Scott Aaronson
ABSTRACT
(MATH) The collision problem is to decide whether a function X: { 1,…,n} → { 1, …,n} is one-to-one or two-to-one, given that one of these is the case. We show a lower bound of Ω(n1/5) on the number of queries needed by a quantum computer to solve this problem with bounded error probability. The best known upper bound is O(n1/3), but obtaining any lower bound better than Ω(1) was an open problem since 1997. Our proof uses the polynomial method augmented by some new ideas. We also give a lower bound of Ω(n1/7) for the problem of deciding whether two sets are equal or disjoint on a constant fraction of elements. Finally we give implications of these results for quantum complexity theory.
- A. Ambainis. Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments. Proceedings of STOC'2000, pages 636--643, 2000. Journal version to appear in Journal of Computer and System Sciences. quant-ph/0002066 Available at www.arxiv.org. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Bakhtiari, R. Safavi-Naini, and J. Pieprzyk. Cryptographic hash functions: a survey. Technical Report 95-09, Department of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, July 1995. Available at ftp://ftp.cs.uow.edu.au/pub/papers/1995/tr-95-09.ps.Z.Google Scholar
- R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Proceedings of FOCS'98, pages 352--361, 1998. quant-ph/9802049. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1510--1523, 1997. quant-ph/9701001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1411--1473, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp. Quantum algorithm for the collision problem. ACM SIGACT News (Cryptology Column), 28:14--19, 1997. quant-ph/9705002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Buhrman, C. D&iuuml;rr, M. Heiligman, P. Høyer, F. Magniez, M. Santha, and R. de Wolf. Quantum algorithms for element distinctness. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'2001), pages 131--137, 2001. quant-ph/0007016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Buhrman and R. de Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. W. Cheney. Introduction to approximation theory, McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
- I. B. Damgård. Collision free hash functions and public key signature schemes. Proceedings of Eurocrypt'87, Volume 304 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer-Verlag), 1988.Google Scholar
- H. Ehlich and K. Zeller. Schwankung von Polynomen zwischen Gitterpunkten. (MATH)ematische Zeitschrift, 86:41--44, 1964.Google Scholar
- M. Ettinger and P. Høyer. On quantum algorithms for noncommutative hidden subgroups. Advances in Applied (MATH)ematics, 25(3):239--251, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Grigni, L. Schulman, M. Vazirani, and U. Vazirani. Quantum mechanical algorithms for the nonabelian hidden subgroup problem. Proceedings of STOC'2001, pages 68--74, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. Proceedings of STOC'96, pages 212--219, 1996. quant-ph/9605043. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Kashefi, A. Kent, V. Vedral, and K. Banaszek. On the power of quantum oracles, 2001. quant-ph/0109104.Google Scholar
- A. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 3(3), 1996. quant-ph/9511026.Google Scholar
- M. Minsky and S. Papert. Perceptrons, MIT Press, 1988. First appeared in 1968.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. Quantum Information Science, Report of the NSF Workshop, Arlington, VA, October 28--29, 1999. Available at www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm.Google Scholar
- N. Nisan. CREW PRAMs and decision trees. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(6):999-1007, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Nisan and M. Szegedy. On the degree of Boolean functions as real polynomials. Computational Complexity, 4:301--313, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Rains. Talk given at AT&T, Murray Hill, New Jersey, on March 12, 1997.Google Scholar
- T. J. Rivlin and E. W. Cheney. A comparison of Uniform Approximations on an interval and a finite subset thereof. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 3(2):311--320, 1966.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Sahai and S. Vadhan. A complete promise problem for statistical zero-knowledge. Proceedings of FOCS'97, pages 448--457, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Shi. Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems. Manuscript, 2001. quant-ph/0112086. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484--1509, 1997. quant-ph/9508027. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Simon. On the power of quantum computation. Proceedings of FOCS'94, pages 116--123, 1994.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Watrous. Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups. Proceedings of FOCS'2000, pages 537--546, 2000. cs.CC/0009002. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Quantum lower bound for the collision problem
Recommendations
Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems
Given a function f as an oracle, the collision problem is to find two distinct indexes i and j such that f(i) = f(j), under the promise that such indexes exist. Since the security of many fundamental cryptographic primitives depends on the hardness of ...
Exact quantum lower bound for grover's problem
One of the most important quantum algorithms ever discovered is Grover's algorithm forsearching an unordered set. We give a new lower bound in the query model which provesthat Grover's algorithm is exactly optimal. Similar to existing methods for ...
A lower bound of concurrence for multipartite quantum systems
We present a lower bound of concurrence for four-partite systems in terms of the concurrence for $$M\, (2\le M\le 3)$$M(2≤M≤3) part quantum systems and give an analytical lower bound for $$2\otimes 2\otimes 2\otimes 2$$2 2 2 2 mixed quantum sates. It is ...
Comments