is based on the use of dispersers, and is inspired by the classical results of Umans regarding hardness of approximation for the second level of the classical polynomial hierarchy [Umans, FOCS 1999]. The problems for which we prove hardness of approximation for include, among others, a quantum version of the Succinct Set Cover problem, and a variant of the local Hamiltonian problem with hybrid classical-quantum ground states.Comment: 21 pages, 1 figure, extended abstract appeared in Proceedings of the 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), pages 387-398, Springer, 201

Quantum Property Testing

A language L has a property tester if there exists a probabilistic algorithm that given an input x only asks a small number of bits of x and distinguishes the cases as to whether x is in L and x has large Hamming distance from all y in L. We define a similar notion of quantum property testing and show that there exist languages with quantum property testers but no good classical testers. We also show there exist languages which require a large number of queries even for quantumly testing

Quantum Weakly Nondeterministic Communication Complexity

We study the weakest model of quantum nondeterminism in which a classical proof has to be checked with probability one by a quantum protocol. We show the first separation between classical nondeterministic communication complexity and this model of quantum nondeterministic communication complexity for a total function. This separation is quadratic.Comment: 12 pages. v3: minor correction

Counting dependent and independent strings

The paper gives estimations for the sizes of the the following sets: (1) the set of strings that have a given dependency with a fixed string, (2) the set of strings that are pairwise \alpha independent, (3) the set of strings that are mutually \alpha independent. The relevant definitions are as follows: C(x) is the Kolmogorov complexity of the string x. A string y has \alpha -dependency with a string x if C(y) - C(y|x) \geq \alpha. A set of strings {x_1, \ldots, x_t} is pairwise \alpha-independent if for all i different from j, C(x_i) - C(x_i | x_j) \leq \alpha. A tuple of strings (x_1, \ldots, x_t) is mutually \alpha-independent if C(x_{\pi(1)} \ldots x_{\pi(t)}) \geq C(x_1) + \ldots + C(x_t) - \alpha, for every permutation \pi of [t]

Impossibility of independence amplification in Kolmogorov complexity theory

The paper studies randomness extraction from sources with bounded independence and the issue of independence amplification of sources, using the framework of Kolmogorov complexity. The dependency of strings $x$ and $y$ is ${\rm dep}(x,y) = \max\{C(x) - C(x \mid y), C(y) - C(y\mid x)\}$, where $C(\cdot)$ denotes the Kolmogorov complexity. It is shown that there exists a computable Kolmogorov extractor $f$ such that, for any two $n$-bit strings with complexity $s(n)$ and dependency $\alpha(n)$, it outputs a string of length $s(n)$ with complexity $s(n)- \alpha(n)$ conditioned by any one of the input strings. It is proven that the above are the optimal parameters a Kolmogorov extractor can achieve. It is shown that independence amplification cannot be effectively realized. Specifically, if (after excluding a trivial case) there exist computable functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ such that ${\rm dep}(f_1(x,y), f_2(x,y)) \leq \beta(n)$ for all $n$-bit strings $x$ and $y$ with ${\rm dep}(x,y) \leq \alpha(n)$, then $\beta(n) \geq \alpha(n) - O(\log n)$

A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice

We prove the following surprising result: given any quantum state rho on n qubits, there exists a local Hamiltonian H on poly(n) qubits (e.g., a sum of two-qubit interactions), such that any ground state of H can be used to simulate rho on all quantum circuits of fixed polynomial size. In terms of complexity classes, this implies that BQP/qpoly is contained in QMA/poly, which supersedes the previous result of Aaronson that BQP/qpoly is contained in PP/poly. Indeed, we can exactly characterize quantum advice, as equivalent in power to untrusted quantum advice combined with trusted classical advice. Proving our main result requires combining a large number of previous tools -- including a result of Alon et al. on learning of real-valued concept classes, a result of Aaronson on the learnability of quantum states, and a result of Aharonov and Regev on "QMA+ super-verifiers" -- and also creating some new ones. The main new tool is a so-called majority-certificates lemma, which is closely related to boosting in machine learning, and which seems likely to find independent applications. In its simplest version, this lemma says the following. Given any set S of Boolean functions on n variables, any function f in S can be expressed as the pointwise majority of m=O(n) functions f1,...,fm in S, such that each fi is the unique function in S compatible with O(log|S|) input/output constraints.Comment: We fixed two significant issues: 1. The definition of YQP machines needed to be changed to preserve our results. The revised definition is more natural and has the same intuitive interpretation. 2. We needed properties of Local Hamiltonian reductions going beyond those proved in previous works (whose results we'd misstated). We now prove the needed properties. See p. 6 for more on both point

Credimus

We believe that economic design and computational complexity---while already important to each other---should become even more important to each other with each passing year. But for that to happen, experts in on the one hand such areas as social choice, economics, and political science and on the other hand computational complexity will have to better understand each other's worldviews. This article, written by two complexity theorists who also work in computational social choice theory, focuses on one direction of that process by presenting a brief overview of how most computational complexity theorists view the world. Although our immediate motivation is to make the lens through which complexity theorists see the world be better understood by those in the social sciences, we also feel that even within computer science it is very important for nontheoreticians to understand how theoreticians think, just as it is equally important within computer science for theoreticians to understand how nontheoreticians think

Constructive Dimension and Turing Degrees

This paper examines the constructive Hausdorff and packing dimensions of Turing degrees. The main result is that every infinite sequence S with constructive Hausdorff dimension dim_H(S) and constructive packing dimension dim_P(S) is Turing equivalent to a sequence R with dim_H(R) <= (dim_H(S) / dim_P(S)) - epsilon, for arbitrary epsilon > 0. Furthermore, if dim_P(S) > 0, then dim_P(R) >= 1 - epsilon. The reduction thus serves as a *randomness extractor* that increases the algorithmic randomness of S, as measured by constructive dimension. A number of applications of this result shed new light on the constructive dimensions of Turing degrees. A lower bound of dim_H(S) / dim_P(S) is shown to hold for the Turing degree of any sequence S. A new proof is given of a previously-known zero-one law for the constructive packing dimension of Turing degrees. It is also shown that, for any regular sequence S (that is, dim_H(S) = dim_P(S)) such that dim_H(S) > 0, the Turing degree of S has constructive Hausdorff and packing dimension equal to 1. Finally, it is shown that no single Turing reduction can be a universal constructive Hausdorff dimension extractor, and that bounded Turing reductions cannot extract constructive Hausdorff dimension. We also exhibit sequences on which weak truth-table and bounded Turing reductions differ in their ability to extract dimension.Comment: The version of this paper appearing in Theory of Computing Systems, 45(4):740-755, 2009, had an error in the proof of Theorem 2.4, due to insufficient care with the choice of delta. This version modifies that proof to fix the error