4 research outputs found

    Quantum Bounded Query Complexity

    Get PDF
    We combine the classical notions and techniques for bounded query classes with those developed in quantum computing. We give strong evidence that quantum queries to an oracle in the class NP does indeed reduce the query complexity of decision problems. Under traditional complexity assumptions, we obtain an exponential speedup between the quantum and the classical query complexity of function classes. For decision problems and function classes we obtain the following results: o P_||^NP[2k] is included in EQP_||^NP[k] o P_||^NP[2^(k+1)-2] is included in EQP^NP[k] o FP_||^NP[2^(k+1)-2] is included in FEQP^NP[2k] o FP_||^NP is included in FEQP^NP[O(log n)] For sets A that are many-one complete for PSPACE or EXP we show that FP^A is included in FEQP^A[1]. Sets A that are many-one complete for PP have the property that FP_||^A is included in FEQP^A[1]. In general we prove that for any set A there is a set X such that FP^A is included in FEQP^X[1], establishing that no set is superterse in the quantum setting.Comment: 11 pages LaTeX2e, no figures, accepted for CoCo'9

    Quantum Optimization Problems

    Full text link
    Krentel [J. Comput. System. Sci., 36, pp.490--509] presented a framework for an NP optimization problem that searches an optimal value among exponentially-many outcomes of polynomial-time computations. This paper expands his framework to a quantum optimization problem using polynomial-time quantum computations and introduces the notion of an ``universal'' quantum optimization problem similar to a classical ``complete'' optimization problem. We exhibit a canonical quantum optimization problem that is universal for the class of polynomial-time quantum optimization problems. We show in a certain relativized world that all quantum optimization problems cannot be approximated closely by quantum polynomial-time computations. We also study the complexity of quantum optimization problems in connection to well-known complexity classes.Comment: date change

    Rational Proofs with Multiple Provers

    Full text link
    Interactive proofs (IP) model a world where a verifier delegates computation to an untrustworthy prover, verifying the prover's claims before accepting them. IP protocols have applications in areas such as verifiable computation outsourcing, computation delegation, cloud computing. In these applications, the verifier may pay the prover based on the quality of his work. Rational interactive proofs (RIP), introduced by Azar and Micali (2012), are an interactive-proof system with payments, in which the prover is rational rather than untrustworthy---he may lie, but only to increase his payment. Rational proofs leverage the provers' rationality to obtain simple and efficient protocols. Azar and Micali show that RIP=IP(=PSAPCE). They leave the question of whether multiple provers are more powerful than a single prover for rational and classical proofs as an open problem. In this paper, we introduce multi-prover rational interactive proofs (MRIP). Here, a verifier cross-checks the provers' answers with each other and pays them according to the messages exchanged. The provers are cooperative and maximize their total expected payment if and only if the verifier learns the correct answer to the problem. We further refine the model of MRIP to incorporate utility gap, which is the loss in payment suffered by provers who mislead the verifier to the wrong answer. We define the class of MRIP protocols with constant, noticeable and negligible utility gaps. We give tight characterization for all three MRIP classes. We show that under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions, MRIP is more powerful than both RIP and MIP ; and this is true even the utility gap is required to be constant. Furthermore the full power of each MRIP class can be achieved using only two provers and three rounds. (A preliminary version of this paper appeared at ITCS 2016. This is the full version that contains new results.)Comment: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. ACM, 201
    corecore