On Rearrangement of Items Stored in Stacks

There are $n \ge 2$ stacks, each filled with $d$ items, and one empty stack. Every stack has capacity $d > 0$. A robot arm, in one stack operation (step), may pop one item from the top of a non-empty stack and subsequently push it onto a stack not at capacity. In a {\em labeled} problem, all $nd$ items are distinguishable and are initially randomly scattered in the $n$ stacks. The items must be rearranged using pop-and-pushs so that in the end, the $k^{\rm th}$ stack holds items $(k-1)d +1, \ldots, kd$, in that order, from the top to the bottom for all $1 \le k \le n$. In an {\em unlabeled} problem, the $nd$ items are of $n$ types of $d$ each. The goal is to rearrange items so that items of type $k$ are located in the $k^{\rm th}$ stack for all $1 \le k \le n$. In carrying out the rearrangement, a natural question is to find the least number of required pop-and-pushes. Our main contributions are: (1) an algorithm for restoring the order of $n^2$ items stored in an $n \times n$ table using only $2n$ column and row permutations, and its generalization, and (2) an algorithm with a guaranteed upper bound of $O(nd)$ steps for solving both versions of the stack rearrangement problem when $d \le \lceil cn \rceil$ for arbitrary fixed positive number $c$. In terms of the required number of steps, the labeled and unlabeled version have lower bounds $\Omega(nd + nd{\frac{\log d}{\log n}})$ and $\Omega(nd)$, respectively

The quantum adversary method and classical formula size lower bounds

We introduce two new complexity measures for Boolean functions, or more generally for functions of the form f:S->T. We call these measures sumPI and maxPI. The quantity sumPI has been emerging through a line of research on quantum query complexity lower bounds via the so-called quantum adversary method [Amb02, Amb03, BSS03, Zha04, LM04], culminating in [SS04] with the realization that these many different formulations are in fact equivalent. Given that sumPI turns out to be such a robust invariant of a function, we begin to investigate this quantity in its own right and see that it also has applications to classical complexity theory. As a surprising application we show that sumPI^2(f) is a lower bound on the formula size, and even, up to a constant multiplicative factor, the probabilistic formula size of f. We show that several formula size lower bounds in the literature, specifically Khrapchenko and its extensions [Khr71, Kou93], including a key lemma of [Has98], are in fact special cases of our method. The second quantity we introduce, maxPI(f), is always at least as large as sumPI(f), and is derived from sumPI in such a way that maxPI^2(f) remains a lower bound on formula size. While sumPI(f) is always a lower bound on the quantum query complexity of f, this is not the case in general for maxPI(f). A strong advantage of sumPI(f) is that it has both primal and dual characterizations, and thus it is relatively easy to give both upper and lower bounds on the sumPI complexity of functions. To demonstrate this, we look at a few concrete examples, for three functions: recursive majority of three, a function defined by Ambainis, and the collision problem.Comment: Appears in Conference on Computational Complexity 200

Quantum advantage for combinatorial optimization problems, Simplified

We observe that fault-tolerant quantum computers have an optimal advantage over classical computers in approximating solutions to many NP optimization problems. This observation however gives nothing in practice

Quantum Algorithms for the Triangle Problem

We present two new quantum algorithms that either find a triangle (a copy of $K_{3}$) in an undirected graph $G$ on $n$ nodes, or reject if $G$ is triangle free. The first algorithm uses combinatorial ideas with Grover Search and makes $\tilde{O}(n^{10/7})$ queries. The second algorithm uses $\tilde{O}(n^{13/10})$ queries, and it is based on a design concept of Ambainis~\cite{amb04} that incorporates the benefits of quantum walks into Grover search~\cite{gro96}. The first algorithm uses only $O(\log n)$ qubits in its quantum subroutines, whereas the second one uses O(n) qubits. The Triangle Problem was first treated in~\cite{bdhhmsw01}, where an algorithm with $O(n+\sqrt{nm})$ query complexity was presented, where $m$ is the number of edges of $G$.Comment: Several typos are fixed, and full proofs are included. Full version of the paper accepted to SODA'0