Despite the wide range of problems for which quantum computers offer a computational advantage over their classical counterparts, there are also many problems for which the best known quantum algorithm provides a speedup that is only quadratic, or even subquadratic. Such a situation could also be desirable if we don't want quantum computers to solve certain problems fast - say problems relevant to post-quantum cryptography. When searching for algorithms and when analyzing the security of cryptographic schemes, we would like to have evidence that these problems are difficult to solve on quantum computers; but how do we assess the exact complexity of these problems? For most problems, there are no known ways to directly prove time lower bounds, however it can still be possible to relate the hardness of disparate problems to show conditional lower bounds. This approach has been popular in the classical community, and is being actively developed for the quantum case [Aaronson et al., 2020; Buhrman et al., 2021; Harry Buhrman et al., 2022; Andris Ambainis et al., 2022]. In this paper, by the use of the QSETH framework [Buhrman et al., 2021] we are able to understand the quantum complexity of a few natural variants of CNFSAT, such as parity-CNFSAT or counting-CNFSAT, and also are able to comment on the non-trivial complexity of approximate versions of counting-CNFSAT. Without considering such variants, the best quantum lower bounds will always be quadratically lower than the equivalent classical bounds, because of Grover’s algorithm; however, we are able to show that quantum algorithms will likely not attain even a quadratic speedup for many problems. These results have implications for the complexity of (variations of) lattice problems, the strong simulation and hitting set problems, and more. In the process, we explore the QSETH framework in greater detail and present a useful guide on how to effectively use the QSETH framework.

Given a Boolean function $f:\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}$, the goal in the usual query model is to compute $f$ on an unknown input $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ while minimizing the number of queries to $x$. One can also consider a "distinguishing" problem denoted by $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$: given an input $x \in f^{-1}(0)$ and an input $y \in f^{-1}(1)$, either all differing locations are replaced by a $*$, or all differing locations are replaced by $\dagger$, and an algorithm's goal is to identify which of these is the case while minimizing the number of queries. Ben-David and Kothari [ToC'18] introduced the notion of randomized sabotage complexity of a Boolean function to be the zero-error randomized query complexity of $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$. A natural follow-up question is to understand $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})$, the quantum query complexity of $f_{\mathsf{sab}}$. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of this. The following are our main results: $\bullet\;\;$ If we have additional query access to $x$ and $y$, then $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f),\sqrt{n}\})$. $\bullet\;\;$ If an algorithm is also required to output a differing index of a 0-input and a 1-input, then $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=O(\min\{\mathsf{Q}(f)^{1.5},\sqrt{n}\})$. $\bullet\;\;$ $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}}) = Ω(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})$, where $\mathsf{fbs}(f)$ denotes the fractional block sensitivity of $f$. By known results, along with the results in the previous bullets, this implies that $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})$ is polynomially related to $\mathsf{Q}(f)$. $\bullet\;\;$ The bound above is easily seen to be tight for standard functions such as And, Or, Majority and Parity. We show that when $f$ is the Indexing function, $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\mathsf{fbs}(f))$, ruling out the possibility that $\mathsf{Q}(f_{\mathsf{sab}})=Θ(\sqrt{\mathsf{fbs}(f)})$ for all $f$.

We consider the following question in query complexity: Given a classical query algorithm in the form of a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up (i.e., that makes fewer queries) over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up in the number of queries. In particular, our results give a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost O(√s) to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size s. This recovers an O(√n) algorithm for the Search problem, for example. Lin and Lin [Theory of Computing'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor. Their upper bounds are in terms of a quantity which we call the “guessing complexity” of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Information and Computation'89] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any measure studied in classical complexity theory. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and its natural randomized analog for the complete binary AND-OR tree. Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to edges of the tree. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are strictly stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes in their construction could yield better upper bounds.

Many computational problems are subject to a quantum speed-up: one might find that a problem having an O(n^3)-time or O(n^2)-time classic algorithm can be solved by a known O(n^1.5)-time or O(n)-time quantum algorithm. The question naturally arises: how much quantum speed-up is possible? The area of fine-grained complexity allows us to prove optimal lower-bounds on the complexity of various computational problems, based on the conjectured hardness of certain natural, well-studied problems. This theory has recently been extended to the quantum setting, in two independent papers by Buhrman, Patro, and Speelman (arXiv:1911.05686), and by Aaronson, Chia, Lin, Wang, and Zhang (arXiv:1911.01973). In this paper, we further extend the theory of fine-grained complexity to the quantum setting. A fundamental conjecture in the classical setting states that the 3SUM problem cannot be solved by (classical) algorithms in time O(n^{2-a}), for any a>0. We formulate an analogous conjecture, the Quantum-3SUM-Conjecture, which states that there exist no sublinear O(n^{1-b})-time quantum algorithms for the 3SUM problem. Based on the Quantum-3SUM-Conjecture, we show new lower-bounds on the time complexity of quantum algorithms for several computational problems. Most of our lower-bounds are optimal, in that they match known upper-bounds, and hence they imply tight limits on the quantum speedup that is possible for these problems.

The strong exponential-time hypothesis (SETH) is a commonly used conjecture in the field of complexity theory. It essentially states that determining whether a CNF formula is satisfiable can not be done faster than exhaustive search over all possible assignments. This hypothesis and its variants gave rise to a fruitful field of research, fine-grained complexity, obtaining (mostly tight) lower bounds for many problems in P whose unconditional lower bounds are very likely beyond current techniques. In this work, we introduce an extensive framework of Quantum Strong Exponential-Time Hypotheses, as quantum analogues to what SETH is for classical computation. Using the QSETH framework, we are able to translate quantum query lower bounds on black-box problems to conditional quantum time lower bounds for many problems in P. As an example, we provide a conditional quantum time lower bound of Ω(n^1.5) for the Longest Common Subsequence and Edit Distance problems. We also show that the n^2 SETH-based lower bound for a recent scheme for Proofs of Useful Work carries over to the quantum setting using our framework, maintaining a quadratic gap between verifier and prover. Lastly, we show that the assumptions in our framework can not be simplified further with relativizing proof techniques, as they are false in relativized worlds.

Recently, a team of scientists from Google claims to have carried a computation on their noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computer which no regular computer can achieve. A feat that is sometimes referred as quantum supremacy. In the first part of this work, we explain their approach, their randomised circuit construction and the consequences of their work. Having achieved this milestone, the natural question becomes: what else can we do with a quantum computer? We answer this question in the second part of this work and give an overview of the most widely used quantum primitives. We will see how one can implement them using quantum circuits and how these primitive circuits are composed to create fast algorithms capable of solving commercially relevant problems like simulation of complicated quantum systems for chemistry and material science, Monte Carlo simulation, solving large systems of linear equations, or breaking widely used cryptography like RSA.