Paper detail

Lower Bounds for XOR of Forrelations

The Forrelation problem, introduced by Aaronson [A10] and Aaronson and Ambainis [AA15], is a well studied problem in the context of separating quantum and classical models. Variants of this problem were used to give exponential separations between quantum and classical query complexity [A10, AA15]; quantum query complexity and bounded-depth circuits [RT19]; and quantum and classical communication complexity [GRT19]. In all these separations, the lower bound for the classical model only holds when the advantage of the protocol (over a random guess) is more than $\approx 1/\sqrt{N}$, that is, the success probability is larger than $\approx 1/2 + 1/\sqrt{N}$. To achieve separations when the classical protocol has smaller advantage, we study in this work the XOR of $k$ independent copies of the Forrelation function (where $k\ll N$). We prove a very general result that shows that any family of Boolean functions that is closed under restrictions, whose Fourier mass at level $2k$ is bounded by $α^k$, cannot compute the XOR of $k$ independent copies of the Forrelation function with advantage better than $O\left(\frac{α^k}{N^{k/2}}\right)$. This is a strengthening of a result of [CHLT19], that gave a similar result for $k=1$, using the technique of [RT19]. As an application of our result, we give the first example of a partial Boolean function that can be computed by a simultaneous-message quantum protocol of cost $\mbox{polylog}(N)$ (when players share $\mbox{polylog}(N)$ EPR pairs), however, any classical interactive randomized protocol of cost at most $\tilde{o}(N^{1/4})$, has quasipolynomially small advantage over a random guess. We also give the first example of a partial Boolean function that has a quantum query algorithm of cost $\mbox{polylog}(N)$, and such that, any constant-depth circuit of quasipolynomial size has quasipolynomially small advantage over a random guess.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.