Two Results about Quantum Messages

We show two results about the relationship between quantum and classical messages. Our first contribution is to show how to replace a quantum message in a one-way communication protocol by a deterministic message, establishing that for all partial Boolean functions $f:\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^m\to\{0,1\}$ we have $D^{A\to B}(f)\leq O(Q^{A\to B,*}(f)\cdot m)$. This bound was previously known for total functions, while for partial functions this improves on results by Aaronson, in which either a log-factor on the right hand is present, or the left hand side is $R^{A\to B}(f)$, and in which also no entanglement is allowed. In our second contribution we investigate the power of quantum proofs over classical proofs. We give the first example of a scenario, where quantum proofs lead to exponential savings in computing a Boolean function. The previously only known separation between the power of quantum and classical proofs is in a setting where the input is also quantum. We exhibit a partial Boolean function $f$, such that there is a one-way quantum communication protocol receiving a quantum proof (i.e., a protocol of type QMA) that has cost $O(\log n)$ for $f$, whereas every one-way quantum protocol for $f$ receiving a classical proof (protocol of type QCMA) requires communication $\Omega(\sqrt n/\log n)$

New Bounds for the Garden-Hose Model

We show new results about the garden-hose model. Our main results include improved lower bounds based on non-deterministic communication complexity (leading to the previously unknown $\Theta(n)$ bounds for Inner Product mod 2 and Disjointness), as well as an $O(n\cdot \log^3 n)$ upper bound for the Distributed Majority function (previously conjectured to have quadratic complexity). We show an efficient simulation of formulae made of AND, OR, XOR gates in the garden-hose model, which implies that lower bounds on the garden-hose complexity $GH(f)$ of the order $\Omega(n^{2+\epsilon})$ will be hard to obtain for explicit functions. Furthermore we study a time-bounded variant of the model, in which even modest savings in time can lead to exponential lower bounds on the size of garden-hose protocols.Comment: In FSTTCS 201

Quantum Query Complexity of Subgraph Isomorphism and Homomorphism

Let $H$ be a fixed graph on $n$ vertices. Let $f_H(G) = 1$ iff the input graph $G$ on $n$ vertices contains $H$ as a (not necessarily induced) subgraph. Let $\alpha_H$ denote the cardinality of a maximum independent set of $H$. In this paper we show: $$Q(f_H) = \Omega\left(\sqrt{\alpha_H \cdot n}\right),$$ where $Q(f_H)$ denotes the quantum query complexity of $f_H$. As a consequence we obtain a lower bounds for $Q(f_H)$ in terms of several other parameters of $H$ such as the average degree, minimum vertex cover, chromatic number, and the critical probability. We also use the above bound to show that $Q(f_H) = \Omega(n^{3/4})$ for any $H$, improving on the previously best known bound of $\Omega(n^{2/3})$. Until very recently, it was believed that the quantum query complexity is at least square root of the randomized one. Our $\Omega(n^{3/4})$ bound for $Q(f_H)$ matches the square root of the current best known bound for the randomized query complexity of $f_H$, which is $\Omega(n^{3/2})$ due to Gr\"oger. Interestingly, the randomized bound of $\Omega(\alpha_H \cdot n)$ for $f_H$ still remains open. We also study the Subgraph Homomorphism Problem, denoted by $f_{[H]}$, and show that $Q(f_{[H]}) = \Omega(n)$. Finally we extend our results to the $3$-uniform hypergraphs. In particular, we show an $\Omega(n^{4/5})$ bound for quantum query complexity of the Subgraph Isomorphism, improving on the previously known $\Omega(n^{3/4})$ bound. For the Subgraph Homomorphism, we obtain an $\Omega(n^{3/2})$ bound for the same.Comment: 16 pages, 2 figure

Random tree recursions: which fixed points correspond to tangible sets of trees?

Let $\mathcal{B}$ be the set of rooted trees containing an infinite binary subtree starting at the root. This set satisfies the metaproperty that a tree belongs to it if and only if its root has children $u$ and $v$ such that the subtrees rooted at $u$ and $v$ belong to it. Let $p$ be the probability that a Galton-Watson tree falls in $\mathcal{B}$. The metaproperty makes $p$ satisfy a fixed-point equation, which can have multiple solutions. One of these solutions is $p$, but what is the meaning of the others? In particular, are they probabilities of the Galton-Watson tree falling into other sets satisfying the same metaproperty? We create a framework for posing questions of this sort, and we classify solutions to fixed-point equations according to whether they admit probabilistic interpretations. Our proofs use spine decompositions of Galton-Watson trees and the analysis of Boolean functions.Comment: 41 pages; small changes in response to referees' comments; to appear in Random Structures & Algorithm