Improved Quantum Query Upper Bounds Based on Classical Decision Trees

We consider the following question in query complexity: Given a classical query algorithm in the form of a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up (i.e., that makes fewer queries) over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up in the number of queries. In particular, our results give a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost O(?s) to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size s. This recovers an O(?n) algorithm for the Search problem, for example. Lin and Lin [Theory of Computing\u2716] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum\u2720] showed results of a similar flavor. Their upper bounds are in terms of a quantity which we call the "guessing complexity" of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Information and Computation\u2789] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any measure studied in classical complexity theory. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and its natural randomized analog for the complete binary AND-OR tree. Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to edges of the tree. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are strictly stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes in their construction could yield better upper bounds

Amortized Dynamic Cell-Probe Lower Bounds from Four-Party Communication

This paper develops a new technique for proving amortized, randomized cell-probe lower bounds on dynamic data structure problems. We introduce a new randomized nondeterministic four-party communication model that enables "accelerated", error-preserving simulations of dynamic data structures. We use this technique to prove an $\Omega(n(\log n/\log\log n)^2)$ cell-probe lower bound for the dynamic 2D weighted orthogonal range counting problem (2D-ORC) with $n/\mathrm{poly}\log n$ updates and $n$ queries, that holds even for data structures with $\exp(-\tilde{\Omega}(n))$ success probability. This result not only proves the highest amortized lower bound to date, but is also tight in the strongest possible sense, as a matching upper bound can be obtained by a deterministic data structure with worst-case operational time. This is the first demonstration of a "sharp threshold" phenomenon for dynamic data structures. Our broader motivation is that cell-probe lower bounds for exponentially small success facilitate reductions from dynamic to static data structures. As a proof-of-concept, we show that a slightly strengthened version of our lower bound would imply an $\Omega((\log n /\log\log n)^2)$ lower bound for the static 3D-ORC problem with $O(n\log^{O(1)}n)$ space. Such result would give a near quadratic improvement over the highest known static cell-probe lower bound, and break the long standing $\Omega(\log n)$ barrier for static data structures

Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics: The Barbados Lectures

This document collects the lecture notes from my mini-course "Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics," taught at the Bellairs Research Institute of McGill University, Holetown, Barbados, February 19--23, 2017, as the 29th McGill Invitational Workshop on Computational Complexity. The goal of this mini-course is twofold: (i) to explain how complexity theory has helped illuminate several barriers in economics and game theory; and (ii) to illustrate how game-theoretic questions have led to new and interesting complexity theory, including recent several breakthroughs. It consists of two five-lecture sequences: the Solar Lectures, focusing on the communication and computational complexity of computing equilibria; and the Lunar Lectures, focusing on applications of complexity theory in game theory and economics. No background in game theory is assumed.Comment: Revised v2 from December 2019 corrects some errors in and adds some recent citations to v1 Revised v3 corrects a few typos in v