skip to main content
research-article

Quantum Distributed Complexity of Set Disjointness on a Line

Published:04 March 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Given \( x,y\in \lbrace 0,1\rbrace ^n \), Set Disjointness consists in deciding whether \( x_i=y_i=1 \) for some index \( i \in [n] \). We study the problem of computing this function in a distributed computing scenario in which the inputs \( x \) and \( y \) are given to the processors at the two extremities of a path of length \( d \). Each vertex of the path has a quantum processor that can communicate with each of its neighbours by exchanging \( \operatorname{O}(\log n) \) qubits per round. We are interested in the number of rounds required for computing Set Disjointness with constant probability bounded away from \( 1/2 \). We call this problem “Set Disjointness on a Line”.

Set Disjointness on a Line was introduced by Le Gall and Magniez [14] for proving lower bounds on the quantum distributed complexity of computing the diameter of an arbitrary network in the CONGEST model. However, they were only able to provide a lower bound when the local memory used by the processors on the intermediate vertices of the path is severely limited. More precisely, their bound applies only when the local memory of each intermediate processor consists of \( \operatorname{O}(\log n) \) qubits.

In this work, we prove an unconditional lower bound of \( \widetilde{\Omega }\big (\sqrt [3]{n d^2}+\sqrt {n} \, \big) \) rounds for Set Disjointness on a Line with \( d + 1 \) processors. This is the first non-trivial lower bound when there is no restriction on the memory used by the processors. The result gives us a new lower bound of \( \widetilde{\Omega } \big (\sqrt [3]{n\delta ^2}+\sqrt {n} \, \big) \) on the number of rounds required for computing the diameter \( \delta \) of any \( n \)-node network with quantum messages of size \( \operatorname{O}(\log n) \) in the CONGEST model.

We draw a connection between the distributed computing scenario above and a new model of query complexity. In this model, an algorithm computing a bi-variate function \( f \) (such as Set Disjointness) has access to the inputs \( x \) and \( y \) through two separate oracles \( {\mathcal {O}}_x \) and \( {\mathcal {O}}_y \), respectively. The restriction is that the algorithm is required to alternately make \( d \) queries to \( {\mathcal {O}}_x \) and \( d \) queries to \( {\mathcal {O}}_y \), with input-independent computation in between queries. The model reflects a “switching delay” of \( d \) queries between a “round” of queries to \( x \) and the following “round” of queries to \( y \). The information-theoretic technique we use for deriving the round lower bound for Set Disjointness on a Line also applies to the number of rounds in this query model. We provide an algorithm for Set Disjointness in this query model with round complexity that matches the round lower bound stated above, up to a polylogarithmic factor. This presents a barrier for obtaining a better round lower bound for Set Disjointness on the Line. At the same time, it hints at the possibility of better communication protocols for the problem.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Aaronson Scott and Ambainis Andris. 2003. Quantum search of spatial regions. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 200209. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Abboud Amir, Censor-Hillel Keren, and Khoury Seri. 2016. Near-Linear lower bounds for distributed distance computations, even in sparse networks. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposiumon Distributed Computing.Gavoille Cyril and Ilcinkas David (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9888. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2942. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Ambainis Andris. 2019. Understanding quantum algorithms via query complexity. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Sirakov Boyan, Souza Paulo Ney de, and Viana Marcelo (Eds.). World Scientific, 32653285. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Braverman Mark, Garg Ankit, Ko Young Kun, Mao Jieming, and Touchette Dave. 2018. Near-Optimal bounds on the bounded-round quantum communication complexity of Disjointness. SIAM Journal on Computing 47, 6 (2018), 22772314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [5] Buhrman Harry, Cleve Richard, Wolf Ronald de, and Zalka Christof. 1999. Bounds for small-error and zero-error quantum algorithms. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 358368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Buhrman Harry and Wolf Ronald de. 2002. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science 288, 1 (2002), 2143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Chattopadhyay Arkadev and Pitassi Toniann. 2010. The story of Set Disjointness. SIGACT News 41, 3 (Sept. 2010), 5985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Wolf Ronald de. 2021. Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes. arXiv:1907.09415. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Frischknecht Silvio, Holzer Stephan, and Wattenhofer Roger. 2012. Networks cannot compute their diameter in sublinear time. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11501162. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Holzer Stephan and Wattenhofer Roger. 2012. Optimal distributed all pairs shortest paths and applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 355364. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Jain Rahul, Radhakrishnan Jaikumar, and Sen Pranab. 2003. A Lower Bound for Bounded Round Quantum Communication Complexity of Set Disjointness. arXiv:quant-ph/0303138v2. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303138v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Jain Rahul, Radhakrishnan Jaikumar, and Sen Pranab. 2003. A lower bound for the bounded round quantum communication complexity of Set Disjointness. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 220229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Knuth Donald E.. 1993. Combinatorial Matrices. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2020 from http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/preprints.html#unpub. Manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Gall François Le and Magniez Frédéric. 2018. Sublinear-Time quantum computation of the diameter in CONGEST networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 337346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Magniez Frédéric and Nayak Ashwin. 2020. Quantum distributed complexity of Set Disjointness on a Line. In Proceedings of the 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Czumaj Artur, Dawar Anuj, and Merelli Emanuela (Eds.). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 168, 82:1–82:18. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Magniez Frédéric, Nayak Ashwin, Roland Jérémie, and Santha Miklos. 2011. Search via quantum walk. SIAM Journal on Computing 40, 1 (2011), 142164. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Nielsen Michael A. and Chuang Isaac L.. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Peleg David. 2000. Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Peleg David, Roditty Liam, and Tal Elad. 2012. Distributed algorithms for network diameter and girth. In Proceedings of the 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Czumaj Artur, Mehlhorn Kurt, Pitts Andrew, and Wattenhofer Roger (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7392, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 660672. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Razborov Alexander. 2003. Quantum communication complexity of symmetric predicates. Izvestiya: Mathematics 67, 1 (2003), 145159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Touchette Dave. 2015. Quantum information complexity. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 317326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Watrous John. 2018. The Theory of Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Yao Andrew Chi-Chih. 1979. Some complexity questions related to distributive computing (Preliminary Report). In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 209213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Yao Andrew Chi-Chih. 1993. Quantum circuit complexity. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 352361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Zalka Christof. 1999. Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is optimal. Physical Review A 60, 4 (Oct. 1999), 27462751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Quantum Distributed Complexity of Set Disjointness on a Line

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
          ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 14, Issue 1
          March 2022
          155 pages
          ISSN:1942-3454
          EISSN:1942-3462
          DOI:10.1145/3505197
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 March 2022
          • Accepted: 1 November 2021
          • Revised: 1 September 2021
          • Received: 1 June 2020
          Published in toct Volume 14, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)97
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!